Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Oilfield Review
Rt
Rcem
Rc
Rc
Rcem
Rt
Principle of Measurement
The CHFR Cased Hole Formation Resistivity tool
is effectively a laterolog, that is, an electrode
device that measures voltage differences created
when an applied current flows into the rocks
around the borehole. The usual way to compute
formation resistivity R t from a laterolog tool
requires measuring both emitted current I and
tool voltage V. To obtain resistivity, the ratio of
these two is multiplied by a constant coefficient
known as the tool K-factor, which depends on the
geometry of the tool itself: R t = KV/I. The CHFR
measurement is somewhat more complicated
due to the presence of steel casing, but it still
comes down to determining R t from V and I.
Openhole laterologs use electrodes to focus the
applied current deep into the formation. A significant difference in the physics governing the
Spring 2001
wellbore occurs over the entire length of the casing, so the amount of leakage within each meter
is very small. The major challenge to measuring
resistivity behind casing is measuring this tiny
leakage current.
The way the measurement is made can be
understood by following the current from the tool
along the paths it takes to the electrical ground.
The current electrode is in contact with the inside
of the casing. Some of the current travels up the
casing, and some travels down. The amount
going each direction depends on the position of
1. Staff Report: Through-Casing Logging Tools Approach
Commercialization, Gas Research Institute GRID,
Summer (1998): 19-21.
Blaskovich FT: Historical Problems with Old Field
Rejuvenation, paper SPE 62518, presented at the
SPE/AAPG Western Regional Meeting, Long Beach,
California, USA, June 19-23, 2000.
Downgoing Current
0.5
Current, A
0.4
Rt = 1 ohm-m
Rt = 10 ohm-m
Rt = 100 ohm-m
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
2500
3000
Formation Current
5
Current, mA
Rt = 1 ohm-m
Rt = 10 ohm-m
Rt = 100 ohm-m
3
2
1
0
0
500
1000
1500
2000
Depth, m
Oilfield Review
Return
Surface
electrode
Casing
Rc
Rt
Rc
Top currentinjection
electrode
Casing
Top currentinjection
electrode
Rt
I
I
Rc
V1
V0
V2
I and
Rc
Bottom
current
electrode
> The first step in the CHFR two-step principle of measurement. In the measurement step, low-frequency alternating current (AC) passes up the pipe
to the surface and down the pipe through the formation to a surface return
electrode. The tool measures the difference I in downgoing current between
pairs of voltage electrodes. At every station, three measurement electrodes
contribute to one resistivity measurement (right side of figure). With four
measurement electrodes available, two resistivity measurements can be
made at a time. V0 is casing voltage, and V1 and V2 are voltages measured
in the formation between two pairs of electrodes. Rc is casing resistance.
Spring 2001
Value
(approximate)
5 to 500 nV
20 to 100 V
10 to 100 mV
Calibration current
Casing-segment resistance (Rc )
0.5 to 3.0 A
20 to 100 ohm
Applied current (I )
0.5 to 6.0 A
Formation current (I )
2 to 20 mA
0 to 3 A
Telemetry
Top current
electrode
Insulating joint
Electronics
13 m
Measurementelectrode
arm section
10 1
Rt = 10 ohm-m
Rxo = 1 ohm-m
Rsh = 100 ohm-m
No cement
Hydraulics
J = 0.5
Bed thickness
500 ft
200 ft
50 ft
20 ft
10 ft
DOI = 16.3 ft
10 0
0
Bottom current
electrode
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Invasion depth, ft
Oilfield Review
Spring 2001
CHFR Modeling
Resistivity, ohm-m
10 2
Rt
Rxo
RCHFR
RCHFR/C
10 1
10 0
9050
9100
9150
9200
9250
9300
9350
9400
9450
9500
9550
HRLA Modeling
Resistivity, ohm-m
10 2
RHRLA1
RHRLA2
RHRLA3
RHRLA4
RHRLA5
10 1
10 0
9050
9100
9150
9200
9250
9300
9350
9400
9450
9500
9550
HALS Modeling
10 2
Resistivity, ohm-m
RHRLS
RHRLD
RHLLS
RHLLD
10 1
10 0
9050
9100
9150
9200
9250
9300
9350
9400
9450
9500
9550
Depth, ft
> Comparison of computed CHFR, HRLA and HALS tool responses for a synthetic formation.
The depth interval 9280 to 9500 ft is representative of an oil zone, with a series of invaded
resistive beds (Rt = 40 ohm-m, Rxo = 4 ohm-m, invasion radius of 20 in.) of varying thickness
surrounded by conductive shoulders (1.5 or 2 ohm-m). The upper interval (9080 to 9250 ft) is
characteristic of a water zone with conductive beds and resistive invasion (Rt between 1.5
and 3 ohm-m, Rxo = 10 ohm-m, invasion radius of 20 in.) in a resistive environment (20 ohm-m).
In the water zone, the K-factor of the CHFR log is slightly shifted. Note the negligible impact
(top) of the presence of a cement layer (resistivity = 3.5 ohm-m, thickness = 0.75 in.) added on
the CHFR computed response RCHFR/C (purple) compared to the log computed with no cement
(solid red curve).
Tool-Response Modeling
For openhole tools, the depth of investigation
(DOI) is defined for an infinitely thick formation
layer as the point where half the signal comes
from the invaded zone and half from the virgin
zone. With this definition, the CHFR DOI has a
range of 7 to 37 ft [2 to 11 m] depending on formation parameters (previous page, right).
Models of the CHFR resistivity response
demonstrate that it compares well with the
responses from other resistivity tools that have
similar characteristics, such as the deep-reading
curve from the HRLA High-Resolution Laterolog
Array tool and the deep-reading curves from the
High-Resolution Azimuthal Laterolog Sonde
(HALS) (above).
2. Brondel D, Edwards R, Hayman A, Hill D, Mehta S and
Semerad T: Corrosion in the Oil Industry, Oilfield
Review 6, no. 2 (April 1994): 4-18.
Crabtree M, Eslinger D, Fletcher P, Miller M, Johnson A
and King G: Fighting ScaleRemoval and Prevention,
Oilfield Review 11, no. 3 (Autumn 1999): 30-45.
resistivity to read too high in low-resistivity formations (next page, bottom left). This influenced
the decision to set the lower limit of the CHFR
resistivity range at 1 ohm-m.
In-situ measurement of cement resistivity is
not possible, but laboratory studies show that
the resistivity of fresh cement typically ranges
from 1 to 10 ohm-m.3 In addition, cement has a
microporosity of around 35% that allows cement
water to exchange ions with formation water.
High-salinity formation water can lower the
cement resistivity and minimize its impact.
Modeling results have been used to develop
cement sensitivity charts for 4.5-in., 7-in. and
958-in. OD casings (next page, bottom right). For
typical values of cement thickness (0.75 in., for
example) and cement resistivity (between 1 and
5 ohm-m) within the CHFR resistivity measurement range (1 to 100 ohm-m), the error due to
Logging tool
Invaded zone
or cement
Borehole
or casing
Rm
Rxo
Rt
Laterolog and
CHFR respon
se,
series
Uninvaded zone
Rm
Rxo
Rt
nse,
n respo
Inductio
l
e
parall
Oilfield Review
Rt model
No cement
0.75 in. Rcem = 1 ohm-m
1.5 in. Rcem = 1 ohm-m
3 in. Rcem = 1 ohm-m
0.75 in. Rcem = 10 ohm-m
1.5 in. Rcem = 10 ohm-m
3 in. Rcem = 10 ohm-m
10 1
Resistivity, ohm-m
Resistivity, ohm-m
10 1
Rt model
No cement
0.75 in. Rcem = 0.1 ohm-m
1.5 in. Rcem = 0.1 ohm-m
3 in. Rcem = 0.1 ohm-m
10 0
9450
9460
9470
9480
9490
9500
9510
10 0
9450
9520
9460
9470
Depth, ft
9480
9490
9500
9510
9520
Depth, ft
> Models showing the effect of cement resistivity, or other material between casing and formation, on the CHFR apparent resistivity response.
Low-resistivity cement (left) has almost no effect on the measurement in a high-resistivity formation. The resistive bed is 500 ft [152 m] above the
shoe of a 10,000-ft [3048-m] length of 512-in. diameter casing. In the reverse situation (right), resistivity measurement is significantly affected where
high-resistivity cement is present in a low-resistivity formation.
120
1.4
Rcem , ohm-m
0.1
1
2
5
10
20
80
60
1.2
1.0
Rt /RCHFR
100
40
0.8
No cement
0.5 in.
0.75 in.
1.5 in.
3 in.
5 in.
0.6
20
0.4
0
0.2
-20
0
10 -1
100
101
102
Spring 2001
10 -2
10 -1
100
101
102
RCHFR /Rcem
ohm
100
ohm
100
Casing Thickness
0
in.
Depth, m
ohm-m
1000
0.5
ohm-m
ohm-m
1000
USI
Cement
Map
1000
1100
1125
1150
> CHFR log in poor cement. Although the USI cement map (far right) shows poor quality (pale blue) in
places, the agreement between the two CHFR passes (Track 2) and the openhole log in the Schlumberger
test well in Villejust, France, is very good. A groove worn into the casing by wireline is also visible in
the cement map.
10
Oilfield Review
Casing-Segment Resistance
0
ohm
0.0001
Gamma Ray
API
100
CCL
-19
Depth, m
1000 1.95
ohm-m
ohm-m
1000 0.45
Density
g/cm3
2.95
Neutron Porosity
m3/m3
-0.15
1450
1500
> Good agreement between CHFR results and openhole Platform Express deep laterolog measurements (Track 2) in the lower section of an Austrian gas well. The overall agreement between the
two is very good. In Track 3, formation density and neutron porosity show crossover in the gas
reservoir (shaded).
Spring 2001
Measurement Repeatability,
Reliability and Limits
CHFR field logs have demonstrated that the measurement is repeatable and directly comparable
to openhole formation resistivity recorded at
drilling time. CHFR data have clearly identified
virgin, depleted and unswept zones.
Because of hole problems, an openhole resistivity log could not be obtained in an intermediate section of an Austrian gas well drilled by
Rohoel-Aufsuchungs AG (RAG), prior to setting
11
12
affecting the measurement. These include optimal electrode spacing, variations in electrode
contact resistance, and variations in casing
thickness, resistance and skin effectthe
amount of current actually leaking into the
formation is a small fraction of the current
introduced into the casing. Variations in casing
resistance may result from differences in
manufacturing tolerances, chemical composition, corrosion and fractures. In theory, some of
the proposed methods could produce valid data.
However, the extremely low signal-to-noise ratio
and the limited technology available at the time
these patents were granted made it virtually
impossible to accurately measure the tiny,
nanovolt formation signal.
To date, only the electrode methods have been
demonstrated as feasible. The basic principles of
measurement were proposed independently in a
USSR patent issued to Alpin, in 1939, and a USA
patent to Stewart, in 1949.2 In 1972, a French
patent proposed a six-electrode design and used
a two-step measurement that is close to the one
used by the first demonstration tool, developed
by Vail, almost 20 years later.3 It was not until the
early 1990s that advances in electronics technology enabled development of this wireline device.
Beginning in the late 1980s, ParaMagnetic
Logging (PML) laid out the design and acquisition
methods that resulted in its first demonstration
Oilfield Review
Spring 2001
13
Gamma Ray
API
100
Casing-Segment Resistance
0
ohm
0.0001
ohm
Depth, m
0.0001
ohm-m
1000
ohm-m
1000
1200
1250
the interval 1220 to 1250 m illustrates the excellent repeatability of the measurement (above).
Due to the physics of measurement and depth
of investigation, the CHFR resistivity is not
affected by borehole washout. An example from
the Middle East shows how the CHFR tool reliably reads resistivities even in enlarged boreholes (next page).
14
Oilfield Review
CHFR Resistivity
0.2
ohm-m
0.2
ohm-m
2000
Rxo
in.
Gamma Ray
0
API
Depth, ft
Caliper
6
2000
150
0.2
ohm-m
2000
Neutron Porosity
0.6
ohm-m
2000 140
ft3/ft3
Sonic Slowness
sec/ft
40
X400
X450
X500
X550
Washout
X600
> Comparing the effects of extreme borehole enlargement (washout) on nuclear and CHFR measurements. In this Middle East well, at depth X600 ft, the caliper (Track 1) indicates a washout with a
borehole diameter of nearly 16 in. [41 cm]. In Track 2, the CHFR resistivity (black dashed/open circles)
overlays the Platform Express openhole deep laterolog (red) and appears to be unaffected by the
hole washout. In contrast, at the same depth, the openhole porosity logs presented in Track 3 (blue,
neutron porosity; green, sonic slowness) are significantly affected.
Spring 2001
15
Gamma Ray
0
API
0.1
100
0.1
A/cm2
Voltage
0.015
ohm/m
0.005
A/cm2
ohm-m
100
CHFR Resistivity
0.1
ohm-m
100
Openhole Resistivity
Total Current
7
100
Depth, m
Formation Current
0
ohm-m
0.1
ohm-m
100
7-in.
casing
XX30
XX50
41/2-in.
liner
XX70
> Comparison of CHFR processing with and without voltage measurement and cement correction
in an offshore Middle East well. The cement correction becomes very small above 1.5 ohm-m and
negligible above 3.0 ohm-m as indicated by merging of the yellow and red dots (Track 2). Inset shows
reduced current above 412-in. liner due to poor electrical contact between liner and casing.
16
Applications
The basic applications for cased-hole resistivity
measurements were recognized in the 1930s;
these consist of primary logging, contingency logging, identifying bypassed pay and reservoir monitoring. Primary logging is a planned decision to
replace all or most openhole services with casedhole measurements. This decision comes from a
desire to reduce risks associated with borehole
instability or poor logging conditions, or perhaps
for improved economics. For example, in a producing field where the geology is already wellcharacterized through existing wells, a combination
of CHFR log and cased-hole nuclear measurements, such as TDT Thermal Decay Time or RST
Reservoir Saturation Tool logs for porosity, can
provide complete formation saturation analysis.
Contingency loggingThis type of logging is
appropriate for unplanned situations in which
openhole conditions such as borehole instability
Oilfield Review
ohm-m
200
ohm-m
200
Depth, ft
MSFL Resistivity
Gamma Ray
0
API
200
0.2
Bulk Density
g/cm3
1.65
ohm-m
200
CHFR Resistivity
2.65 0.2
ohm-m
200
X750
X800
X850
X900
> Bypassed pay. In this Indonesian well, the openhole laterolog underestimated the resistivity due to deep invasion in the interval X725 to X950 ft, and
this interval was not completed. The CHFR tool, run several months after
drilling, suggested this same zone to be hydrocarbon-bearing. This was
borne out by subsequent completion and production.
mV
20
Depth, ft
API
200
ohm-m
200
200
ohm-m
Depletion
Sw2 /Sw1
CHFR Resistivity
Gamma Ray
0
ohm-m
200 3
X630
X640
Openhole OWC
X650
CHFR OWC
X660
X670
> Reservoir monitoring in Indonesia. In this well, the CHFR OWC at X656 ft (Track 2,
black) is 12 ft [3.5 m] below the OWC indicated on the openhole deep laterolog at
X644 ft (Track 2, red). This interval was subsequently perforated and produced at a
rate of 2150 BOPD [342 m3/d].
Spring 2001
17
Formation
Carbon/
Oxygen
Ratio
Sigma
CHFR
Tool
Remarks
Moderate porosity
and moderate salinity
High porosity (>30 p.u.) and
high salinity (Gulf of Mexico)
Variable (flood)
Remarks
Completion
Casing collars
Heavy casing
Dual casing
Fiberglass casing
Remarks
Borehole
Dry microannulus
Gas-cut cement
Washed-out holes
Flowing wells
Fluid contacts in hole
Near-wellbore effects
Deviated wells
Acid effect
Perforations
Lithology
Scale
18
learned by combining these with nuclear measurements. The CHFR resistivity tool provides
saturation measurements from a depth of investigation significantly beyond that of the nuclear
logging tools currently used for behind-casing
evaluation. The dynamic range of the CHFR measurement is such that evaluation also is possible
Oilfield Review
Openhole Porosity
0.5
Openhole Porosity
0.5
ft3/ft3
0.5
0.5
ft3/ft3
Depth, ft
0
Openhole Porosity
0 0.5
0.5
ft3/ft3
ft3/ft3
Filtrate or Depletion
Filtrate or Depletion
0.5
ft3/ft3
0 0.5
ft3/ft3
Filtrate or Depletion
0
ft3/ft3
ft3/ft3
Moved Hydrocarbon
0.5
Openhole Porosity
0 0.5
Hydrocarbon (OH)
ft3/ft3
ft3/ft3
0.5
0 0.5
ft3/ft3
ft3/ft3
X0950
X1000
X1050
X1100
> Fluid-volume calculations based on CHFR measurements in a Middle East well illustrating the gradual hydrocarbon resaturation of this reservoir zone. By cased-hole Run 1 (Track 2), filtrate has mostly
been replaced or diluted, and by cased-hole Run 2 (Track 3), hydrocarbon saturation has returned to
pre-invasion levels. By the time of cased-hole Run 3 (Track 4), the CHFR tool is beginning to detect the
influence of a new injector drilled 100 m [330 ft] away.
Spring 2001
19
CHFR data, analyses based on the shallowreading RST tool showed no change from the
openhole data during this period (below).
The difference between resistivity and nuclear
evaluations indicates that a damaged zone has
been created around the borehole in which filtrate
invaded at least as far as the RST depth of investigation. A combined interpretation from the
CHFR and RST tools provided a complete understanding of the resaturation, flood progress and
formation damage around the borehole.
Another way to detect changes in hydrocarbon saturation over time is with the quicklook depleted hydrocarbon index. This index is
based on the Archie water-saturation equation,
Sw = 1/ (Rw /Rt ) 1/2, and relates cased-hole resistivity and saturation derived from CHFR data to
Hydrocarbon (OH)
Openhole Porosity
0.5
ft3/ft3
Openhole Porosity
Hydrocarbon (OH)
0.5
ft3/ft3
ft3/ft3
Openhole Porosity
Moved Hydrocarbon
Filtrate or Depletion
ft3/ft3
ft3/ft3
0.5
Depth, ft
0.5
X0950
ft3/ft3
0.5
0 0.5
ft3/ft3
ft3/ft3
ft3/ft3
Filtrate or Depletion
ft3/ft3
Filtrate or Depletion
Water Vol. Flushed Zone
RST Run 3
0.5
ft3/ft3
Openhole Porosity
0.5
ft3/ft3
X1000
X1050
X1100
20
Oilfield Review
Pull completion
API
180
Casing-Segment Resistance
ohm
5x10-5
Production
0.2
Time, days
Run scraper
Run CHFR tool
Pull completion
Spring 2001
Selectively cement
depleted zones
ohm-m
X700
X750
X800
X850
X900
X950
> Monitoring hydrocarbon depletion in North Slope well. Separation between the resistivity
curves from the CHFR log and the original openhole induction log clearly indicates that the oil
zones from X820 to X955 ft and from X720 to X740 ft are depleted.
10
200
Open
Production
0
ohm-m
Depth, ft
Squeezed
Reperforate
appropriate zones
Gamma Ray
30
15
21
Moved Water
Moved Hydrocarbon
Water
Depletion
Depletion
Porosity
ft3/ft3
0.5
ft3/ft3
Openhole Resistivity
0.2
ohm-m
200
ft3/ft3
0.5
Gamma Ray
0
API
200
Calcite
Porosity
0 0.5
Oil Openhole
0.5
Oil
ft3/ft3
Orthoclase
Oil Openhole
0 0.5
ft3/ft3
Quartz
0
Bound Water
ft3/ft3
Illite
CHFR Resistivity
0.2
ohm-m
200
ELAN Volumes
Remaining Oil
Remaining Oil
vol/vol
Perforation
#2
Perforation
#3
> ELAN Elemental Log Analysis interpretation of CHFR and RST reservoir monitoring logs. In this
Indonesian well, the C/O log results are affected by near-wellbore effects, in this case underestimating
the remaining oil due to invasion. The deeper CHFR depth of investigation helps to better estimate
the remaining oil.
22
Oilfield Review
0.2
0.2
100
Caliper
LWD Resistivity
0.2
ohm-m
ohm-m
ohm-m
100
Casing Collars
-9
0.2
100
100
in.
Gamma Ray
0
API
ohm-m
100
Depth, ft
API
Depth, ft
Gamma Ray
0
ohm-m
150
0.2
ohm-m
100
ohm-m
100
X800
X1000
X1050
X900
X1100
> Log example from an Abu Dhabi monitor well in a carbonate oil formation.
Track 2 presents two CHFR runs logged four months apart (Run 1, red; Run 2,
blue) and the openhole LWD resistivity curve (black). No change was detected
between CHFR runs. However, compared to the openhole log, the higher
CHFR resistivity in the zone X850 to X890 ft is the result of sensing a farborehole event (an oil leg or a gas-flood front), while the LWD resistivity
is responding to the near-borehole water-flooded zone.
Spring 2001
> Reservoir monitoring log examples in an Abu Dhabi carbonate oil reservoir. Track 2 presents three CHFR runs and the reference openhole deep
laterolog. Run 1 (red) was logged three months after casing was set, Run 2
(blue), six months after casing, and Run 3 (green), eight months after casing.
The CHFR measurement repeats except from X0970 to X1020 ft, where
resistivity is clearly increasing with time. The increased resistivity between
Runs 1 and 2 supports a simulation model that predicts that water injected
in a nearby well would push a bank of oil past this wellbore.
23
40
00
450
6000
550
km
miles
Horizontal well
Injector well
> Structure map of the Main Body B (MBB) Stevens sand on the 31S structure. The approximate
present-day location of the flood front is depicted with the blue line. OXY is drilling horizontal wells
ahead of the advancing waterflood front to improve oil-recovery efficiencies.
recently served as a testing ground for casedhole resistivity services. OXY is seeking to
develop confidence in the measurement and is
testing its potential applications. More than
25 wells in the field have been logged with the
Schlumberger CHFR tool and the Baker Atlas
TCRT tool. The primary applications are reservoir
monitoring and enhancement of reservoir production efficiency, primarily through reduction of
unwanted water or gasknown as conformance
control. Location of bypassed pay, including
zones of resaturation, is a secondary application.
Many of the 900 production wells in this field,
discovered in 1911, date back to the 1940s. The
field consists of stacked siliceous shales and
thin, interbedded turbidite reservoirs primarily
24
Oilfield Review
Spring 2001
Scale
Cased-Hole Gamma Ray
0.7
API
CHFR Resistivity
70
API
Depth, ft
20
70
ohm-m
ohm-m
20
6800
6900
7000
7100
7200
7300
> Log of Elk Hills 315A-34S well. Green shading (Track 1) indicates zones
of increased radioactivity due to barium scale deposition caused by water
entry. Blue shading between openhole deep induction (black) and CHFR
resistivity (blue) in Track 2 indicates reduced resistivity in water-swept oil
zones. The yellow flag on the right side of the depth track indicates the
original perforations, and the purple flag indicates water breakthrough.
25