Samaroo2, Jean Seydoux3, Cristina ArroyoGarcia5, Gregory Stewart5, Charles Silva6, Igor Hernandez7, Pablo Tejera-Cuesta8, Lee Stockwell9
Copyright 2012, Brazilian Petroleum, Gas and Biofuels Institute - IBP
This Technical Paper was prepared for presentation at the Rio Oi & Gas Expo and Conference 2012, held between September, 1720, 2012, in Rio de Janeiro. This Technical Paper was selected for presentation by the Technical Committee of the event according to the information contained in the final paper submitted by the author(s). The organizers are not supposed to translate or correct the submitted papers. The material as it is presented, does not necessarily represent Brazilian Petroleum, Gas and Biofuels Institute’ opinion, or that of its Members or Representatives. Authors consent to the publication of this Technical Paper in the Rio Oil & Gas Expo and Conference 2012 Proceedings.

In recent years, logging while drilling (LWD) technology has evolved at a fast pace with electromagnetic resistivity technology contributing to multiple innovative methodologies and solutions. While the first resistivity tools offered predominantly non-directional measurements with shallow depth of investigation, the electromagnetic technology now has measurements with directional sensitivity that are filling the resolution gap between near-wellbore measurements and seismic data, revolutionizing the way in which reservoirs can be characterized. The new deep electromagnetic (EM) directional tool offers the latest technology with directional measurements that can resolve for reservoir boundaries up to 30 m from the wellbore and delineate intrinsic layering of contrasting resistivity within the reservoir. Shell Brazil deployed this technology in two 8.5-in. horizontal production sections in their deepwater fields. The main objective of the technology in both fields was to help identify and map the boundaries of the reservoir and to determine the appropriate position of the production wellbore within the reservoir. Together with a host of advanced LWD tools that provide all the necessary petrophysical information for thorough reservoir evaluation, the bottomhole assembly (BHA) also included the deep electromagnetic directional tool. This paper will highlight two cases in which this deep electromagnetic directional technology was employed in reservoir production sections by Shell Brasil Ltda. In both instances, based on the BHA design, the tool was able to provide a resistivity map of the reservoir of up to 22 m away from the wellbore, improving the understanding and in turn the characterization of the reservoir beyond seismic structural and near-wellbore petrophysical information.

1. Introduction
Reservoir characterization can be defined as a process that incorporates all the characteristics of the reservoir that are pertinent to its ability to store hydrocarbons and also to produce them (Schlumberger Oilfield Glossary). From a formation evaluation perspective, the inputs to reservoir characterization are centered on geologic information from seismic data and logging data acquired on wireline or LWD. In this scenario, the resolution of the seismic data and the quantity and quality of the logging data input to reservoir characterization will add to the validity of the reservoir model (i.e. the reduction in reservoir uncertainty is dependent to the quantity of valid data available for input to the model). In the conventional world, logging tools provide near-wellbore measurements such as nuclear and resistivity images, usually with a depth of investigation (DOI) of a few inches from the borehole wall. Electromagnetic

______________________________ 1 M.Sc., Geologist – Shell 2 M.Sc., Well Placement Engineer & Team Lead – Schlumberger 3 Ph.D., Well Placement Domain Champion – Schlumberger 4 M.Sc., Petrophysical Engineer – Shell 5 M.Sc., Geology & Reservoir Evaluation and Management – Shell 6 M.Sc., Well Placement Engineer – Schlumberger 7 Well Placement Engineer – Schlumberger 8 Ph.D, Reservoir Engineer – Shell 9 MBA, Petrophysicist - Shell

Rio Oil & Gas Expo and Conference 2012 propagation resistivity technology, introduced in the 1980’s, offers a slightly deeper non-azimuthal measurement with DOI up to 1 m beyond the near-wellbore environment for data acquired in real-time while drilling (Clark et al. 1988). The deployment of a directional (azimuthal) resistivity tool in 2005 provided for the first time the capability to map bed boundaries up to 5 m away from the borehole (Li et al. 2005). In 2008, the directional resistivity technology was further extended with the introduction of the deep electromagnetic directional tool capable of resolving for multiple resistivity boundaries up to 30 m laterally away from the wellbore (Beer et al. 2010). In 2010 and 2011, Shell Brasil Ltda. deployed the new deep electromagnetic directional LWD technology in two of their horizontal production sections. The wells were drilled in different deepwater fields offshore Brazil, with each applying the deep electromagnetic technology to meet two main objectives: 1) Maximize the wellbore’s position within the reservoir. It is well understood that the longer the production section, the higher the production (Altman et al. 2007). An unplanned exit during the drilling process or drilling in a less optimal position could result in costly nonproductive intervals or early water break-through, leaving behind valuable hydrocarbon (Seifert et al. 2009). 2) Characterize the reservoir deeper into the reservoir.

2. Case Studies
2.1. Case Study 1 The objective of the well was to complete across and drain two structural areas believed to contain the same stacked turbidite reservoir sands. The 12 ¼-in. section was landed at the top of the first fault block (lobe 1). Upon exit and crossing of a fault, a section of shale was expected to be drilled before penetration of the top of the reservoir (second fault block – lobe 2) deeper in section. Figure 1 illustrates the seismic model with the well trajectory.

Figure 1. Seismic section along the planned well path depicting the reservoir top and base surfaces, the landed trajectory into the reservoir, and the location and orientation of the expected major fault. The bottomhole assembly (BHA) for the 8 ½-in. section included both formation evaluation and well placement technologies. For formation evaluation, a multifunction logging-while-drilling (LWD) sonde (array resistivity, azimuthal density, azimuthal gamma ray, neutron-derived porosity, photoelectric factor, sigma, and spectroscopy), and real-time reservoir steering service (lithology-independent porosity, pore size distribution, and permeability estimation) tools were used. Well placement requirements were fulfilled through the use of a point-the-bit rotary steerable system, azimuthal laterolog resistivity including a near-bit resistivity measurement, laterolog resistivity imaging, azimuthal gamma ray and imaging, and the new deep electromagnetic directional LWD tool.


Rio Oil & Gas Expo and Conference 2012 Prejob simulation of the deep electromagnetic directional tool’s response in this environment was performed to better manage expectations during the real-time operations. The simulations showed that the major part of the reservoir top in the first lobe could be mapped up to ~22 m TVD away from the wellbore. In real time, as expected, the deep electromagnetic directional technology was able to map the entire top of the reservoir in the first fault block with high confidence, depicting the top of the reservoir to be slightly lower than initially expected, 14 m TVD above the wellpath. A low area in the top reservoir structure within the first fault block was also mapped; this feature could not be directly inferred from the seismic data. Further interpretation of the data revealed the presence of a fault in this area. After exiting the first lobe within expectation and during drilling in the shale zone between blocks it was discovered that the top reservoir had dropped deeper than mapped and the trajectory was adjusted downward to find the second reservoir lobe. Upon approaching the second reservoir lobe, the top of the reservoir was detected from ~10 m TVD below the wellbore, and the data also provided some insight into the thickness of this lower section of the reservoir, before final depth of the well was called. Figure 2 shows the inversion result and Figure 3 shows how this result compared to the available seismic data.

Figure 2. Real-time inversion canvas from the deep electromagnetic directional LWD tool displayed along the reservoir structure that was updated based on this inversion result.

Figure 3. Final structural interpretation based on the deep electromagnetic directional inversion information as presented on the seismic section. 3

Rio Oil & Gas Expo and Conference 2012 Dip information derived from laterolog resistivity images was used to confirm the fault interpretation on the deep electromagnetic inversion information. The interpretation of these two faults also corresponded to events on the inversion canvas. Without the inversion canvas it could be possible to identify the listric fault system, but identifying the structure between these two faults would not have been possible. The deep electromagnetic inversion information derived from measurements many meters away for the wellbore is able to clearly help define the structure in this interval, independently of that suggested by the seismic data. 2.2. Case Study 2 The objective of this second well was to drill the horizontal production section within a faulted reservoir to access the reserves on both sides of the secondary fault as shown in Figure 4. The environment of deposition near the planned well was expected to be unconfined turbidite sands, with shale zones above and below the reservoir. In this area of the reservoir the sands were characterized as amalgamated distributory channels located proximally in the system. It was expected that near the toe of the planned well the reservoir thickness would thin and the sediment would become more mud-dominated. The faulting was not interpreted as guiding the deposition of the turbidite sands and the movement along the fault zones occurred post deposition.

Figure 4. Seismic model with the planned well trajectory and expected reservoir structure. Proceeding from the landing point, the planned horizontal well path first traverses the lower fault block and then crosses a normal fault into the upper fault block. Because of the inherent depth uncertainty in the seismic data, several scenarios were expected depending on the throw of the main fault (Figure 5). Scenario A is based on the best interpretation of the seismic map, while scenarios B and C assume a 5 m negative and positive fault throw respectively. The deep electromagnetic directional mapping capability is critical to determine the position of the trajectory within the geological structure of both fault blocks and to detect the bottom of the second fault block when in the reservoir (scenario B) or from the underlying shale (scenario C). Based on this detection, the well trajectory can then be modified to stay or re-enter the reservoir. It should also be noted that the green coloured area on the seismic section (Figure 4) is indicative of the most prolific area of the reservoir according to reservoir models, and hence was a primary target of the well.


Rio Oil & Gas Expo and Conference 2012

Figure 5. Possible scenarios on crossing the major fault. In scenarios A and B, only small adjustments to the wellbore trajectory are necessary to position the wellpath is placed in the more productive zone of the reservoir. However, in scenario C, the objective of the well would not be achieved and would require a trajectory change upwards to re-enter the reservoir. Based on the three scenarios, the objectives of the deep electromagnetic directional technology were: 1. Ascertain the dip, thickness, and resistivity profile of the reservoir in the lower fault block 2. On crossing the fault, ascertain the relative position of the wellbore to the reservoir in the upper fault block, using the inversion information to drive adjustments to the trajectory if required. 3. While drilling in the reservoir of the upper fault block, map the boundaries of the reservoir geometry and resistivity profile. During the drilling of the well, on exit from the casing shoe, the inversion showed a clear map of the top of the reservoir ~4 m above the wellpath (A on Figure 6), as expected from the pre-job simulations. As the fault zone was approached, the base of the reservoir in the lower fault block appeared within 10 m below the wellpath (B on Figure 6). However, according to the model based on seismic data, the base of the reservoir should have been ~18 m below the wellpath in this interval. As drilling progressed, there was no direct indication of the fault or fault zone from other LWD measurements, including laterolog resistivity images. The deep electromagnetic inversion on the other hand was showing step changes in the resistivity profile away from the wellbore, as well changing structural dip (C in Figure 6). On crossing what appeared to be the fault zone, the base of the reservoir in the upper fault block was measured at 3 m below the wellpath.

Figure 6. Real-time deep electromagnetic directional inversion results with four main sections. A – Top of the reservoir is being mapped at ~4 m TVD above the well path; B – Base of the reservoir in the lower fault block is being mapped at ~10 m TVD below the well path; C – Change in structural dip and base of reservoir being mapped at ~3 m TVD below the well path; D – Apparent top of the reservoir in the upper fault block is being mapped at 22 m TVD above the well path; E – Inversion clearly showing the base of the reservoir and an apparent shale lens just above the well path. Drilling continued along the section in the horizontal position, with the inversion continuously mapping the base of the reservoir, along with other features intrinsic to the reservoir. The resistivity profile across the entire 5

Rio Oil & Gas Expo and Conference 2012 thickness of the reservoir was also being observed on the inversion canvas. Soon after crossing the fault zone, the resistivity profile from top to base of the reservoir appeared both high and constant (C in Figure 6). Mud-logging data was used to confirm the presence of highly resistive cementation within this interval of the reservoir. Contrary to the prejob modeling, as drilling progressed farther into the upper fault block, the top of the reservoir appeared to be at the very limit of the tool’s ability in this BHA. It was apparent that the top of the reservoir was now higher than initially expected, based on the seismic data. The base of the reservoir was mapped entirely until the end of the section. However, this, too, appeared higher in section to what was initially expected from the seismic data. In the later interval of the section, having already crossed the highly cemented zone, the resistivity profile of the reservoir changed. This appeared to be a fairly abrupt change with a resistivity reduction in the order of 30 ohm.m. The trajectory was kept horizontal, and as drilling progressed, the resistivity of the formation continued to reduce. Correlation with the seismic data showed that this area also coincided with the high-amplitude (coloured in green) zone of the seismic section. The inversion was also indicating four different layers: from bottom to top, the underlying shale below the reservoir, the lower resistivity reservoir layer in which the trajectory was being drilled, a conductive and likely shale layer or lens just above the trajectory, and possibly, another lower resistivity reservoir layer above the shale lens (E in Figure 6). Using the inversion information, the decision was made to lower the trajectory to better access the reservoir layer in which it was being drilled. However, shortly thereafter, with reduced resistivity detected at the drill bit, and the deep electromagnetic directional tool also showing reduced resistivity away from the wellbore, drilling operations were stopped 100 m in measured depth (MD) earlier than anticipated. In the prejob phase of the well, both the petrophysical and structural properties of the entire reservoir cross section were modeled based on information gathered in a pilot well drilled in the lower fault block. However, the deep electromagnetic directional information acquired while drilling the well revealed a completely different scenario in the upper fault block. Figure 7 shows the final interpretation of the major structural and stratigraphic features with the reservoir section.

Figure 7. Final interpretation of the major reservoir structural and stratigraphic features. A true comparison of this interpretation can then be presented along the seismic section, as shown in Figure 8.


Rio Oil & Gas Expo and Conference 2012

Figure 8. Seismic section along the actual well path showing the major structural and stratigraphic features of the reservoir as interpreted from the deep electromagnetic directional inversion canvas. The original/modeled reservoir top and base are also shown for comparison. In the lower fault block, the deep electromagnetic inversion showed good delineation of the reservoir and correlation to what was expected from the initial model. However, in the upper fault block, the reservoir geometry was not as expected and it contained previously unknown stratigraphic events.

3. Summary and Conclusions
With the introduction of the new deep electromagnetic directional LWD technology, not only the well placement and geological uncertainty being reduced (Netto et al. 2012), a new opportunity for improving the characterization of the reservoir and reservoir structural interpretation is also at hand. Reservoir models are often built using a property extrapolation from near-wellbore log data to seismic properties. Because of this, in the near-wellbore environment, the characterization of the reservoir is accurate. However, the same cannot be assumed farther away from the wellbore. Without the deeper range of investigation into the reservoir, lateral discontinuities, sub-seismic unconformities, and uncertainty in the reservoir geometry can easily be overlooked, and hence affect the return on investment for the current well, the future success of additional production/injection, and the overall expectation for the reservoir. The results of both wells have provided proof of the value added to both the geosteering process and also to reservoir characterization by this new deep electromagnetic directional technology. Shell was able to use this information to further refine geological and structural models, as well as to optimize production management.

4. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Shell Brasil Ltda. and Petrobras for permission to publish this paper. Special thanks also go to Santiago Zambrano, Danilo Pinho and Fabricio Bezerra of Schlumberger Drilling & Measurements for their cooperation with the Well Placement Team in both wells presented.


Rio Oil & Gas Expo and Conference 2012

5. References
ALTMAN, R., FERRARIS, P., FILARDI, F. Latest Generation Horizontal Well Placement Technology Helps Maximize Production in Deep Water Turbidite Reservoirs. Paper prepared for presentation at the International Oil Conference and Exhibition, Veracruz, Mexico, June 2007. BEER, R., CLÁUDIO, L., DIAS, T., VIEIRA DA CUNHA, A., COUTINHO, M., SCHMITT, G., SEYDOUX, J., MORRISS, C., LEGENDRE, E., YANG, J., LI, Q., CARVALHO DA SILVA A., FERRARIS, P., BARBOSA, E., GUEDES, A. Geosteering and/or Reservoir Characterization - The Prowess of New-generation LWD Tools. Paper prepared for presentation at the SPWLA 51 st Annual Logging Symposium, Perth, Australia, June 2010. CLARK, B., LULING, M. G., JUNDT, J., ROSS, M., AND BEST, D. A Dual Depth Resistivity Measurement for FEWD. Paper prepared for presentation at the SPWLA 29 th Annual Logging Symposium, San Antonio, TX, USA, June 1988. LI, Q., OMERAGIC, D., CHOU, L., YANG, L., DUONG, K., SMITS, J., YANG, J., LAU, T., LIU, C.B., DWORAK, R., DREUILLAULT, V., AND YE, H. New Directional Electromagnetic Tool for Proactive Geosteering and Accurate Formation Evaluation While Drilling. Paper prepared for presentation at the SPWLA 46 th Annual Logging Symposium, New Orleans, LA., USA, June 2005 NETTO, P., MEIRA, A., VIERA DA CUNHA, A., SCHMITT, G., SEYDOUX, J., LEGENDRE, E., CARVALHO DA SILVA, A., SAMAROO, R., SALIM, D., SILVA, C., MIRTO, E., CHOW, S., GUEDES, A. Landing a well using a new Deep Electromagnetic Directional LWD Tool. Can we spare a Pilot Well? Paper prepared for presentation at the SPWLA 53rd Annual Logging Symposium, Cartagena, Colombia, June 2012. Schlumberger Oilfield Glossary. http://www.glossary.oilfield.slb.com/ SEIFERT, D.J., AL-DOSSARY, S., CHEMALI, R., BITTAR, M., LOTFY, A., PITCHER, J., BAYRAKDAR, M. Deep Electrical Images, Geosignal and Real Time Inversion Help to Guide Steering Decisions. Paper prepared for presentation at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, Louisiana, U.S.A., October 2009.