You are on page 1of 24

Resistivity Behind Casing

Hydrocarbon detection and saturation evaluation have long been


a problem in cased holes. After 60 years of dreams and designs,
measuring resistivity behind casing is now a reality.
Karsani Aulia
Bambang Poernomo
William C. Richmond
Ari Haryanto Wicaksono
PT. Caltex Pacific
Minas, Riau, Indonesia
Paul Bguin
Dominique Benimeli
Isabelle Dubourg
Gilles Rouault
Peter VanderWal
Clamart, France
Austin Boyd
Ridgefield, Connecticut, USA
Sherif Farag
Jakarta, Indonesia
Paolo Ferraris
Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates
Anne McDougall
Paris, France
Michael Rosa
David Sharbak
Occidental Oil and Gas Company
Elk Hills, California, USA
For help in preparation of this article, thanks to Eric Bonnin,
David Foulon and Gregory Joffroy, TOTAL ABK, Abu Dhabi,
UAE; Bob Davis, Bakersfield, California, USA; Alison Goligher
and Don McKeon, Clamart, France; Russ Hertzog, Idaho
National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, Idaho
Falls, Idaho, USA; Pam Rahmatdoost, Sugar Land, Texas,
USA; and Lukas Utojo Wihardjo, Duri, Indonesia.
AIT (Array Induction Imager Tool), CBT (Cement Bond
Tool), CET (Cement Evaluation Tool), CHFR (Cased Hole
Formation Resistivity), CPET (Corrosion and Protection
Evaluation Tool), ELAN (Elemental Log Analysis), HRLA
(High-Resolution Laterolog Array), Platform Express, RST
(Reservoir Saturation Tool), SCALE BLASTER, SpectroLith,
TDT (Thermal Decay Time) and USI (UltraSonic Imager) are
marks of Schlumberger. TCRT (Through Casing Resistivity
Tool) is a mark of Baker Hughes.

In their quest to improve field productivity, extend


field life and increase reserves, oil companies
need to be able to identify bypassed hydrocarbons, track changes in saturation and detect
movement of reservoir-fluid contacts. Many of
the worlds remaining discovered oil and gas
reserves are contained in old fields that were discovered from the 1920s to 1950s.1 In those days,
hydrocarbons were commonly detected solely
through openhole electrical surveysoften the
only logging measurement available. Even today,
resistivity logs are still the most widely used
measurement for evaluating reservoir saturations and distinguishing hydrocarbon- from
water-bearing zones in open holes. However,
tracking saturation changes in older reservoirs
requires making measurements through steel
casing, which had not been possible with earlier
resistivity tools.
Until recently, cased-hole hydrocarbon saturation evaluation was possible only with nuclear
tools. These tools have shallow depths of investigation and their effective application is limited
in low porosity and salinity. Since the conception
of openhole resistivity logs, experts around the
world have struggled to develop a tool that could
measure resistivity behind casing.

Now, 60 years after it was first imagined,


accurate and reliable measurement of casedhole formation resistivity is not only possible but
available as a standard service. The considerable
design and measurement hurdles involved with
measuring formation resistivity behind steel casing have been overcome (see History of CasedHole Resistivity Measurement, page 12 ). With
the aid of innovative electronics, Schlumberger
engineers have developed a system that makes
an earlier design work.
As with openhole measurements, cased-hole
resistivity and nuclear porosity measurements
can be combined to provide enhanced saturation
evaluation. In addition to reservoir monitoring
and identifying bypassed pay, this service provides a resistivity measurement in high-risk wells
where openhole logs cannot be run because of
borehole conditions or when tool failure prevents
successful data acquisition.
This article reveals how the new tool works,
how its design overcomes previously insurmountable obstacles to obtaining resistivity behind casing, and limitations of the technique. Field
examples demonstrate how well the new measurement matches results from openhole logging
tools and how the tool is being used to monitor
saturation changes and fluid contacts.

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

cased-hole measurement is that the borehole


casing itself serves as a giant electrode directing
the current away from the wellbore.
Current follows the path of lowest resistance
to complete an electrical circuit, and when the
option is to pass through low-resistance steel or
through the earth, most of the current will flow
through the steel. A high-frequency alternating
current (AC) will stay almost entirely within the
steel, but at low-frequency ACor with a direct
current (DC)a small part of the current leaks
into the formation.
To travel from the source in the tool to the
electrical ground located at a surface return electrode, the current passes along the casing and
leaks gradually into the surrounding formation,
passing through the earth to the electrical
ground. The leakage into the earth around the

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.

the tool in the well and the formation resistivity


the higher the formation resistivity, the less current goes down the casing (below). This is
because the downgoing current path reaches
ground by traveling through the formation. It also
means the tool becomes less sensitiveless
current enters the formationat higher formation resistivity.
As the current flows down the casing, a small
part goes into the formation. The leakage can be
described as a certain fraction of current
decrease each meter. When the tool is near the
surface, most of the current goes up the casing
because it is the shortestleast resistivepath
to ground, so there is little leakage into the formation. Through most of the casing length, the
leakage is almost constant for low-resistivity formations, until the tool approaches the casing
shoe at the bottom of the well. At that point,
although the downgoing current decreases, progressively more of it leaks into the formation
with each meter, until the last meter when all the
downward current goes into that meter of formation, making the leakage quite high. In fact, current leakage is maximum at the casing shoe. This
is usually an advantage, since most intervals of
logging interest are located near the bottom of
the casing string.

The difficulty of measuring resistivity behind


casing over the 60-year development period has
been with the measurement itself. It is straightforward to measure the current passing down the
pipe, because the tool design can include electrodes that contact the casing. It is impossible to
directly measure the current flowing in the formation, because there is no access for electrodes
there. The formation current must be inferred
from the casing current by subtraction. An
applied current of one ampere (A) yields leakage
currents of a few milliamperes per meter, and
even less for formations of higher resistivity.
Finding a small quantity by taking the difference
of two much larger ones is difficult, particularly
when there is noise in the data.
The technical hurdles in measuring resistivity
behind casing have been overcome by careful
tool design and improved accuracy and precision
of measurements. Downhole electronics now are
precise and stable enough to determine formation resistivity behind conductive casing.
But how is the measurement made? The first
stage of the measurement uses a source in the
tool to apply low-frequency alternating current to
the casing (next page, left). Four voltage electrodes lie below the injection point with a 2-ft
[0.6-m] separation. Three of these are used in

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

> The effect of tool position on current in a homogeneous formation


for a 3000-m [9840-ft] deep well with 7-in., 29-lbm/ft casing and
current returns at the wellhead. One ampere (A) is applied. The
current going downward in the casing varies most near the top and
bottom of the well, and decreases as formation resistivity increases
(top). Current leakage also decreases with increasing formation
resistivity. Near the casing shoe at 3000 m, the leakage rate increases
dramatically, even though the downgoing current decreases, because
all of the downgoing current flows into a short remaining section of
the formation (bottom).

each measurement. The voltage drop between


pairs of electrodes is a combination of losses due
to leakage into the formation plus resistive
losses in the casing. A second step, called the
calibration step, is needed to determine the
resistive losses in the casing.
The circuit in the calibration step starts at the
same current-application point, but flows down
the casing to a current electrode about 10 m
[33 ft] lower on the tool (next page, top right).
There is negligible leakage into the formation
since the current does not need to flow through
the formation to complete the circuit. With the
same voltage electrodes as in the measurement
step, the casing resistance can be determined.
Thus, the formation resistivity can be obtained,
essentially by difference of the two measurements. Alternatively, if the steel resistivity is
known or assumed, then casing thickness can be
derivedas the CPET Corrosion and Protection
Evaluation Tool service does now.
The high resistivity contrast between the steel
and the formation dictates the direction of current leakage into the formationperpendicular
to the casingbecause the casing is essentially
an equipotential surface. The tool is most sensitive to the resistivity of the formation near its
voltage electrodes because the voltage measurements used to determine it are primarily affected
by leakage radially into the formation immediately outside the casing.
Another step is required to obtain the casing
voltage V0. Extremely precise voltage measurements in the range of 10 to 100 mV are required
(next page, bottom). They cannot be performed in
alternating current like the measurement and calibration steps. In a separate sequence, direct current is sent from the top injector to surface
following the same path used in the formationcurrent measurement. The voltage is measured
between the bottom injector and a different reference electrode at surface. The measurement is
performed twicewith positive and negative
polaritiesto remove systematic errors such as
polarization or drift. Since the voltage varies
quite slowly with depth, one voltage measurement for 10 depth stations is usually adequate.
The surface reference electrode for the voltage calibration should be located as far as possible from the wellhead. However, this is not
always possible or feasible in actual field operations. The inability to obtain sufficient distance
for the reference electrode or good electrical
contact between the surface electrode and the
ground can adversely affect the quality of the

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.

voltage measurement and ultimately, the reliability of the formation-resistivity measurement.


To overcome this difficulty, an empirically
derived equation can estimate resistivity without a
voltage measurement. When this method is used,
the CHFR formation resistivities are apparent
rather than absolute. One term of the equation
compensates for the casing shoe, and a second
term accounts for the geometry of the casing
where the measurement is taken. While this formula is not universally applicable, it has provided
satisfactory results in many cases. Even where it
does not work, the general character of the resistivity curve is preserved but the entire curve is

Spring 2001

shifted from the actual resistivity curve. This is


considered acceptable for the CHFR tool since an
openhole reference log will often be available and
will permit adjustment of the K-factor.
Calibrating CHFR logs with respect to openhole logs consists of adjusting the gain of the
CHFR formation-current measurement (effectively the K-factor) to shift the cased-hole log
onto the openhole log. Determining the proper
shift requires knowing the resistivity of one layer,
such as a shale or unperforated reservoir zone,
whose resistivity has not changed since openhole logging.

> The CHFR calibration step with current passing


only from the upper current electrode to the
lower, yielding Rc, the difference in casing
resistance between two measurement points.

CHFR Measurement Components

Value
(approximate)

Differential voltage (V1 -V2 )

5 to 500 nV

Upper, lower voltage (V1,V2 )

20 to 100 V

Casing voltage (V0 )

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

Downgoing casing-segment current (Id )

0 to 3 A

> Typical values detected during CHFR


measurements.

Telemetry

Top current
electrode

Insulating joint

Electronics

13 m

Design and Measurement Challenges


The main objective in the design of the CHFR tool
was to accurately and reliably measure formation
resistivity behind casing, unaffected by casingcontact problems, cement layers and nearwellbore invasion fluids. Additional rigorous
objectives were set for thin-bed detection: to
determine resistivity boundaries, such as bedding, water-oil or oil-gas contacts, to within 1 ft
[0.3 m], and to determine the resistivity-contrast
ratio across the boundary to within 5%.
To design such a tool it was first necessary to
resolve major technical challenges in three
areas: physics, electronics and mechanics. The
physical behavior of electrical current in a cased
well is different from the openhole situation.
Analytical work and modeling provided a good
understanding of the physics and the best way to
handle inherent sources of error and noise associated with electronic components. This work
allowed resistivity logs to be derived from the
raw measurements.
Typical formations have resistivities about
1 billion times higher than that of typical steel
casing. However, because of the large volume of
reservoir rock, the ratio of the formation current
to the applied current falls in the range of 10-3 to
10-5, rather than 10-9. Since the wireline cable
limits the total current that can be applied to the
casing to a few amperes, typical formation

currents are in the milliampere range. Because


the formation currents are measured through a
drop in the casing resistance of a few tens of
ohms, the CHFR measurement is made in the
nanovolt range. The main design challenge was
to develop tool hardware that could accurately
measure nanovolts.
The CHFR Tool
The CHFR tool consists of a newly designed electronics cartridge, a current-injection electrode
that also acts as a centralizer, four sets of measurement voltage electrodes, and a currentreturn electrode that also acts as a centralizer
(left). The tool is 43 ft [13 m] long with a diameter of 338 in., which allows it to be run in 412 in.
tubing and liners. Although the tool can be run
through tubing, it cannot measure formation
resistivity through tubing, only through a single
string of casing. The tool can be run in holes with
up to 70 deviation using an extra centralizer, or
even horizontally, using insulating standoffs.
Each set of electrodes consists of three pads
spaced 120 apart and connected in parallel.
Three arms per set provide improved contact
with the casing and redundant measurements in
the event of poor contact on any one electrode, or
in case an electrode is located at a casing perforation or collar. A typical casing collar is approximately 2 ft long, the same distance that

CHFR Invasion Response

Measurementelectrode
arm section

10 1

Rt = 10 ohm-m
Rxo = 1 ohm-m
Rsh = 100 ohm-m
No cement

Hydraulics

CHFR resistivity, ohm-m

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

> Elements and modules of


the CHFR tool (not to scale).

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Invasion depth, ft

> Depth of investigation (DOI) of the CHFR tool. Depth of investigation


is defined as the point at which half the signal comes from the invaded
zone and half from the uninvaded zone (J = 0.5). For the formation parameters shownvirgin zone Rt = 10 ohm-m, invaded zone Rxo = 1 ohm-m,
and shoulder bed Rsh = 100 ohm-mthe CHFR depth of investigation is
approximately 16 ft [5 m]. Depth of investigation of the CHFR tool, like
all laterolog tools, is affected by the resistivity of the shoulder beds.

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

separates each electrode set, and can affect the


CHFR measurement. Collars may appear as
spikes on the raw casing-impedance curve.
When a CHFR station straddles or overlaps a casing collar, the added steel thickness may affect
the resistivity measurement. Relogging using a
lower operating frequency has minimized the
casing-collar effect in some cases.
Small voltage electrodes on the sonde are
designed to push through small amounts of casing scale and corrosion to establish good electrical contact with the casing, essential for the
CHFR measurement. The tool moves uphole with
electrode arms out to maintain best casing
contact. The three-electrode per level design provides built-in redundancy, so few measurements
have been lost because of electrode failure.
There is no correlation between contact
quality and age of well. To date, only 6 of the
100 wells logged with the CHFR tool have experienced problems with contact quality. In three
of the wells, good contact was maintained
about half the time, while in the other three
wells, good electrical contact was not possible
because of scale buildup or casing corrosion.
The quality of electrical contact is indicated by
the injection-impedance and casing-resistance
measurements.
Prior to running the CHFR tool, preliminary
casing conditioning is recommended to improve
electrical contact, particularly in corroded wells
or when scaleresulting from water production
is present. Prejob preparation can include a bitand-scraper run to remove corrosion or the
SCALE BLASTER service to remove scale.2 Even
in fields where these problems are not seen,
operators may wish to pull tubing and prepare
the casing prior to running the CHFR tool to
reduce the risk of electrical contact problems.
The CHFR tool operating frequency can range
from 0.25 to 10 Hz but is normally kept to 1 Hz.
This low frequency is needed to avoid the polarization and drift that accompany use of DC current and also the casing skin effect that,
depending on casing thicknesstypically 5 to
15 mm [0.2 to 0.6 in.]can become a concern
even at low AC frequencies. When the operating
frequency is too high, the injected current concentrates on the inner part of the casing and will
return directly to the surface during the measurement step without going down first. In these circumstances, there will be no formation current
and therefore no measurement.
The CHFR two-step measurement requires
three levels of electrodes to obtain one resistivity data point. Since the CHFR sonde has four

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).

levels, duplication of the main acquisition


channel makes it possible to acquire two resistivity measurements, 2 ft apart, at each depth
station. The measurement is made with the tool
stationary for two reasons. First, the magnitude
of the measured quantities is very small and
therefore highly sensitive to error. Second, movement of the electrodes along the casing introduces significant noiseas high as 104 times
greater than the formation signal. At best, this
leads to large errors in the formation-resistivity
calculation; at worst, it makes reliable measurement impossible. Station times, including downhole calibration, vary from two to five minutes,
depending on the estimated formation resistivity,
desired accuracy and casing properties. Twominute stations provide an equivalent logging
speed of 120 ft/hr [37 m/hr]. A typical logging
run, consisting of one 1500-ft [457-m] interval,
takes 12 hours. As with nuclear tools, longer
CHFR station times improve the accuracy and
extend the range of measurable resistivities.

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.

Similar to openhole laterologs, the CHFR tool


measures resistances in series; in contrast,
induction response is measured in parallel.
Consequently, the measurement of the current
leaking out of the casing must pass through and
is affected by whatever lies between the casing
and the formation (below).
In the CHFR cased-hole measurement, the
cement layer plays the same role as the invaded
zone in the openhole. Thus, the critical parameters are the contrast between cement and formation resistivities (Rt /Rcem ) and cement thickness.
Results of 2D modeling show that the effect of
cement on the CHFR measurement is negligible
for a conductive cement (Rt /Rcem greater than 1),
but becomes important for a thick or resistive
cement (Rt /Rcem less than 1) (next page, top).
Modeling showed that resistive cement or
very thick cement can cause CHFR apparent

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

cement is less than 10%. A cement correction


has not been required in more than 95% of the
CHFR logging jobs.
There are two additional cement-related factors whose effects on CHFR apparent formation
resistivity are uncertain. One factor is the possible change of cement resistivity with time. This
cannot be determined because measurement of
cement resistivity in situ is not currently possible.
The second factor is the effect of cement job
quality. In this case, it is recommended that
3. Klein JD, Martin PR and Miller AE: Cement Resistivity
and Implications for Measurement of Formation
Resistivity Through Casing, paper SPE 26453, presented
at the 68th SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Houston, Texas, USA, October 3-6, 1993.
Klein JD and Martin PR: The Electrical Resistivity of
Cement, Final Report, Gas Research Institute Report,
GRI-94/0273 (1994).

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

> Difference in tool response of the CHFR tool or laterolog tools


and induction logs. Laterolog devices, including the CHFR tool,
measure borehole and formation resistances in series, while
induction devices measure those resistances in parallel.

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.

Cement Effect on CHFR Measurement

CHFR Cement Sensitivity Chart (7-in. OD Casing)


1.6

120

1.4

Rcem , ohm-m
0.1
1
2
5
10
20

80

60

1.2

1.0

Rt /RCHFR

Relative error on CHFR reading, %

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

Formation resistivity, ohm-m

> Relative error in formation resistivity measurement due to cement


resistivity. For a 7-in. OD casing, 0.75-ohm-m cement layer and formation resistivities less than 1 ohm-m, the effect of cement becomes
increasingly greater. For this reason, the CHFR applications are
recommended for formation resistivities higher than 1.0 ohm-m.

Spring 2001

10 -2

10 -1

100

101

102

RCHFR /Rcem

> CHFR cement sensitivity chart for 7-in. OD casing. Similar to


openhole laterolog borehole-correction charts, this plot shows
the correction coefficient as a function of the apparent resistivity
contrast RCHFR /Rcem, for typical values of cement thickness.

Casing Resistance, Pass 1


0

ohm

Openhole Laterolog Deep


1

100

ohm

100

Casing Thickness
0

in.

Depth, m

Casing Resistance, Pass 2


0

ohm-m

1000

CHFR Resistivity, Pass 1


1

CHFR Resistivity, Pass 2


1

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

CHFR Apparent Resistivity

Gamma Ray
API

100

CCL
-19

Depth, m

1000 1.95

Platform Express Deep Laterolog


1

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).

cement quality be evaluated using CBT Cement


Bond Tool, CET Cement Evaluation Tool or
USI UltraSonic Imager services. Cement thickness can be approximated from the openhole
caliper and casing size. An example from the
Schlumberger test well in Villejust, France, compares two CHFR passes made two years apart
with the original openhole laterolog log, made
30 years earlier (previous page). Field results in
both old (30 years) and new (9 days) wells did not
show any noticeable cement effect.

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

7-in. casing. Drilling continued in the lower zone,


and after openhole resistivity logs were run, 4.5-in.
liner was set. The CHFR tool was then run in both
sections (above). The agreement between the
Platform Express deep laterolog and CHFR resistivity in the lower section provided a high degree
of confidence in the CHFR measurement, which
allowed RAG to evaluate the intermediate section
without further testing. A second pass made over
(continued on page 14)

11

History of Cased-Hole Resistivity Measurement

Measuring resistivity behind casing has long


been a dream in the oil field. In the 1930s, soon
after Conrad and Marcel Schlumberger introduced the first openhole electric logs, the
industry recognized the need for an equivalent
cased-hole measurement to evaluate bypassed
pay and monitor production in the thousands
of wells completed prior to the advent of logging. To obtain resistivity behind casing, the
current leaking through the steel casing into
the adjacent formation must be measured.
Although relatively simple in theory, this is
extremely difficult in practice because of the
enormous contrast in electromagnetic properties of steel and earth formations. Steel casing
is 107 to 1010 times more conductive than the
formations being measured and has a magnetic
permeability that is 10 to 200 times greater.
The net effect of this wide dynamic range is
that the tiny formation signal is masked by the
overwhelming casing signal.
During the past 60 years, numerous patents
have been issued for theories, methods and
apparatus designed to measure and acquire
cased-hole formation resistivity. These patents
have included proposals for both galvanic
electrode or laterolog methodsas well as
induction methods.1
Many of the proposed methods fail to recognize and compensate for a number of factors
1. Examples of proposed galvanic methods include the
following:
Stewart WH: Electrical Logging Method and Apparatus,
U.S. Patent No. 2,459,196 (January 18, 1949).
Fearon RE: Method and Apparatus for Electric Well
Logging, U.S. Patent No. 2,729,784 (January 3, 1956).
Fearon RE: Method and Apparatus for Electric Well
Logging, U.S. Patent No. 2,891,215 (June 16, 1959).
Desbrandes R and Mengez P: Method and Apparatus
for Measuring the Formation Electrical Resistivity in
Wells Having Metal Casing, French Patent No. 72 41218
(2,207,278) (November 20, 1972).
Gard MF, Kingman JEE and Klein JD: Method and
Apparatus for Measuring the Electrical Resistivity of
Geologic Formations Through Metal Drill Pipe or Casing,
U.S. Patent No. 4,837,518 (June 6, 1989).
Kaufman AA: Conductivity Determination in a Formation
Having a Cased Well, U.S. Patent No. 4,796,186
(January 3, 1989).
Vail WB III: Methods and Apparatus for Measurement of
the Resistivity of Geological Formations from Within Cased
Boreholes, U.S. Patent No. 4,820,989 (April 11, 1989).

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

tool.4 During the same period, Alexander


Kaufman independently arrived at a solution
similar to Vails.5 Initial feasibility studies,
tool development and cement evaluation were
supported and funded by a diverse group that
included operating companies, service companies, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE),
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the
Gas Research Institute (GRI, now the Gas
Technology Institute, GTI).6
The first experimental logging of the PML tool
in 1992 proved the measurement concept and
demonstrated several important points.7 First,
the measurements confirmed the theory of operation, and the acquired data generally reproduced features of the openhole laterolog.
Second, measurements were repeatable and
worked in the range of 7 to 100 ohm-m. Third,
casing cement did not appear to affect the
measurement. Finally, vertical resolution was
within an interval of several electrode spacings.
The first successful oilfield test took place in
the DOE MWX-2 research gas well in Rifle,
Colorado, USA, in 1994, using an improved PML
tool design.8 In 1995, Western Atlas began development of a commercial instrument, in conjunction with GRI, and two years later acquired
PML and its technology.9 The Baker Atlas TCRT
(Through Casing Resistivity Tool) is currently
a prototype device in field testing.10

Vail WB III: Methods and Apparatus for Measurement


of Electronic Properties of Geological Formations
Through Borehole Casing, U.S. Patent No. 4,882,542
(November 21, 1989).
Vail WB III: Methods and Apparatus for Measurement
of Electronic Properties of Geological Formations
Through Borehole Casing, U.S. Patent No. 5,043,668
(August 27, 1991).
Vail WB III: Measurement of In-Phase and Out-Of-Phase
Components of Low Frequency A.C. Magnetic Fields
Within Cased Boreholes to Measure Geophysical
Properties of Geological Formations, U.S. Patent No.
5,065,100 (November 12, 1991).
Vail WB III: Electronic Measurement Apparatus Movable
in a Cased Borehole and Compensating for Casing
Resistance Differences, U.S. Patent No. 5,075,626
(December 24, 1991).
Examples of proposed induction methods include the
following:
Vail WB III: Methods and Apparatus For Induction
Logging in Cased Boreholes, U.S. Patent No. 4,748,415
(May 31, 1988).
Gianzero SC, Chemali RE, Sinclair P and Su SM: Method
and Apparatus for Making Induction Measurements
Through Casing, U.S. Patent No. 5,038,107 (August 6, 1991).

2. Alpin LM: The method of the electric logging in the


borehole with casing, U.S.S.R. Patent No. 56,026
(November 30, 1939).
Stewart, reference 1.
3. Desbrandes and Mengez, reference 1.
Mamedov NB: Performance of Electrical Logging of
the Cased Wells with a Six-Electrode Sonde, Izvestiya
Vysshikh Uchebnykh Zavedeniy, Neft I Gaz, (News of
Higher Academic Institutions, Oil and Gas) no. 7 (1987):
11-15 (in Russian).
4. Vail, reference 1.
5. Kaufman, reference 1.
Kaufman AA: The Electrical Field in a Borehole with
a Casing, Geophysics 55, no. 1 (1990): 29-38.
Kaufman AA and Wightman WE: A Transmission-Line
Model for Electrical Logging Through Casing,
Geophysics 58, no. 12 (1993): 1739-1747.
6. Schenkel CJ and Morrison HF: Effects of Well Casing on
Potential Field Measurements Using Downhole Current
Sources, Geophysical Prospecting 38 (1990): 663-686.

Oilfield Review

Schlumberger interest in cased-hole resistivity


logging was a natural outgrowth of the development of the CPET Corrosion and Protection
Evaluation Tool method. This tool already
applied four levels of electrodes to the casing
to measure its resistance and current. Research
began in the late 1980s at Schlumberger-Doll
Research (SDR), Ridgefield, Connecticut, USA,
and in 1992, a cased-hole formation-resistivity
project was established at the Schlumberger
Riboud Product Centre (SRPC) in Clamart,
France. In 1995, the SRPC project team evaluated
the PML technology in relation to their own
design efforts and elected to continue the development of Schlumberger CHFR Cased Hole
Formation Resistivity technology. An intensive
research and engineering effort developed new
downhole electronics and signal processing as
well as methods for supplying power downhole
and maintaining electrode contact. A singlechannel experimental tool obtained the first
log in 1996. In 1998, a second-generation experimental tool, using a two-channel design, was
introduced to the field. The subsequent engineering prototypes and commercial tools employ this
two-channel design.11 More than 100 wells around
the world have been successfully logged with the
CHFR service, and tool production is gearing up
to meet increasing worldwide demand (left).
The CHFR tool delivers a measurement that
reads deeper, approximately 2 m [6.6 ft], than
conventional cased-hole saturation monitoring
from nuclear tools, approximately 25 cm
[10 in.]. Unlike nuclear measurements, the
CHFR resistivity measurement can work
at low formation porosity or salinity and allows
easy and direct comparison with openhole
resistivity logs.

> Close-up of the CHFR measurement electrodes.


Schenkel CJ: The Electrical Resistivity Method in Cased
Boreholes, University of California, Berkeley, USA, PhD
dissertation (1991). Published as report LBL-31139:
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley,
California (1991).
Schenkel C and Morrison HF: Electrical Resistivity
Measurement Through Metal Casing, Geophysics 59,
no. 10 (1994): 1072-1082.
Klein et al, reference 3, main text.
Klein and Martin, reference 3, main text.
Vail WB and Momii ST: Proof of Feasibility of the
Through Casing Resistivity Technology, Final Report,
Gas Research Institute Report GRI-96/033 (1996).
Zhang X, Singer B and Shen LC: Quick Look Inversion of
Through-Casing Resistivity Measurement, Final Report,
Gas Research Institute Report GRI-96/0001 (1996).
7. Vail WB, Momii ST, Woodhouse R, Alberty M, Peveraro
RCA and Klein JD: Formation Resistivity Measurements
Through Metal Casing, Transactions of the SPWLA 34th
Annual Logging Symposium, Calgary, Alberta, Canada,
June 13-16, 1993, paper F.

Spring 2001

8. Vail WB, Momii ST and Dewan JT: Through Casing


Resistivity Measurements and Their Interpretation for
Hydrocarbon Saturations, paper SPE 30582, presented
at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
Dallas, Texas, USA, October 22-25, 1995.
Vail WB, Momii ST, Haines H, Gould JF Jr and Kennedy WD:
Formation Resistivity Measurements Through Metal
Casing at the MWX-2 Well in Rifle, Colorado,
Transactions of the SPWLA 36th Annual Logging
Symposium, Paris, France, June 26-29, 1995, paper OO.
9. Tabarovsky LA, Cram ME, Tamarchenko TV, Strack K-M
and Singer BS: Through-Casing Resistivity (TCR)
Physics, Resolution and 3-D Effects, Transactions of
the SPWLA 35th Annual Logging Symposium, Tulsa,
Oklahoma, USA, June 19-22, 1994, paper TT.
Singer BS, Fanini O, Strack K-M, Tabarovsky LA and
Zhang X: Through-Casing Resistivity: 2-D and 3-D
Distortions and Correction Techniques, Transactions
of the SPWLA 36th Annual Logging Symposium, Paris,
France, June 26-29, 1995, paper PP.

Singer BS, Fanini O, Strack K-M, Tabarovsky LA and


Zhang X: Measurement of Formation Resistivity
Through Steel Casing, paper SPE 30628, presented at
the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
Dallas, Texas, USA, October 22-25, 1995.
Maurer H-M, Fanini O and Strack K-M: GRI Pursues
Goal of Commercial Through-Casing Resistivity
Measurement, Gas Research Institute Gas Tips 2,
no. 2 (1996): 10-13.
Singer BS and Strack K-M: New Aspects of ThroughCasing Resistivity Theory, Geophysics 63, no. 1 (1998):
52-63.
10. Maurer HM and Hunziker J: Early Results of Through
Casing Resistivity Field Tests, Petrophysics 41, no. 4
(2000): 309-314.
11. Wu X and Habashy TM: Influence of the Steel Casings
on Electromagnetic Signals, Geophysics 59, no. 2
(1994): 378-390.
Bguin P, Benimeli D, Boyd A, Dubourg I, Ferreira A,
McDougall A, Rouault G and VanderWal P: Recent
Progress on Formation Resistivity Measurement
Through Casing, Transactions of the SPWLA 41st
Annual Logging Symposium, Dallas, Texas, USA,
June 4-7, 2000, paper CC.

13

Gamma Ray
API

100

CHFR Apparent Resistivity

Casing-Segment Resistance
0

ohm

0.0001

Repeat Casing-Segment Resistance


0

ohm

Depth, m

0.0001

ohm-m

1000

Repeat CHFR Apparent Resistivity


1

ohm-m

1000

1200

1250

> Excellent repeatability of the CHFR measurement (Track 2) in a shallower


section of the same Austrian well.

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

The CHFR tool measures a resistivity range of


1 to 100 ohm-m with 10% accuracy. The lower
limit of 1 ohm-m is set by the influence of cement.
The upper limit of 100 ohm-m is set by the signalto-noise ratio and the acceptable time per station.
Depending on casing diameter, thickness and
weight, and distance to the casing shoe, the
actual upper limit may be higher than 100 ohm-m.
Prejob planning can determine whether reservoir

properties are suited to the CHFR service as well


as the relationship between the maximum formation resistivity that may be measured and the station acquisition time required to achieve the
desired accuracy and precision.
Results from a TOTAL ABK monitoring well
offshore Abu Dhabi, UAE, show the importance
of complete data acquisition and cement correction for extending the specified operating limits

Oilfield Review

CHFR Resistivity
0.2

ohm-m

0.2

ohm-m

2000

Rxo

in.

Platform Express Shallow Laterolog


16

Gamma Ray
0

API

Depth, ft

Caliper
6

2000

150

0.2

ohm-m

2000

Neutron Porosity
0.6

Platform Express Deep Laterolog


0.2

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

CHFR Resistivity Recomputed Using Voltage


150

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

Cement-Corrected CHFR Resistivity

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.

of the CHFR tool (above). Review of other field


data indicated that the distribution of the applied
casing current in this well varied significantly
from the CHFR model: the downward component
of the applied current was much greater than the
upward component. This situation can be
explained by poor electrical contact between the
412-in. liner and the 7-in. casing above the injection point, which prevented the current from
flowing in the path expected for homogeneous
casing. Poor electrical contact between casing
strings can result in significant error in the CHFR
resistivity calculation, particularly when the voltage is estimated, rather than measured.
In this case, a DC voltage measurement had
been acquired on the same run and could be
included in a recomputation of CHFR resistivity.
The recomputed results are closer to the openhole data but still high.
In the aquifer zone from XX45 to XX70 m, openhole resistivity is in the range of 0.2 to 0.3 ohm-m,
well below the normal operating range of the

16

CHFR tool. Cement resistivity is known to be


within the acceptable range. However, at these
low formation resistivities, the influence of
cement on CHFR measurements cannot be
ignored. A cement correction (5-ohm-m cement
resistivity and 0.75-in. thickness) was calculated
and applied to the recomputed CHFR data. The
resulting CHFR resistivities now closely match the
openhole data over this interval that was initially
thought to be outside the CHFR operating range.
In addition to cement and formation-resistivity
restrictions, CHFR vertical resolution has some
limitations. Vertical resolution is a function of the
voltage electrode spacing. The 4-ft [1.2-m] value
represents the minimum bed thickness for which
the reading is correct in the middle of the bed. An
oil-water contact (OWC) can be localized to 1 ft,
even with a 2-ft station spacing acquisition. The
depth of investigation is 7 to 37 ft [2 to 11 m]
nearly unlimited by most wireline logging standards. It varies slightly with the contrast between
the cement and formation resistivity.

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

Openhole Laterolog Deep


0.2

ohm-m

200

Openhole Laterolog Shallow


0.2

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.

Openhole Laterolog Shallow


Spontaneous
Potential
-80

mV

20

Depth, ft

or tool failure prevent successful logging. Now,


with the CHFR service, cased-hole devices can
provide the needed data. In one recent North Sea
well, logging-while drilling (LWD) tools failed and
no other openhole logs were available. Without
the evaluation provided by the CHFR log, the
operator might have abandoned the well. In
another case, hole conditions prevented acquisition of openhole logs; without the cased-hole
evaluation provided by the CHFR tool, the operator would have had to drill another well for
proper evaluation of the reservoir. Field experience now indicates that contingency logging
comprises a substantial portion of the total market for behind-casing resistivity.
Identifying bypassed payBypassed pay
constitutes a significant percentage of potential
reserves in many old fields. This category
includes not only zones that were inadvertently
missed or misidentified, but also those that were
deliberately bypassed and others that experienced resaturation after years of production. In
these cases, wells may have been drilled prior to
the availability of well logging or of modern
tools. Cased-hole evaluation facilitates identification of these zones and allows estimation of
additional reserves.
Deep invasion sometimes masks producible
zones. The openhole laterolog in one Indonesian
well was highly affected by invasion and underestimated the resistivity (right, top). Since curve
separation from X725 to X950 ft suggested a wet
zone, it was not perforated. Soon after the well
was completed, it produced nearly 100% water
from deeper zones and was shut in. A few months
later, after the mud filtrate had time to disperse, a
CHFR log indicated that this zone was actually
hydrocarbon-bearing. The zone was completed on
the basis of the CHFR log interpretation and is
producing at the rate of 200 BOPD [32 m3/d].
Reservoir monitoringReservoir monitoring
consists of time-lapse logginglogging at different timesto track changes in saturation and
monitor the position of fluid contacts during production and flooding projects. This technique has
been successful in another Indonesian well,
where the CHFR log showed an unexpected
oil-water contact 12 ft [3.5 m] below the original OWC determined from the openhole logs
(right). This lower zone was perforated and three
weeks later was producing 2150 BOPD
[342 m3/d] with no water cut, confirming the
CHFR results. The most likely explanation is that

API

200

Openhole Laterolog Deep


2

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

Low porosity (<15 p.u.)

Limitation on maximum measurable Rt

Moderate porosity and low


salinity (< 20 ppk)

Limitation on maximum measurable Rt

Moderate porosity
and moderate salinity
High porosity (>30 p.u.) and
high salinity (Gulf of Mexico)

CHFR tool could work but cement effect


becomes important at low Rt /Rcem.

Variable (flood)

CHFR tool can identify change from original


reservoir saturation but not quantitatively.

Very low water saturation

Limitation on maximum measurable Rt

Remarks

Completion
Casing collars

CHFR tool may lose data over 4 to 6 ft. RST tool


C/O mode will give good answers after SpectroLith
processing quantifies the iron content.

Run-in through small tubing


Log inside tubing

RST tool will give answer as long as the fluid


effect between tubing and casing can be corrected.

Heavy casing

40 lbm/ft limit for CHFR signal-to-noise

Dual casing

RST tool will give answer as long as the


fluid/formation/cement effect between
tubing and casing can be corrected. In C/O
mode, characterization may be needed.

Alloy or chrome casing

Electrode scratching may induce corrosion.

Fiberglass casing

Induction logging is another option.

Remarks

Borehole
Dry microannulus
Gas-cut cement
Washed-out holes

Sigma can stand washout size roughly


twice as large as in C/O mode. If washout is
comparable to depth of investigation, then
sigma also will be affected.

Flowing wells
Fluid contacts in hole
Near-wellbore effects

Sigma is robust compared to C/O mode


due to depth of investigation.

Deviated wells
Acid effect
Perforations
Lithology
Scale

CHFR tool relies on good electrical contact


between electrodes and casing. Casing
must be clean.

> Chart comparing the applicability of CHFR resistivity and


RST carbon/oxygen and sigma measurements to different
formation conditions. In many borehole and reservoir
conditions, the tool measurements are complementary.

the waterflood project in the field had swept a


bank of oil to the vicinity of this well, but the oil
could not be produced through the higher perforations because of a vertical-permeability barrier.
While the CHFR tool can provide resistivity
measurements behind casing, more can be

18

Not recommended except with expert advice


Use as recommended in remarks
Application is recommended

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

in reservoirs with low porosity and low formation


salinity, conditions that are generally unfavorable
for accurate evaluation by nuclear tools. Where
borehole and conditions are unfavorable for the
CHFR measurement, nuclear logs can provide the
necessary data (above).

Oilfield Review

Openhole Porosity
0.5

Openhole Porosity
0.5

ft3/ft3

0.5

Water Vol. Undisturbed


Zone Openhole

0.5

ft3/ft3

Depth, ft
0

Openhole Porosity
0 0.5

0.5

ft3/ft3

CHFR Hydrocarbon (1)

ft3/ft3

CHFR Hydrocarbon (3)


Water Vol. Undisturbed
Zone CHFR Run 2

CHFR Hydrocarbon (2)

CHFR Hydrocarbon (1)

Filtrate or Depletion

Filtrate or Depletion

Water Vol. Undisturbed


Zone Openhole

Water Vol. Undisturbed


Zone CHFR Run 2

Water Vol. Undisturbed


Zone CHFR Run 3

0.5

ft3/ft3

0 0.5

ft3/ft3

CHFR Hydrocarbon (2)

Filtrate or Depletion
0

Water Vol. Flushed Zone


Openhole

ft3/ft3

ft3/ft3

Water Vol. Undisturbed


Zone CHFR Run 1

Water Vol. Undisturbed


Zone CHFR Run 1

Moved Hydrocarbon

0.5

Openhole Porosity
0 0.5

Hydrocarbon (OH)

Openhole (OH) Hydrocarbon

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.

To better understand reservoir behavior, CHFR


resistivity and porosity measurements from
nuclear devices, such as the RST tool, can be
combined to provide a quantitative saturation
evaluation that is equivalent to an openhole interpretation. The RST tool provides two important
measurements for determining hydrocarbon saturation and porosity. The ratio of the relative abundance of carbon and oxygen in a formation can
predict hydrocarbon and water saturations independently of water salinity. The thermal-decay
measurement, sigma, is used to estimate porosity
and hydrocarbon saturation in salty formations.4

Spring 2001

A combined interpretation of cased-hole resistivity and nuclear measurements can be seen in a


monitoring well from a Middle East carbonate oil
reservoir (above). After openhole logging, casing
was set in this monitor well and several casedhole devices, including the CHFR and RST tools,
logged at intervals over the next 15 months.
During this period, and before an injector well
was active in this area, the series of log runs
showed a progressive increase in CHFR apparent
resistivity indicating hydrocarbon resaturation in
the primary oil zone between X0995 to X1085 ft.
Subsequent to the second run, water injection

began in a well approximately 100 m away. At the


time of the third cased-hole logging run, the flood
front was approaching the monitor well and influencing the deep-reading CHFR measurement,
thereby enabling the effects of water injection to
be detected and quantified. In contrast to the
4. Adolph B, Stoller C, Brady J, Flaum C, Melcher C, Roscoe B,
Vittachi A and Schnorr D: Saturation Monitoring with
the RST Reservoir Saturation Tool, Oilfield Review 6, no.
1 (January 1994): 29-39.
Albertin I, Darling H, Mahdavi M, Plasek R, Cedeo I,
Hemingway J, Richter P, Markley M, Olesen J-R,
Roscoe B and Zeng W: The Many Facets of Pulsed
Neutron Cased-Hole Logging, Oilfield Review 8, no. 2
(Summer 1996): 28-41.

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

the reference openhole values through the ratio:


(RCHFR /R OH )1/2 = S WOH /S WCHFR , where RCHFR is
CHFR apparent formation resistivity; ROH is reference openhole formation resistivity; S WOH is
Archie openhole water saturation calculated
using ROH; and S WCHFR is Archie cased-hole water
saturation calculated using RCHFR .
The advantages of this approach are that it is
relatively immune to the CHFR geometricalfactor, does not require knowledge of the formation water resistivityalthough it is assumed
that it has remained unchanged between the
openhole and cased-hole logsand does not
require knowledge of the porosity. If an incorrect
K-factor is used, the curve baseline, which
should be 1.0 in clean, water-bearing formations,
will be shifted. Even in this case, however, it

Water Vol. Flushed Zone


RST Run 1

Hydrocarbon (OH)
Openhole Porosity
0.5

ft3/ft3

RST Sigma Hydrocarbon (1) 0.5


0

Openhole Porosity

Hydrocarbon (OH)

0.5

ft3/ft3

ft3/ft3

RST Sigma Hydrocarbon (2)


0

RST Sigma Hydrocarbon (1)


0

Openhole Porosity
Moved Hydrocarbon

Filtrate or Depletion

Water Vol. Flushed Zone


Openhole

Water Vol. Flushed Zone


RST Run 1

ft3/ft3

Water Vol. Undisturbed


Zone Openhole
0.5

ft3/ft3

0.5

Depth, ft

0.5

X0950

ft3/ft3

0.5

0 0.5

ft3/ft3

ft3/ft3

RST Sigma Hydrocarbon (3)


Water Vol. Flushed Zone
RST Run 2
0.5

Water Vol. Flushed Zone


RST Run 2

Water Vol. Undisturbed


Zone Openhole
0.5

ft3/ft3

Filtrate or Depletion

ft3/ft3

Filtrate or Depletion
Water Vol. Flushed Zone
RST Run 3
0.5

RST Sigma Hydrocarbon (2)


0

should still be possible to identify the baseline


position and to detect depleted zones by deflection of the curve toward the left of this baseline.
At the same time, this approach retains the limitations inherent in the Archie approach, such as
the assumption of a clean sand formation.
The depletion index provided a quantitative
measure of the extent of reservoir depletion in a
27-year old North Slope, Alaska, USA, production
well (next page, top). The casing-resistance
curves for each measurement channel for two
separate runs overlay, indicating good electrode
contact. The reduced CHFR resistivity relative to
the openhole resistivity clearly indicates depletion in the two squeezed-off oil zones, X720 to
X740 ft and X820 to X955 ft.

ft3/ft3

Openhole Porosity
0.5

ft3/ft3

< Fluid-volume calculations based


on cased-hole nuclear measurements for the same Middle East well
made at the same times as the CHFR
tool runs. In contrast to the CHFR
logs, the shallow-reading nuclear
log indicates no significant change
in saturation over time, that is,
within its shallow DOI it continues to
measure mostly filtrate. The hydrocarbon volumes remain essentially
the same as they were during
openhole logging. The difference
between resistivity and nuclear
evaluations indicates an annulus or
damaged zone has been created
around the borehole. Consequently,
the effect of nearby injector wells
cannot be monitored using the RST
tool alone; a combined interpretation
is necessary.

X1000

X1050

X1100

20

Oilfield Review

Another monitoring example comes from a


mature field in Indonesia. The reservoir is made
up of a series of channel sands with a wide range
of permeability. Production from these sands is
often commingled and, because of low formation
pressures, requires downhole pumps. Typically,
the high-permeability zones are the major contributors to production; they deplete first, then
produce significant amounts of water. Nuclear
carbon/oxygen (C/O) logs are routinely used to
monitor reservoir production and depletion.
Interpretation of C/O logs is complicated by
two factors. First, because of low reservoir pressure, once the pumps are stopped to work over
the well, borehole fluid reinvades the reservoir.
This newly created invaded zone causes the
shallow-reading C/O logs to underestimate the
oil saturation. Also, pressure differences
between zones can result in crossflow.
One solution is to squeeze off all the perforations and leave the well idle for two to three
weeks to allow the near-borehole region to
return to reservoir conditions before running the
C/O log and perforating new intervals. This
approach, however, is expensive and results in
significant lost production.
Furthermore, the squeeze process itself, during which a large volume of water is injected into
the formation at high pressure prior to cementing, may actually result in a long-term change in
the formation saturation near the wellbore. The
C/O logs often show oil saturations below the
residual oil saturation; this finding could be due
to the permanent flushing of residual oil away
from the near-borehole region by the highpressure squeeze. These practices, combined
with variable cement quality in old wells, make
accurate interpretation of C/O logs a challenge.

Pull completion

API

180

Casing-Segment Resistance
ohm

5x10-5

Openhole Deep Induction


0.2

Production

0.2

Time, days

Run scraper
Run CHFR tool
Pull completion

Spring 2001

Selectively cement
depleted zones

ohm-m

Archie Sw Depletion Ratio


200 0

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.

Run carbon/oxygen log

10

200

CHF Apparent Resistivity

Open

Production
0

ohm-m

Depth, ft

Squeezed

Reperforate
appropriate zones

Wait for invaded


fluid to dissipate

Cement all zones

Gamma Ray
30

15

> Reservoir monitoring time line for an Indonesian


well. The numbers of steps and days required for
carbon/oxygen (C/O) monitoring (top) are contrasted with those for CHFR monitoring (bottom).
CHFR logging resulted in 14 days earlier production plus savings that resulted from elimination of
unnecessary interval cementing and reperforating.

The CHFR service suffers from none of these


drawbacks and gives the operator a more accurate and cost-effective alternative to C/O logging
for identifying depleted zones (left). Prior to executing a squeeze job in an Indonesian well, a
CHFR run was performed, followed weeks later
by two more CHFR runs and a C/O log acquisition. The deep CHFR depth of investigation
allowed the first log to be run immediately after

21

Moved Water
Moved Hydrocarbon
Water
Depletion

Depletion

Porosity
ft3/ft3

0.5

ft3/ft3

Openhole Resistivity
0.2

ohm-m

RST Oil Volume

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

CHFR Oil Volume


0 0.5

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.

pulling the completion, prior to squeezing and


waiting for the invaded zone to return to residual
conditions (above).
The first CHFR job was the most accurate run
because it occurred before the cement squeeze
job, which injected a large amount of water into
the formation. The second and third CHFR runs
showed reduced resistivities because of the
large amount of injected water. The C/O log run

22

at the same time as the third CHFR run greatly


underestimates the saturation of remaining oil
due to its inability to see past the invaded zone.
The first CHFR run shows that beyond the invasion this interval has preserved nearly the original oil saturation. Compared to the C/O log,
the CHFR tool provided a more accurate, deepreading log, as well as considerable savings in
production time and expense.

Many oil fields in the Middle East use


enhanced methods to improve oil recovery in
their carbonate reservoirs. Flood projects use
injected water, gas or both, to sweep oil to the
producing wells. Logs in monitor wells generally
indicate good drainage in the high-permeability,
grain-supported carbonates but frequently indicate inconsistent drainage in the lower- and
mixed-permeability mud-supported carbonate
zones. Individual flow units within these lower
permeability zones are often capped by thin,
high-permeability layers that allow water or
gas fingering during the floods and prevent
good recovery.5
Historically, the progress of these floods has
been evaluated through dedicated monitor wells
using thermal-decay sigma or C/O nuclear measurements in steel casing, or induction logs in
fiberglass casing. Each of these methods has limitations. Nuclear tools work best in steel casing
and in medium- to high-porosity formations. The
nuclear sigma measurement requires saline formation water. Mud filtrate and acids used to stimulate the reservoir may damage the near-borehole
region, often lingering for months or years.
Nuclear devices, which have a shallow depth of
investigationless than 12 in. [30 cm]may not
see beyond the filtrate-invaded zone. Fiberglass
casing deteriorates with time and develops leaks;
induction logs run in such circumstances may be
unreliable. Typically, when leakage occurs, fiberglass is replaced by steel casing. Under these
conditions, CHFR logging may be more suitable
and may provide better answers than traditional
nuclear measurements.
The CHFR depth of investigation allows it not
only to monitor the uninvaded zone but, under
some conditions, to provide early indication of
approaching flood fronts. In one Middle East
monitor well, two CHFR logs were acquired in a
four-month period (next page, left). No change
was detected in the reservoir between runs. In
addition, except for one zone, the overall match
between openhole LWD deep resistivity and
CHFR apparent resistivity is excellent at both low
and high resistivities. Modeling has shown that
the higher CHFR resistivity in the interval X850 to
X890 ft is due to an event far from the borehole,
possibly an oil leg or the gas-flood front, perhaps
50 to 100 ft [15 to 30 m] beyond the borehole.
The LWD resistivity is responding to the nearborehole water-flooded zone.
5. For more on production from carbonates: Akbar M,
Vissapragada B, Alghamdi AH, Allen D, Herron M,
Carnegie A, Dutta D, Olesen J-R, Chourasiya RD, Logan D,
Stief D, Netherwood R, Russell SD and Saxena K:
A Snapshot of Carbonate Reservoir Evaluation,
Oilfield Review 12, no. 4 (Winter 2000/2001): 20-41.

Oilfield Review

CHFR Run 3 (Dec 16)

CHFR Run 2 (Sep 28)


0.2

0.2

0.2

100

Caliper

LWD Resistivity
0.2

ohm-m

ohm-m

ohm-m

100

CHFR Run 2 (Oct 20)

CHFR Run 1 (May 30)


150

Casing Collars
-9

0.2

100

100

in.

Gamma Ray
0

API

ohm-m

100

CHFR Run 1 (July 26)


14

Depth, ft

API

Depth, ft

Gamma Ray
0

ohm-m

150

0.2

ohm-m

100

Openhole Deep Laterolog


0.2

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.

In another well, the CHFR tool was run three


different times: three, six and eight months after
the well was cased to monitor fluid movement
during a waterflood (above right). All three runs
repeat and match the openhole deep laterolog
except between X0970 and X1020 ft, where
CHFR apparent resistivity is progressively
increasing with time. The increase in cased-hole
resistivity between the first and second runs

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.

validated the reservoir-simulation model that


predicted that water injection into this highpermeability zone would push a bank of oil past
this well. This example demonstrates CHFR
repeatability and the ability of the deep-reading
CHFR tool to detect remote changes long before
near-borehole nuclear methods could detect
changes in reservoir fluids.

Enhancing Production Efficiency


Elk Hills oil field, near Bakersfield, California,
USA, is one of the largest in the United States,
with cumulative production exceeding 1.2 billion
BOE [190 million m3] and remaining reserves of
250 million BOE [39 million m3]. Prior to privatization in 1998, Elk Hills was part of the United
States Naval Petroleum Reserves. Now operated
by Occidental Oil and Gas (OXY), the field has

23

Elk Hills, California

40

00

450

6000

550

km

miles

Horizontal well
Injector well

MBB sand pinchout


Approximate MBB waterflood front

> 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

within the Miocene Monterey formation.


Openhole resistivity logs frequently are old normal or laterologs whose response must be modeled to modern equivalents before they can serve
as reference logs for cased-hole resistivity. The
logging and producing environments present
challenges for conventional cased-hole formation
evaluation. The sands contain fresh pore water
and frequently have low porosities. Pulsed neutron and C/O logs are rarely run because of the
existing wellbore completions. A shallow depth
of investigation causes the cased-hole nuclear
tools to detect the kill fluid that has invaded the
perforated intervals.

For running of cased-hole resistivity tools


here, standard operating practices include
pulling the completion and preparing the casing
using a scraper and brush to ensure good electrical contact. To build confidence in the cased-hole
measurement, the CHFR tool was logged at 1-ft
[0.3-m] high-density sample spacing. This reduced
the statistical uncertainty in the measurement by
increasing the signal-to-noise ratio and improved
vertical resolution.
The average CHFR log in this field covers a
1000-ft [300-m] interval, including a short unperforated interval used to verify the CHFR calibration
with the openhole logs. Although a 1-ft sample
interval is used, because the CHFR tool makes two
measurements per station, the time required for
logging an average well was only 12 hr.

Oilfield Review

Spring 2001

Scale
Cased-Hole Gamma Ray
0.7

API

CHFR Resistivity
70

Openhole Gamma Ray


0.7

API

Depth, ft

In 1978, a peripheral water-injection project


was implemented in the Main Body B (MBB)
Stevens sand on the 31S structure. The
31S structure is the largest and most prolific of
the Elk Hills Stevens structures and contains the
26R and MBB turbidite reservoirs.
Water has steadily advanced up the structure
during the past 20 years of injection (previous
page, top). The 315A-34S well was drilled in
1982 as a vertical producer in the MBB and was
producing more than 300 BWPD [48 m3/d]. A logging program consisting of cased-hole gamma
ray and CHFR measurements was proposed to
identify water and the location of water entry. In
the upper, permeable interval, differences between
the openhole and cased-hole gamma ray are
attributed to barium scale and used to identify
water entry (right).
Before the CHFR tool was run, the casing was
cleaned. In oil zones depleted through production
and swept by the waterflood, CHFR resistivity is
less than openhole resistivity. The dark blue flag
indicates intervals where both the gamma ray
and the CHFR resistivity indicate water breakthrough. The tighter lower intervals show fewer
breakthrough effects. A casing patch was set
over the original perforations (yellow flags), and
then the well was reperforated in the lower interval. However, as a result of operational difficulties, an attempt to test this section was
mechanically unsuccessful.
Occidentals experience with cased-hole
resistivity and the CHFR tool has been extremely
positive. OXY engineers and petrophysicists now
prefer cased-hole resistivity to traditional nuclear
measurements because they find resistivity interpretation is simpler, more straightforward, and
less uncertain than interpretation of thermaldecay sigma or C/O measurements. With casedhole resistivity, high resistivity indicates pay, and
lower resistivity relative to openhole logs indicates produced or swept zones. High-density
sampling at a 1-ft sample interval is recommended in laminated beds. Finally, Occidentals
petrophysicists now have sufficient confidence in
the measurement to recommend it in problem
wells, instead of nuclear logs.

20

Openhole Deep Induction


2

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.

The Future of Cased-Hole


Formation Evaluation
With the enormous base of existing wells in old
and producing fields, as well as the huge potential for future wells, the need for cased-hole formation evaluation is clear. Cased-hole logging
not only provides information on bypassed pay
and changing fluid contacts, but also reduces risk
by allowing formation evaluation when openhole
resistivity logs are not practical. The benefits are
also clear: more revenue, lower costs and earlier
production of reserves. Cased-hole resistivity
enables operators to better optimize their operations, while still acquiring the data for evaluation
and planning.
Over the past 10 years, the suite of casedhole devices providing behind-casing formation
evaluation has expanded to meet growing demand.

As an addition to the traditional nuclear and


acoustic measurements, the new CHFR tool provides a familiar measurement that solves important industry formation-evaluation needs in both
new and old wells. Cased-hole resistivity allows
reservoir monitoring in conditions unfavorable for
traditional nuclear logs and enhanced evaluation
when combined with nuclear measurements in
favorable conditions.
No one can predict what advances will
be made in the next 60 years, but the near future
is easy to foresee. As more operators gain experience with the CHFR tool and push the limits of
current technology, innovative applications will
be established and more cased-hole formationevaluation hurdles will be overcome. The rewards
will be finding more oil and gas.
SP, LS

25