Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Abstract
While geosteering or interpreting horizontal wells, engineers are constantly faced with the challenge of correctly dening the well position with respect to the target reservoir and
other geologic markers from an often incomplete set of data.
Traditional petrophysical evaluation can be performed only
after the geometric relationship between the well and the target reservoir is interpreted. Measurements made while drilling
range from a simple gamma-ray (GR) log to resistivity, apparent density and neutron porosities, borehole images, azimuthal deep resistivity, and beyond. With one or a combination of
these logs and other peripheral data such as well logs from oset/pilot wells and seismic images, the question remains as to
how accurate the interpreted relationship is between the well
trajectory and the target reservoir. In a vertical well, an explicit
geometric model of the formation is often not necessary. There is
a 1D layered-earth model, either consciously or subconsciously,
in peoples minds to aid the interpretation. On the other hand,
because of the lateral variation of properties and thus the geologic complexity encountered in a horizontal well, it becomes
critical to explicitly construct a formation cross-sectional model,
validated in terms of its correctness and uniqueness against the
available measurements and other known information. To properly construct, update, and validate the formation model, the
completeness of information for solving the geometric relationship between the well and the target reservoir is investigated. It
is found that a data set with logs from the horizontal well alone
is not adequate for the task. Proper constraints based on depositional environments must be introduced. Well logs from oset/
pilot wells dene the formation sequence and add the high-resolution details to the interpretation. Three-dimensional reservoir models from seismic images guide the interpretation of the
geologic trends along the well trajectory and the extrapolation of
the model property into the volume that is not sensitive to well
logs. Modeling the tool responses and understanding the underlying response characteristics help to mitigate the interpretation
uncertainty by extracting more geometric information from the
physical measurements. One should also be aware of the possibility that the interpretation might not be unique even though a
model ts the data.
resistivity, density/neutron, and so forth to estimate petrophysical properties such as porosity, water saturation, and permeability along the well path and nishes with reserves evaluation
and completion/production recommendations. On the other
hand, in a horizontal well, the rst priority is to understand the
whereabouts of the well trajectory versus the target reservoir.
The geometric interpretation answers the questions of whether
the well is inside, above, or below the target and the distance
to boundaries (structural and/or uid contacts), wherever feasible. It is thus imperative to understand the limitation of the
available information for that purpose. It is equally important
to introduce proper constraints to mitigate the lack of information from well logs.
Well-placement decisions when drilling horizontal wells
also require that the interpretation be done in real time. Therefore, visualization, processing, and interpretation of well logs
require an ecient approach. This article reviews the workow
and illustrates proper ways of constraining the interpretation.
Before starting the analyses, let us dene the data-visualization
convention used here. Data and formation cross section will be presented on the attened vertical curtain dened by the well trajectory to facilitate the derivation of a plausible and realistic formation
model. Figure 1a shows the 3D view of the well path and the vertical curtain (the curved yellow surface) that the well denes. Figure
1b displays the 2D cross section attened from the vertical curtain
shown in Figure 1a. Well logs along the well path are projected to
true vertical depth (TVD) and lateral distance (LD) (Figure 1b).
Introduction
Well-log interpretation in horizontal wells still faces challenges only a limited amount of information is acquired
because of cost constraints and/or availability of technology.
Furthermore, well logs from a horizontal well have dierent response characteristics than those from a vertical well, even inside the same formation (Zhou, 2007, 2008).
Traditional interpretation, performed mostly in vertical
wells, uses physical measurements such as gamma ray (GR),
1
492
Figure 1. Convention used in visualizing well logs acquired in a horizontal well. (a) Well and vertical curtain dened by the well in three
dimensions. (b) The attened vertical curtain shown in a 2D crosssectional display, along with its projected logs.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1190/tle34050496.1.
May 2015
typically with the borehole penetrating each layer only once. The
measurements at each depth point are sensitive to the physical
property around that point and reect the true value around
the point, assuming that environmental eects are either negligible or correctable. These measurements are extrapolated laterally in ones mind, along with the consideration of well logs
available in neighboring wells.
In a horizontal-well environment, far fewer measurements
(only GR or GR plus resistivity, and rarely with porosities and
others) are acquired in the majority of the wells while drilling.
The geometric complexity one faces, on the other hand, is orders
of magnitude greater (Figure 2).
To further complicate the task, compared with the reservoir dimension, the depths of investigation (DOI) are relatively shallow (within the dashed lines in Figure 2d), ranging
Completeness of measurements
from borehole wall to less than a few meters into the forFor any interpretation tasks, the rst question is whether the mation. In other words, any formation volume a few meters
data acquired contain the information sucient for solving the from the borehole is not investigated by logging tools, and
problem posed or the completeness of the data.
its properties cannot be determined solely based on available
To interpret a horizontal well, the problem posed is to dene well logs.
the geometric relationship between the well and the target resAnother fact about the lack of the needed geometric inervoir. Let us start with the well data-acquisition and interpre- formation (e.g., up and down) in a horizontal well is that contation practices to examine the dierences between vertical and ventional measurements (e.g., GR and resistivity logs) are
horizontal well environments.
omnidirectional or the measurements cannot tell whether the
In a typical vertical well, wireline triple-combo measure- contribution is from above or below the sensors. For example, if
ments (formation density, neutron-porosity, deep/intermedi- the wellbore exits a target sand accidentally, one cannot tell from
ate/shallow resistivity, natural gamma radiation, hole size, and omnidirectional data whether it exits from the upper or lower
uid temperature, all in a single logging pass) commonly are boundary, assuming that the physical properties of the formaacquired. The geometric model, subconscious in many peo- tion above and below are about the same.
ples minds, is more or less a 1D layered formation (Figure 2a),
To overcome omnidirectionality, borehole image logs
from GR or other physical parameters
thus are recommended highly, and in
some cases, they are absolutely necessary because of their geometric information content. New generations of
logging-while-drilling (LWD) tools
such as deep azimuthal propagation
tools might also help in dierentiating the directions. Nevertheless,
these sensors still are constrained by
their shallow depth of investigation.
Furthermore, because of their high
cost, image and/or other azimuthally sensitive measurements are implemented less commonly in practice.
When seismic images are available, they provide guidance on geologic trends and the approximate
location of the target. However, seismic data cannot give the precise position because of their relatively poor
spatial resolution and their uncertainFigure 2. Well and formation environments used by many well-log interpreters and geosteering engity in time-depth conversion.
neers. (a) Vertical well environment where a simple 1D model is often sucient to interpret measureThe above discussion emphasizes
ments. (b) Horizontal well with consideration of formation heterogeneity in lateral direction, a 2D
that
well logs (and other data) for well
model. (c) A more challenging condition in interpreting a horizontal well in which geologic events such
steering
or interpreting the horizontal
as faulting, pinch-outs, unconformities, and so forth might be present. (d) The volume of formation
sensed by well data is a small tubular space, indicated by the dashed lines along the wellbore.
well are likely to be incomplete. To sort
For simplicity, two types of wells are mentioned in this article, namely, the vertical well and the horizontal well. In this
article, vertical well refers to any well that is vertical or close to
vertical. Oset wells and/or pilot wells typically are vertical and
are used as reference to facilitate the interpretation of the horizontal well. In the category of horizontal well, we include wells
that are horizontal as well as those at high angle. The horizontal
well is the one to be interpreted.
Last, because of diculty with eld data releases, the examples used in this article are numerically constructed based
on real-world cases to illustrate and convey the points about
uncertainty in geosteering and interpreting horizontal wells
and the ways of reducing interpretation ambiguity through
geologic constraints.
May 2015
493
494
May 2015
Figure 3. Well logs acquired in a vertical well and the typical model
in the interpreters mind. (a) Well logs acquired in a vertical well. (b)
A typical model derived from the well logs in (a).
Figure 4. The need for a formation model consistent with the available measurements and geologic understanding. (a) Logs from a horizontal well. (b) One of the solution models. (c) Another formation
model more consistent with tool-response characteristics, although
still not necessarily unique. The grayed-out area indicates the volume
that is not sensitive to logs.
well also is observed in the horizontal well after accounting for the
structural variation such as the up and down in true vertical depth.
(a) This shows good continuity and is relatively easy to correlate between
wells. (b) A more challenging environment for correlation.
496
May 2015
498
May 2015
pilot/oset wells and 3D surfaces. (a) Well logs measured in the horizontal well. (b) Starting model from the pilot well. (c) Interpreted
cross-sectional model.
Conclusions
To successfully interpret and geosteer a horizontal well, a
formation model must be constructed to account for the geologic
complexity encountered along the well path. Because of cost and
technology limitations, the set of logs from the horizontal well
alone is generally incomplete in answering the whereabouts of
the well path versus the target reservoir. Geologic constraints
based on depositional environments must be applied by using
the information from oset/pilot-well logs and the seismic images and large-scale geologic understanding. The visualization
of well logs/reservoir in a multidimensional space also becomes
essential to include the geometric information between the horizontal well and the target formation.
Tool-response modeling/inversion and the recognition of toolresponse characteristics also will help to extract the geometric
Acknowledgments
The author thanks Maxwell Dynamics for permission to publish this article. He is also grateful to Carlos Torres-Verdn, who
reviewed and suggested improvements to the article.
Corresponding author: JohnZhou@MaxwellDynamics.com
References
Wu, J.-Q., M. Al Wisler, and W. C. Barnett, 1991, Bed boundary detection using resistivity sensor in drilling horizontal wells:
Presented at the 32nd Annual Symposium, SPWLA.
Zhou, Q., 2007, Interpreting resistivity logs from deviated wells:
69th Conference and Exhibition, EAGE, Extended Abstracts,
http://dx.doi.org/10.3997/2214-4609.201401794.
Zhou, Q., 2008, Log interpretation in high-deviation wells through
user-friendly tool-response processing: Presented at the 49th
Annual Symposium, SPWLA.
May 2015
499