SPE 131098

Logging under Harsh Conditions with New Shuttle-Deployed Memory Tools

and Impact on Log Quality, Time and Costs
Luis Javier Miranda, SPE, and Franklyn Angel, SPE, Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A.

Copyright 2010, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2010 SPE EUROPEC/EAGE Annual Conference and Exhibition held in Barcelona, Spain, 14–17 June 2010.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have not been
reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to
reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
Operational conditions in certain fields can cause various difficulties during logging operations. When such situations occur,
we usually opt for logging-while-drilling (LWD) tools. In this paper, we present field applications and advantages of a new
generation of tools called shuttle-deployed memory (SDM) tools. Because they can operate under critical borehole conditions
and highly deviated wells, SDM tools offer a viable alternative to LWD.

We successfully applied this technology to acquire well-log data in two fields of clastic and carbonate reservoirs in the
Barinas-Apure Basin, Southwest Venezuela. In this area, conditioning the hole is a required procedure before running
logging tools; therefore, the logging system’s capacity to get information while conditioning the borehole favored its
application when logging under harsh conditions. We show three cases considering wells with angle of deviation up to 40º,
dog leg severity up to 4º/100 ft, and several washout and unsteady zones. A comparison with resistivity measurements
obtained using an LWD tool is also included in one of the cases, illustrating remarkable improvements in log quality. We also
used the acquired information as an input for petrophysical assessment. The results satisfactorily compared against neighbor
wells with data obtained from conventional wireline logging tools and rock-core measurements. Likewise, a detailed analysis
of time and cost describes the impact of the application of this type of technology on operations in Guafita and La Victoria
Fields in Venezuela.

We conclusively found that the application of SDM tools for formation evaluation data acquisition reduces logging time by
62% and logging costs up to 44% in these fields. In addition, we obtained reliable well-log information with significant
improvements in log quality. More important, the application of SDM tools allowed us to bypass the limitations in terms of
variety and quantity for logs that were commonly acquired with LWD tools.

Introduction
The need for well logging and formation evaluation data has produced recent advances. These developments include
significant improvements in wireline depth accuracy, novel methods for tool deployments, tools for casing appraisal,
advances in LWD tools and telemetry systems, azimuthal-density imaging, and digital-outcrop modeling, among others
(Prensky, 2009). Operational and geological conditions in certain fields can cause significant difficulties during logging
operations. When such situations occur, we usually opt for logging-while-drilling (LWD) tools. In other cases, there is a new
generation of tools called shuttle-deployed memory (SDM) tools that can be implemented for such conditions. In this paper,
we present three cases of field applications for this tool including the obtained results (technical and economical) and
observed advantages. SDM tools can operate under critical borehole conditions and highly deviated wells, offering a viable
alternative to LWD.

Critical borehole conditions include swelling clays content in clastic reservoirs of Guafita and La Victoria Oilfields, and
geomechanical stresses associated to complex active structural regimes, which have been a main issue while drilling deviated
wells in this southwestern area of Venezuela. These two factors usually cause operational problems that are a threat for the
acquisition of formation evaluation data (Angel et al., 2009). In fact, it is usually necessary to modify planned well-log
program due to previously described issues. The most common practice is to condition the well with a LWD tool composed
of Gamma Ray and Resistivity (Induction) tools and then, after running casing and performing cementation, porosity and
lithology information is acquired with Cased Hole Logging (CHL) tools. LWD tools are usually limited in data quality due to
2 SPE 131098

its limited vertical resolution and depth of investigation, and, on the other hand, cased hole logs readings are highly affected
by the casing itself and by the condition of the cementation process between casing and formation. Such conditions produce
uncertainty in the reservoir properties resulting from a conventional petrophysical assessment process and, in some cases,
these interpretations might cause erroneous decisions at perforating the “most attractive” producing intervals and, in other
cases, a numerical simulation mismatch of the reservoirs involved.

Apart from the previously mentioned problems regarding the running of LWD and CHL tools, the main concerning issues in
terms of the oil industry are time consumption and, of course, economics, which affects directly the well profitability. This is
why the aim of this work is mainly to show the results of running SDM tools in three wells of Barinas-Apure Basin oilfields
and how the application of this technology yields to reliable logging data and also helps reduce both time consuming
operations and high costs related to data acquisition.

General description of the oilfields

Guafita and La Victoria oilfields are located in Apure state in southwestern Venezuela, very close to the Colombian border.
Guafita Field is located 43 kms approximately to the southwest of the city of Guasdualito, Apure State, Venezuela, and is
contiguous with the Columbia fields Caño-Limón and La Yuca, from which it is separated by the river Arauca (Fig. 1). The
field was discovered in 1984 with the drilling of well GF-1X, completed with 1297 STB/D, natural flow. La Victoria Field is
located 40 km to the west of Guafita Field (See also Fig. 1). This field was also discovered in 1984 with well LVT-1X,
completed with 1283 STB/D, natural flow. Guafita and La Victoria Fields have accumulated 425.66 and 204.59 million STB
of crude oil respectively coming from highly productive wells (vertical, directional or horizontal), producing from various
horizons. Fig. 2 illustrates a stratigraphic column of the Apure area showing the vertical location of the intervals of interest.
According to the stratigraphic column for the reservoirs of these fields, oil-producing formations belong to the Guafita
(Tertiary), Navay (Cretaceous) and Escandalosa (Cretaceous) formations (González de Juana et al., 1980; PDVSA, 2009).

Reservoirs in these two fields comprise mainly shaly sandstones (consolidated in La Victoria and non-consolidated in
Guafita), interbedded with shales and non-producing limestones (only in some Cretaceous reservoirs). Dispersed clays
content within the sandstone reservoirs are mainly a mixture of Caolinite, Illite and Smectite, whose swelling characteristics
represent a problem when drilling with water-based muds. Also, the continuous presence of very thin shale beds (laminar
clay) within these reservoirs is a concerning issue when running resistivity or induction tools since these clays tend to lower
down the measured resistivity, which yields to an under-estimation in reserves. Fig. 3 shows an example of typical thin shale
beds present in Guafita Field reservoirs (Omni, 2007); they are usually observed in La Victoria Field reservoirs as well. This
is one of the main reasons why the vertical resolution of the logging tools is very important for detecting such clayish bodies
and for obtaining the real resistivity of the reservoir sandstones with less content of clay. Table 1 presents a resume of the
most important characteristics of oil fields where we implemented SDM tools.

La Victoria ARA
UC A
ARC
Field Guafita
Field
VENEZUELA
Arauca River
COLOMBIA
Redondo
Field
Colombia -

Jiba Field

Oil Basins Cosecha Field

Cravo Norte Complex
Maracaibo-Falcon Basin
Barinas-Apure Basin
Eastern Basin
Margarita Basin

Fig. 1. Map showing the field location in the Barinas-Apure petroleum basin of Southwest Venezuela. La Victoria and Guafita
fields are highlighted in non-dotted green.
SPE 131098 3

FIELD GUAFITA LA VICTORIA

Discoverer well GF-1X LVT-1X
Date of Discovery March 1984 October 1984
Number of drilled wells 220 56
Main geologic structures Guafita – Caño Limón Fault La Victoria Main Fault
La Yuca Fault Anticlinal NE-SW
Type of lithology Clastic Reservoir Clastic and Carbonate Reservoir
Oil API Gravity 29º 31º
Porosity (%) 18-32 18-31
Permeability (Darcy) 0.1-~8.8 0.1-3.2
Pressure (psi) 3000-3500 2100-3700
Temperature (ºF) 170-210 190-220
Areas North, South and East La Victoria

Table 1. Main characteristics of oil fields where SDM tools were implemented.

PRODUCING RESERVOIRS

LA VICTORIA GUAFITA FIELD

PERIOD / EPOCH FORMATION MEMBER
FIELD SOUTH NORTH EAST
QUATERNARY PLEISTOCENE ALLUVIA

PLIOCENE RÍO YUCA

MIOCENE PARÁNGULA
G7-2SUP
G7-2MED G7-2INF
TERTIARY EARLY MIOCENE GUARDULIO
G7-2INF G7-3/4
G7-3/4
GUAFITA
G8
G8
G9-1/2 G9
OLIGOGENE ARAUCA ARA I G9
G9-3/4 G10
G10
G10
Unconformity
Q1
SUPERIOR Q2
CAMPANIAN QUEVEDO
NAVAY INFERIOR Q3
Q4
CONIACIAN LA MORITA

SUPERIOR
TURONIAN
CRETACEOUS
ESCANDALOSA MEDIO
CENOMANIAN
INFERIOR

MEDIUM ALBIAN AGUARDIENTE

Fig. 2. Stratigraphic column of the Apure area showing the vertical location of the intervals of interest (modified from PDVSA
Internal Webpage, 2010).

1
in
0

Fig. 3. Typical thin shale beds present in Guafita Field reservoirs. Lithology for this sample include medium to fine well-sorted
rounded grains with abundant shale beds and cross-stratification.
4 SPE 131098

Harsh conditions of the wells drilling process in the area

Swamps in Apure State, especially in the area where Guafita and La Victoria oilfields are located, make the surface facilities
a very difficult task when planning the drilling process of each well. Therefore, vertical wells are very rare and most wells
have to be drilled from the same surface plaque with deviated trajectories, of up to 55°, to target different prospects in depth,
as illustrated in Fig. 4. Average depth of reservoirs in Guafita oilfield is 6800 ft (SSTVD) meanwhile reservoirs in La
Victoria oilfield are found at 8800 ft (SSTVD).

Wells are usually drilled with oil-based mud due to clay content; however, thick intervals composed of tertiary swelling
clays, along with the active geomechanical forces within the area, have caused in many opportunities the sticking of the
drillpipe or the wireline logging tools and the resulting lost of the borehole in the worst of the cases (Angel et al., 2009). In
addition, the no-possibility of drill vertical wells and the amount of drilled wells so far, limit the design of trajectory for
locations, making them more complicated every year. These limitations also cause higher angles of deviation, increased dog
leg severity, and several washout and unsteady zones produced by the drilling of wells in certain directions not appropriate
for the geomechanical forces, but suitable for the surface conditions.

-X000

-X100

-X200

-X300

-X400

-X500

-X600

-X700

-X800

Fig. 4. Well trajectories in Guafita Field, Eastern area; featuring the first well logged with SDM Tools (Well 1).

Description of Shuttle-Deployed Memory Tools

SDM tools combine characteristics of the LWD and wireline tools; however, they attempt to lessen some of the weaknesses
of each. Specifically, the measurements are of the type and quality observed in wireline tools, but they are carried out to the
required logging depth inside drillpipe instead of outside, thus avoiding exposure to potentially harsh conditions. Well-log
information is acquired after drilling, but the tools are not exposed to the well for long periods, giving a reliability advantage
compared to LWD.

The system is composed of logging tools, drillpipe, and mechanisms for retaining and releasing the tools (Elkington et al,
SPE 131098 5

2002). Fig. 5 shows the main components of SDM tools (Elkington et al., 2002; Christie et al., 2008). The logging string is
stored inside drillpipe at the surface and remains inside until tripped to bottom depth without using wireline. A dart pumped
from the surface causes the tools to move into open hole while being retained by a collar in the BHA and the well-log data
are acquired while tripping out. There are a variety of sizes for the logging string, ranging from 6-1/2 in. to 3-1/2 in., and the
basic measurements include array induction, dual laterolog, shallow high resolution resistivity, formation density with
photoelectric and caliper curves, natural gamma ray, neutron porosity, and acoustic slowness (Elkington et al, 2004).

Batteries supply the power in wireless mode. The memory module performs the same data-capture function as the wireline
surface system, except that information is requested from the tools at regular time increments, instead of at regular depths
increment, and is recorded to a dedicated flash-memory module. The default increment of 500 milliseconds is equivalent to a
depth sample every 2.95 in. at a steady logging speed of 1.800 ft/hr. This means double the sample rate most commonly
utilized in well-log data acquisition using wireline procedures (Elkington et al, 2002).

The surface system is very simple because the data from the memory module is downloaded to a PC, and the rest of the
surface system is composed of just a power supply, two patch panels, and a plotter for hard copy. There is a considerable
operational and cost advantage because no wireline unit is required. A latching sub holds the logging tools inside the last
section of drillpipe as the string is run to total depth. Then, a running tool locks the logging tools to the latching sub until they
are activated and deployed by the messenger dart. Before the activation process, mud is circulated through the device and the
tools move forward as pressure is increased against the messenger’s seals. The circulating and landing sub gives a positive
signal at the surface that the logging tools have been released and have landed in the right position. It also provides an open
path for drilling fluids as the drillpipe is pulled back to the surface. Fig. 6 presents a diagram with an overview of the shuttle
system showing the location of the logging tools. Table 2 shows technical specifications of typical SDM tool.

Fig. 5. Typical SDM Tool diagram showing the Compact Well Shuttle main components (excerpted from Elkington et al, 2002).
6 SPE 131098

Float Valve & Running Tool Electric Release Battery Memory & Logging Landing
Latching Sub & Signalling Tool Processing Tools Collar

Uphole Downhole
Fig. 6. Diagram with an overview of the shuttle system showing the location of the logging tools (modified from Spencer et al,
2004).

SPECIFICATIONS* 650 SERIES SHUTTLE TOOL 475 SERIES SHUTTLE TOOL

Test certification API RP7-G, NS1 API RP7-G, NS1
Thread type NC-50 4½-in. IF NC-38 3½-in. IF
Make-up torque 22.337 ft-lb 10.163 ft-lb
Non-return valve Cartridge type, single flapper** Cartridge type, single flapper**
Cartridge working pressure 7.500 psi 10.000 psi
Flow rate (tools inside the pipe) 10 bbl/min (max) 6 bbl/min (max)
Flow rate (tools landed) 40 bbl/min (max) 40 bbl/min (max)
Rotation rate (tools inside the pipe) 60 rpm (max recommended) 60 rpm (max recommended)
Rotation rate (tools landed) 30 rpm (max recommended) 30 rpm (max recommended)
LCM (Lost Circulation Material) Up to 60 lbs/bbl Up to 60 lbs/bbl
LCM Type Quickseal (Fiberseal)/Medium Quickseal (Fiberseal)/Medium
Nutplug (Prontoplug) Nutplug (Prontoplug)

Table 2. Technical specifications of typical SDM tool (excerpted from Weatherford, 2006). *Guide only (Detailed specification
on request). **Flap valve subs can be combined to produce a double flapper. ***A reamer shoe may be added below the
circulating landing sub to assist hole cleaning. It may be augmented with a hole opening reamer above the circulating landing
sub. The reamer shoe is replaced by a mule shoe when circulating only is required.

Logging process of SDM Tools

Ahead of each operation when using SDM tools, the drillpipe for housing the tools is drifted, and the total internal drillpipe
volume is computed (the mud volume that has to be pumped to transport the messenger dart to the latching sub), likewise the
mud pumping rates required to reach reasonable deployment speeds and a total pumping time. Prejob calibration and
verification of each logging tool equals wireline operations with one exception: the communication umbilical that is utilized
in place of a wireline (Elkington et al, 2004).

The logging process with SDM tools begins once the well has been drilled and the bit has been tripped back to surface.
Enough drillpipe to contain the logging string is raised and made up to the landing sub before being run into the hole and held
in the slips. Once at this point, the logging string, electric release and running tool are inserted into the pipe, and the battery
pack is activated. Previously steps initiate a sequence of internal diagnostic tests that check the appropriate functioning of the
entire logging string. The density caliper opens and closes to show successful completion of the tests. The logging tools are
powered down to conserve battery, once previously described tests are finished.

The shuttle assembly, now complete, is run to the bottom at tripping speed to reach borehole total depth. The well can be
circulated and the drillpipe rotated and reciprocated at any time during this part of the operation. At total depth the well is
circulated to remove cuttings or any solids present in the mud, it also conditions the hole before initiating logging process. A
length of a pipe, equivalent to the length of the logging string, is pulled from the well, then the messenger is entered inside
the drillpipe at the surface, and the rig standpipe is plugged. Mud is circulated behind the messenger until it is coupled with
the running tool (Elkington et al, 2004).

The messenger landing in the running tool activates a series of sequential events. Fig. 7 illustrates sequence of operation in
the borehole of the SDM tool. First, the messenger is held by a latch; second, a seal enclosed in a sliding sleeve engages the
center bypass tube of the running tool to energize the new seals contained within. As the messenger enters into the running
tool, the final action is to serve a shear pin mechanism and liberate the running tool, pushing the logging string to total depth.
The pumping process carries on as the logging tools move toward open hole. As the landing collars on the running tool and
landing sub couple, a second sequence of events occurs. The collars and a large spring hold the tools, and an increase in mud
pressure is observed at the surface. An overpressure of 500 psi on the spring enables a sleeve to displace with the tools,
SPE 131098 7

exposing a first set of circulating ports. The mud pressure is increased more to attain a 1,000 psi overpressure, at which point
a shear disc within the landing sub bursts and a second set of ports opens. Both sets of ports are now unblocked and stay open
to allow the mud pressure to fall again. This is considered pivotal as the mud is now flowing back into the borehole from the
drillpipe as it is pulled back to the surface (Elkington et al, 2004). Well-log information is acquired as the shuttle is pulled
back to the surface. When the tool string re-enters the casing, a signal from the induction tool closes the caliper arm of the
density tool to minimize damage on density skid or any risk of stick. The formation evaluation data are downloaded from the
memory module to a computer after recovery of the tools at the surface.

The well-log information is registered against a time index in the memory module; however, the internal clock of the tool is
synchronized to the one of the surface system. Subsequently, the time domain data are then unified with the surface-depth
data to supply depth-domain image logs, considering alterations in pipe velocity. The process is basically alike as that
implemented in case of memorized LWD data. The surface and downhole data must be recorded at suitable rates considering
appropriate precision to guarantee that depth logs are reconstructed with no loss of fidelity over a useful range of actual tool
velocities (Elkington et al, 2004). As we previously mentioned, it is important to remark that the default increase of 500
milliseconds is alike to a depth sample every 2.95 inches at a stabilized logging speed of 1.800 ft/hr. As a result, it means
double the sample rate most commonly observed in well-log information acquisition using wireline procedures (Elkington et
al, 2002). Moreover, pipe speed can double without causing interpolation error.

The quality of bed alignment on the final logs acts as a simple indicator of the quality of the time-to-depth conversion. In
applications, shuttle movement in the uphole direction is well controlled, and conversion is usually straightforward. Because
the shuttle reaches total depth and the pipe is pulled to surface in tension in one operation, time-to-depth conversion is
potentially less prone to error and unclearness than is the case with LWD (Elkington et al, 2004).

I. III.

II. IV.

Fig. 7. SDM tool sequence of operation in the borehole (modified from Elkington et al, 2004). I. Mud circulates through the
running-tool seals (B) and over the logging tools (C) before the arrival of the dart (A). II. The dart releases the running tool,
which moves forward and compresses the spring (D) against the shear pins (E). III. The shear pins break at a predetermined
pressure, allowing the running tool to move forward and circulation ports (F) to open. IV. Logging string moves into open hole
and is retained on a collar above the mule shoe or reamer bit.

Results of applications of SDM tools in Apure fields and Technical Comparisons of SDM Tools with LWD
and conventional wireline tools

Well 1 (March 14th, 2009)

The first well logged with SDM tools in Apure Fields was the Well 1, drilled in Guafita Field, East Area, where the shuttle-
deployed logging system was comprised by the following measurements: array induction, formation density with
photoelectric and caliper curves, natural gamma ray, neutron porosity, and acoustic slowness. This deviated well reports an
average inclination of more than 30 degrees in the logged interval and a maximum Dog Leg Severity (DLS) of 3.42°/100’ for
the whole well. Under these conditions, along with the continuous experiences of pipe and tools sticking in this area of the
field, the logging operations were planned from the beginning with SDM Tools. We also considered a conditioning trip with
LWD and cased hole logging in case of any failure in the well logs acquisition with SDM tools, ran for the first time in
Guafita Field.
8 SPE 131098

Before tripping the shuttle-deployed system down the borehole, all the logging tools were successfully checked at surface and
then, during tripping, they were checked once again along with communication tests, obtaining appropriate results in all of
them. When total depth was tagged, we observed obstructions causing pressure measurements of up to 4.000 psi, no
circulation of the fluid in the well was possible. After tripping out almost a thousand feet of drillpipe while pumping 2.000
psi in the borehole, circulation was restored, and the shuttle system was positioned 165 ft above total depth for deploying the
tools in open hole with no risk of sticking them, considering the previous problems with obstructions close to total depth.

Some pulses (over pressure signals) were sent intentionally from surface but there was no feedback from the shuttle system,
so the state of the tools and the conditions of the logging process remained unknown. In spite of this lack of communication,
the logging process was finished with uncertainty but also with total recovery of SDM string by pulling it at regular speed up
to surface. Once at surface, we observed the tools had been effectively deployed from the drillpipe. However, the sonic tool
was slightly bended (deformed) and the gamma ray tool quartz sensor was broken, possibly due to an early and involuntary
release of the tools very close to total depth, which made the shuttle hit strongly the bottom of the borehole. Nevertheless, the
shuttle memory had all the measurements of array induction, formation density with photoelectric and caliper curves, neutron
porosity, and acoustic slowness (not reliable because of the tool’s deformation observed), but natural gamma ray data was
lost. Considering the high uncertainty regarding the problems observed during the data acquisition with SDM tools, and
following the operational planning, a conditioning trip with LWD (real time induction and natural gamma ray) was run in
order to obtain gamma ray data and induction measurements from another source to compare and validate the induction curve
obtained with SDM tools.

Breakdowns in the circulating sub, landing sub and electric release were the responsible for the logging process failure, as
well as blockages caused by solids in the drilling fluids. In fact, during the first intentional pressure pulse at surface, the tools
were released abruptly and involuntarily because there had already been a non-intentional pulse caused by the obstruction of
one of the circulating ports that yielded a pressure increment, which was understood by the logging string as a pressure pulse
for internal diagnostic tests. Once calibrated in depth both LWD and SDM logs, we analyzed the curves and compared them
with Well 11, a neighbor well to Well 1, logged with conventional wireline (WL) tools with rock-core data. (Fig. 8).

Fig. 8. Comparison between Well 1 and a close well with rock-core data in the “G10” reservoir. The left-hand side panel shows
Well 1 logs acquired with SDM and LWD tools. Well 1 include a comparison of resistivity logs with different depth of
investigation (Track 3) where continuous line corresponds to those acquired with SDM tools and dotted lines to those taken
with LWD tools. The right-hand side panel shows logs acquired with wireline tools and rock-core measurements (light blue
circles) taken on Well 11 (near to Well 1).
SPE 131098 9

Effective porosity (blue bold continuous line in track 4), calculated with wireline Formation Density (red continous line in
the track 4) and Neutron Porosity logs (black dotted line in track 4) in Well 11, shows a good match with the porosity
measured in core samples (light blue dots in track 4). On the other hand, effective porosity in Well 1 is between 3 and 5
porosity units (PU) higher than porosity in Well 11 possibly due to a slightly lower clay volume; nevertheless, these
measurements fit in the range of core porosities (18 - 30 % for sandstones).

Fig. 8 shows in Track 3 the deep, medium and shallow resistivity measurements (red, orange and blue lines, respectively)
obtained from LWD (dotted lines) and SDM tools (continuous lines) for “G10” reservoir. By comparing such curves, it is
obvious that SDM tools offer higher investigation depths and a better vertical resolution than LWD tools. In fact, at the depth
of X182 ft, SDM resistivity shows a 3 ft. shale bed, which is not registered by LWD resistivity. It also have a quite higher
resistivity values towards the base because of the shale’s influence (located at X192 ft approximately) on the LWD curves,
regarding its poor vertical resolution.

Considering the resistivity obtained from SDM tool as the true resistivity measurement (real value), we can easily estimate
the fraction (or percentage) of this real value measured by LWD tools by computing the relation between LWD resistivity
and SDM resistivity at a deep, medium and shallow level. Fig. 9 shows these average ratios for Reservoir G10 every 5 ft.,
following the convention:
• P34/R85: Deep phase resistivity (34 in. of investigation depth) / Deep SDM resistivity (85 in. of investigation depth)
• P28/R40: Medium phase resistivity (28 in. of investigation depth) / Medium SDM resistivity (40 in. of investigation
depth)
• P16/R20: Shallow phase resistivity (16 in. of investigation depth) / Shallow SDM resistivity (20 in. of investigation
depth)

Fig. 9 shows that there is not a constant LWD/SDM resistivity relationship throughout the entire reservoir, where these
values range between 0.15 and 0.75. Those values above 0.8 belong to shaly intervals towards the top and base of the
sandstone where there is not a meaningful invasion and, as a result, the readings of LWD and SDM are very close together.
Obviously the lowest values were, for most of the intervals, the P34/R85 ratios (deep resistivities) regarding the big
differences in the depth of investigations, while shallow resistivities ratios were most commonly the highest because of their
very similar depth of investigations (16 in. and 20 in. for LWD and SDM resistivity measurements respectively).

Resistivity Measurements Comparison

1.0

0.9
Resistivity Comparison RLWD / RSDM (fraction)

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0.0
X120- X125- X130- X135- X140- X145- X150- X155- X160- X165- X170- X175- X180- X185- X190- X195- X200-
X125 X130 X135 X140 X145 X150 X155 X160 X165 X170 X175 X180 X185 X190 X195 X200 X203
Depth (ft)

P34/R85 P28/R40 P16/R20

Fig. 9. Comparison of LWD vs. SDM resistivity measurements (deep, medium and shallow) acquired in Well 1. Red bars
represent comparison between deep LWD (P34) and SDM (R85) resistivity measurements. Orange bars represent
comparison between medium LWD (P28) and SDM (R40) resistivity readings. Blue bars represent comparison between
shallow LWD (P16) and SDM (R20) resistivity measurements.
10 SPE 131098

Taking into account only sandstones zones, the average ratios of resistivity measurement in the “G10” reservoir were 0.37,
0.40 and 0.43 for deep, medium and shallow resistivity measurements respectively; it means that LWD reads approximately
40% in this horizon. Besides, the ratio for the “G-9” and “G-8” reservoirs are 0.60 and 0.65 respectively of the real resistivity
value, as measured by wireline or acquired with SDM tools.

Regarding the differences in depth of investigation of LWD and SDM tools, we attempted a comparison of their resistivity
curves in approximately the same nominal depth of investigation; this exercise produced new ratios computed as follows:
• P34/R30: 34 in. phase (LWD) resistivity / 30 in. SDM resistivity
• P28/R30: 28 in. phase (LWD) resistivity / 30 in. SDM resistivity
• P16/R20: 16 in. phase (LWD) resistivity / 20 in. SDM resistivity

Fig. 10 shows the results of such computations every 5 ft in the “G-10” reservoir, observing a range of variations between 0.2
and 1.1. In this case, the shallowest resistivity ratios (P16/R20) represent the lowest values for most of intervals because the
LWD depth of investigation is 4 in. lower than SDM investigation depth. Meanwhile, in the case of P28/R30 ratio, LWD
investigation depth is just 2 in. lower than SDM investigation depth. But, for P34/R30 ratio, the LWD investigation depth is
4 in. higher than the SDM investigation depth, and this is the reason why in the interval X140 - X145 ft the ratio LWD/SDM
resistivity is above 1, meaning that LWD 34 in. resistivity measures a higher value than SDM 30 in. resistivity, as it should
be under normal conditions. No matter this observation, SDM 30" resistivity gives a higher and more realistic resistivity
value than LWD 34 in. resistivity for the rest of intervals in “G-10” reservoir, possibly due to its better vertical resolution.
Actually, the average of P34/R30 was 0.53, 0.81 and 0.71 for the “G-10”, “G-9”, “G-8” reservoirs respectively; therefore,
LWD tools represent a reduction in real resistivity value between 20 and 45% approximately, depending on the reservoir
petrophysical properties, vertical resolution of the tools and invasion profile.

Resistivity Measurements Comparison

1.2

1.1
Resistivity Comparison RLWD / RSDM (fraction)

1.0

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0.0
X120- X125- X130- X135- X140- X145- X150- X155- X160- X165- X170- X175- X180- X185- X190- X195- X200-
X125 X130 X135 X140 X145 X150 X155 X160 X165 X170 X175 X180 X185 X190 X195 X200 X203
Depth (ft)

P34/R30 P28/R30 P16/R20

Fig. 10. Comparison of LWD vs. SDM resistivity measurements acquired in Well 1 with similar investigation depths. Red bars
represent comparison between P34 (LWD) and R30 (SDM) resistivity measurements. Orange bars represent comparison
between P28 (LWD) and R30 (SDM) resistivity readings. Blue bars represent comparison between P16 (LWD) and R20 (SDM)
resistivity measurements.

After validating and revising in detail the data set from SDM tools run in Well 1, we performed a petrophysical assessment to
estimate properties such as: effective porosity, mineral volumes distribution, and fluids saturations in order to target the best
interval for completion of Well 1. Since gas saturation (Sg) associated to Apure reservoirs is meaningless, oil saturation (So)
was obtained directly from computed water saturation (Sw) following the equation:
SPE 131098 11

So = 1 − Sw (1)

We calculated water saturation from the Modified Simmandoux Model (Dewan, 1983) which is the best-fitted equation with
production data of Apure area. Such calculations were performed by using the two deep resistivity curves: LWD 34" and
SDM 85" resistivity measurements in order to compare the effect of these resistivity differences on oil saturation estimation.

Fig. 11 presents the petrophysical assessment results of Well 1 for the “G-8”, “G-9” and “G-10” reservoirs. Track 1 features
Gamma Ray obtained from LWD tools, Caliper from SDM tools and estimated washout for a 8.5 in. borehole. Track 2
contains depth index. Logarithmic track 3 shows all the resistivity curves at different investigation depths from different
tools. Track 4 illustrates the Formation Density, Neutron Porosity and Photoelectric Factor (half-track) coming from SDM
tools and an Effective Porosity curve resulting from the petrophysical assessment. Track 5 shows the two Oil Saturation
curves resulting from the petrophysical assessment performed considering both SDM 85" and LWD 34" resistivity
measurements, as well as the difference in the two saturations (red continuous line) and the percentage that represents this
difference from the real value (SDM Oil Saturation). Finally, track 6 presents the volumetric analysis of the main formation
components obtained from our analysis.

Guafita Formation is divided into two members: Guardulio (upper) and Arauca (lower), which contains , from base to top, the
“G-10”, “G-9”, and “G-8” reservoirs, as mentioned before. They are good porosity (Table 1) and oil bearing shaly sands
intercalated with thin shale beds (Fig. 3) and other important thick shales as Lutita Guafita (regional marker). As a result,
petrophysical properties and resistivity logs are highly influenced by the reservoir clay volume. Fig. 11 shows in track 6 that
underlying the Tertiary Arauca Member there is an unconformity with the Cretaceous Quevedo Member of Navay
Formation, which contains carbonate as cement of sands and as thin limestone beds.

As it was expected, oil saturation calculated from SDM resistivity is always higher than the value computed with LWD
resistivity. However, this difference is not constant throughout the reservoir; instead, it is ranging from 5 to 30% with an
average of 13% in the “G-8” reservoir, from 5 to 20% with an average of 9% in the “G-9” reservoir, and from 2 to 35% with
an average of 12 % in the “G-10” reservoir. These average differences represent a percentage of the real oil saturation value
(the one estimated from SDM resistivity) of 25%, 16% and 15% in the “G-8”, “G-9” and “G-10” reservoirs respectively.
Underestimation in oil saturation for the “G-8” reservoir is the highest, because of its higher clay volume in this well. The
presence of this clay causes lower oil saturation in this reservoir. The incremented clay volume lowers dramatically the
resistivity values, more specifically towards the top of the reservoir (interval X023' - X037'); thus, almost the same difference
in oil saturation of the “G-9” and “G-10” reservoirs represents a higher percentage of oil saturation real value for the “G-8”
reservoir.

Because oil saturation is an important factor in the equation for STOOIP (Stock tank original oil in place) calculation, such
underestimation in oil saturation represents directly the same underestimation in STOOIP and reserves as well, caused by the
application of LWD resistivity measurements in the estimation of initial water saturation.

Well 2 (May 4th, 2009)

Well 2 was the second well where SDM tools were run in Apure Area, but this time in La Victoria Field. Array induction,
formation density with photoelectric and caliper, natural gamma ray and neutron porosity were the tools included in the
shuttle string. This deviated well reports an average inclination of about 33 degrees in the logged interval and a maximum
DLS of 3.21°/100’ for the whole well. In this field, wireline resistivity logs could not be acquired in 3 out of the last 6 wells
and wireline porosity (Formation Density and Neutron Porosity) could not be logged in 4 out of the last 6 wells because of
operational problems while running conventional logs. As a result, LWD resistivity and cased hole porosity logs were the
first solution to acquire formation evaluation information. As an alternate solution, logging operations were planned with
SDM tools considering nearby and satisfactory field experience in Well 1. In addition, the well deviation was high enough to
consider Well 2 as a risky one.

Following the lessons learned in Well 1, operations regarding logging with SDM tools in Well 2 were performed successfully
with no delay of time, with no uncertainty associated to logs reliability and with no need of other runs like LWD or wireline
logging in open or in cased hole. We also controlled the volume of solids in the borehole fluid when acquiring the well-log
data.

The set of curves obtained by SDM tools in Well 2 was compared with the same set of curves of Well 22, which is a neighbor
well with rock-core data and conventional wireline logs. For the comparison, we chose the Cretaceous “Esc M” reservoir of
Escandalosa Formation, considering this is a sandstone reservoir with excellent and homogeneous petrophysical properties
(Table 1), throughout La Victoria Field. (Fig. 12).
12 SPE 131098

Fig. 11. Log curves from SMD tools in Well 1 (Track 1 to 4) for “G-8”, “G-9”, and “G-10” reservoirs. A comparison of resistivity
measurements with different depth of investigation is included in Track 3 where continuous line corresponds to SDM tools and
dotted line to LWD tools. Petrophysical assessment in this well is also presented in last track as a volumetric analysis.
SPE 131098 13

Fig. 12. Comparison between Well 2 and a close well with rock-core data in the “Esc M” reservoir. The left-hand side panel
shows Well 2 logs acquired with SDM tools. The right-hand side panel shows logs acquired with wireline tools and rock-core
measurements (light blue circles) taken on Well 22 (near to Well 1).

Note in Fig. 12 that resistivity logs at different depths of investigation are alike in Well 22, showing low resistivity values (2
Ohm-m approximately) that indicate a water zone. In fact, the reservoir in this well, is below the OOWC (original oil-water
contact). In Well 2, on the other hand, we observe a slight separation of deep, medium and shallow resistivities; nevertheless,
they all read an average resistivity value of 10 Ohm-m approximately, a slightly higher value than in Well 22, but not high
enough to indicate an oil zone, even considering Well 2 is structurally higher than Well 22. Therefore, Well 2 shows a
depletion zone, because of neighbor wells oil production.

Fig. 12 shows that Formation Density, Photoelectric factor and Neutron Porosity read very similar values in both wells,
showing also a similar vertical resolution. However, it is not difficult to see that clay volume is somewhat higher in Well 2
towards the base of the reservoir; therefore, effective porosity is slightly lower in comparison with Well 22 in this zone.
Likewise, the three measurements of porosity performed on core samples of Well 22 match with the effective porosity
calculated with Formation Density and Neutron Porosity, meaning a good response of wireline logs (WL). As a conclusion,
similarity of SDM logs of Well 2 with WL logs of Well 22, especially towards the top of “Esc M” reservoir where clay
volume and effective porosity are very similar (Intervals X390' - X400' for Well 2 and X896' - X908' for Well 22), validate
the reliability of SDM curves.

Fig. 13 illustrates the petrophysical assessment of Well 2, performed with the previously validated SDM logs. Track 5
contains the water saturation curve (continuous black line) and clay volume fraction (continuous gray line) as outcomes of
the log interpretation process. Oil featuring in the volumetric analysis (Track 6) is a residual oil, remaining after the intensive
oil production of neighbor wells driven by the active aquifer associated to this reservoir. The remaining oil saturation is 35%,
as indicated by the averaged 65% water saturation curve. Clay volume curve indicates a clean sandstone with increasing clay
content towards the base of the reservoir.

Well 3 (May 14th, 2009)

Well 3 was the third well logged with SDM tools in the Apure area. This was a deviated well located in Guafita Field, North
Area, where no well had been drilled since 4 years ago. For this reason and considering the successful logging operations in
Well 2, we decided to acquire Well 3 logs with a SDM string, including the same tools set of Well 2 (Array induction,
formation density with photoelectric and caliper curves, natural gamma ray and neutron porosity). This well reports an
average inclination of about 33 degrees (the same as Well 2) in the logged interval and a maximum DLS of 3.51°/100’ for the
whole well, which means almost the same as Well 1 and 2. SDM Logging operations in Well 3 were finished successfully
without inconvenient events, and then we revised and validated data recorded in the memory for further petrophysical
assessment that could highlight the best candidate for a completion interval.
14 SPE 131098

Fig. 13. Log curves from SDM Tools in Well 2 (Track 1 to 4) for the “Esc M” reservoir. Resistivity measurements from SDM
tools with different depth of investigation are included in Track 3. Petrophysical assessment in this well is also included in last
track as a volumetric analysis.

Fig. 14 presents a comparison of SDM log curves of Well 3 and WL log curves of Well 33 acquired in the “G-10” reservoir
and basal part of “G-9” reservoir (above G-10 marker), where a clear correlation is observed following the Gamma Ray
curves of both wells. Well 33 of Fig. 14 also includes porosity measurements from rock-core data (light blue circles) which
match the effective porosity computed from WL Formation Density and WL Neutron Porosity in most of the cases. In
addition, SDM Formation Density and SDM Neutron Porosity of Well 3 are validated because they have values in the same
range of Well 33 and alike vertical resolution, except for some shale intercalations and differences in clay volume, which
affect the logs readings.
SPE 131098 15

Fig. 14. Comparison between Well 3 and a close well with rock-core data in the “G10” reservoir. The left-hand side panel
shows Well 3 logs acquired with SDM tools. The right-hand side panel shows logs acquired with wireline tools and rock-core
measurements (light blue circles) taken on Well 33 (near to Well 1).

Deep, medium and shallow resistivity logs in Well 3 are not as much separated as they are in Well 33. The main reason for
the difference in resistivity curves is the divergence of invasion profiles regarding different reservoir and drilling conditions
coming from a different time of drilling. However, both wells show an OWC in the “G-10” reservoir with a similar transition
zone, even when Well 3 records the same OWC at 35 ft above Well 33 in a TVD scale. The late difference could be
interpreted as a measure of the reserves depletion caused by the accumulated production of the reservoir. Concerning the “G-
9” reservoir, it is easily observed that the difference in resistivity logs is mainly due to clay contents, which is much higher in
Well 33, specifically at X522'. Based on the issues previously explained, we secure a validation of SDM resistivity logs by a
comparative analysis of both wells (Well 3 and Well 33), considering that differences between these logs are caused by the
fact that Well 3 was drilled 9 years after Well 33. Regarding the vertical resolution of the resistivity curves, they look alike,
except for the interval X586' - X600' in Well 33. This zone exhibit strong deflections of the resistivity curves due to possible
tension increments of the wireline. It might not be a signal of resistivity changes, saturation differences or presence of thin
beds of clay, which were not registered by the combination of Formation Density and Neutron Porosity logs.

Fig. 15 shows a petrophysical assessment using SDM logs acquired in Well 3, where Clay Volume and Water Saturation
curves are included in track 5, featuring exactly the depth of the OWC at X910 ft where there is a strong change in water
saturation, and not considerable change in lithology or clay content. The absence of a transition zone is a direct indication of
poor capillarity due to big pore throats within the reservoir, as indicated by special analysis performed on rock-core data
acquired in Well 33. Track 6 also evidences the difference of oil volume at the same depth, and the rest of the volumetric
analysis indicates that the “G-9” and “G-10” reservoirs exhibit a high porosity and oil bearing shaly sands, as it is already
well known in this area.
16 SPE 131098

Fig. 15. Log curves from SDM Tools in Well 3 (Track 1 to 4) for the “G-10” reservoir. Resistivity measurements from SDM
tools with different depth of investigation are included in Track 3. Petrophysical assessment in this well is presented in last
track as a volumetric analysis.

Economical Comparisons of SDM Tools with LWD and conventional wireline tools

Most of the well-log programs planned for Guafita and La Victoria Fields are comprised by the following measurements:
resistivity measurements (induction or resistivity logs depending on the type of drilling fluid), formation density with
photoelectric and caliper curves, natural and spectral gamma ray, and neutron porosity. In some cases, we also acquire
nuclear magnetic resonance, formation tester, mineralogical, sonic dipole logs (compressional and shear waves), and in rare
occasions image logs and dipmeter. The late measurements are usually taken in wells where rock-core data is planned or
when they are located in zones of the fields not completely characterized or with lack of special logs.

A conventional shuttle-deployed logging system for these fields consists of the following measurements: array induction,
formation density with photoelectric and caliper curves, natural gamma ray, neutron porosity, and acoustic slowness.
Considering the previous remarks, we can assure that well-log programs for conventional wells (vertical, highly deviated or
horizontal) can be achieved without any inconvenience with the application of SDM tools. Technical support for these
statements has already been presented in previous parts of this paper. In addition, as we mentioned before, we also performed
a briefly economic analysis taking into account time and costs observed in Wells 1, 2 and 3 of this study.
SPE 131098 17

We considered for this analysis a comparison between well logs acquired with SDM tools in Well 1, 2 and 3; and those
measurements taken with LWD and WL tools in wells for Apure Fields during last year. Fig. 16 presents a graph with time
and cost reduction obtained through the application of SDM tools in Wells 1, 2 and 3. Red and blue bars represent percentage
of reduction in time and costs respectively. When implementing SDM tools we achieved a time reduction of 57%, 42% and
79% in Wells 1, 2 and 3 respectively. Likewise, percentage of cost reduction was in the order of 28, 29 and 71 in Wells 1, 2
and 3 respectively. The most significant time and cost reduction was accomplished in the last well. The main reason is the
knowledge and expertise developed in previous two wells that helped improve logging operations through previously learned
lessons.

Fig. 17 shows a graph with averaged time and cost reduction attained through the implementation of SDM tools in Guafita
and La Victoria Fields. Red and blue bars represent percentage reduction in time and costs respectively. We also include a
third summarized comparison for the entire area (Guafita and La Victoria Fields). The application of SDM tools enabled us to
obtain a time reduction of 68% and 42% for Guafita and La Victoria Fields respectively. For the entire area, the time
reduction was 62%. Similarly, we achieved a percentage of cost reduction of 49 and 29 for Guafita and La Victoria Fields
respectively. In the Apure Area, the total percentage of cost reduction was 44%. Once again, the effect of lessons learned in
Wells 1 and 2 reflect a higher reduction of costs in Well 3, which belongs to Guafita Field.

In summary, the application of SDM tools for formation evaluation data acquisition reduces logging time by 62% and
logging costs up to 44% in these fields. Moreover, we obtained reliable well-log data with significant improvements in log
quality. We also avoided restrictions regarding variety and quantity for logs that were usually taken with LWD tools.

Tim e and C ost R eduction (O btained through the use of S D M Tools)

10 0

90

80
Percentage of Reduction (%)

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
W e ll 1 W e ll 2 W e ll 3
W ells

Time R eduction (% ) C ost R eduction (% )

Fig. 16. Time and cost reduction obtained through the application of SDM tools in Wells 1, 2 and 3. Red bars represent
percentage reduction in time while blue bars represent percentage reduction in costs.
18 SPE 131098

Tim e and Cost R eduction (O btained through the use of SD M Tools)

100

90

80
Percentage of Reduction (%)

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
G uafita Field La V ictoria Field A pure Fields
F ields

Time R eduction (% ) C ost R eduction (% )

Fig. 17. Time and cost reduction obtained through the application of SDM tools in Guafita and La Victoria Fields. Red bars
represent percentage reduction in time while blue bars represent percentage reduction in costs. The third comparison is a
compilation for the entire area (Guafita and La Victoria Fields).

Conclusions

• We successfully tested a new technology of shuttle-deployed memory tools considering not only the quality control of
formation evaluation data acquired but also economical and risk issues from the operator point of view.
• Shuttle-deployed memory tools successfully logged wells with 8-1/2 in. section in presence of difficult environment
observed in a significant number of wells with swelling shales at high angle and with substantial dog leg severity.
• The tools implemented on these fields enabled the acquisition of new well-log information in those wells which
conditions restrain regular operations with satisfactory acquisition of the planned data.
• We logged open hole sections in deviated wells acquiring a complete formation evaluation data set reducing the risk
observed in previous cases. Moreover, logging tools and the whole shuttle assembly were recovered through the
borehole to surface without problems after logging high angle and difficult 8-1/2 in. open hole section with presence
of swelling clays and washouts.
• We obtained improved quality of logs proved in case of Well 1 compared with LWD formation evaluation data. We also
avoided restrictions related to variety and quantity for logs that were usually acquired with LWD tools.
• In comparison with SDM tools, LWD tools reduce resistivity measurements in 20 to 45% at the same investigation
depth. Furthermore, deep resistivity is reduced in 35 to 60% because difference of investigation depths for both
tools. In fact, vertical resolution and depth of investigation of resistivity measurements acquired with SDM tools is
significantly better than those acquired with LWD tools.
• Computation of oil saturation from LWD is reduced 20% approximately compared to oil saturation computed from
SDM logs, giving the same reduction in STOOIP and reserves. However, this underestimation depends dramatically
on clay content in reservoirs.
• The analysis of cost and time proves an increase in efficiency for logging operations of each well considered and had a
positive impact on well construction and reservoir evaluation and management. As a result, the application of SDM
tools for formation evaluation data acquisition reduces logging time by 62% and logging costs up to 44% in these
fields.
• We suggest the massive application of this technology when logging in wells under harsh conditions such as those
present in the fields considered in this study.
SPE 131098 19

Nomenclature
DLS : Dog leg severity (grades)
LWD : Logging-while-drilling
OOWC : Original oil-water contact
OWC : Oil-water contact
SDM : Shuttle-deployed memory
Sg : Gas saturation (Fraction)
So : Oil saturation (Fraction)
Sw : Water saturation (Fraction)
STOOIP : Stock tank original oil in place (BN)
TVD : True vertical depth
TVDSS : True vertical depth subsea
WL : Wireline

Acknowledgements
We are thankful to PDVSA (Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A.) for providing the data used in the case studies and for the support
and permission to publish the results. We also thank Weatherford for providing information about SDM tools characteristics.

References
1. Angel, F. J., Méndez, D., and Miranda, L. J., “Pozo GF-215R – Nota Técnica Acerca de Corrida de Registros Eléctricos,”
PDVSA Internal Report, August 2009.
2. Christie, R., Elkington, P.A.S., McIlreath, I., and Natras, T., “Acquiring Microresistivity Borehole Images in Deviated
and Horizontal Wells Using Shuttled-Deployed Memory Tools,” in Proceedings of the 2008 SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Denver, CO, September 2008.
3. Compact Well Shuttle Open Hole Tool Specifications, Weatherford, 2006.
4. Dewan, J.T., “Essentials of Modern Open-Hole Log Interpretation,” PennWell Publishing Company, 1983.
5. Elkington, P.A.S., Spencer, M.C. and Spratt, D.L., “An Openhole Memory-Logging System for High-Angle Wells and
Bad Hole Conditions,” SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering, February 2004.
6. Elkington, P.A.S., Spencer, M.C. and Spratt, D.L., “The Development and Testing of A Garaged Open Hole Logging
System for High Angle Wells and Bad Hole Conditions,” in Proceedings of the 2002 SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, TX, September 2002.
7. González de Juana, C., Iturralde de Arozena, J., and Picard, X., “Geología de Venezuela y de sus Cuencas Petrolíferas,”
Foninves, 1980.
8. Omni Laboratories, Inc; “Sedimentological and Reservoir Characterization Study of PDVSA GF-205X Well, Guafita
Field, Venezuela,” Client Report, 2007.
9. Prensky, S., “Recent Advances in Well Logging and Formation Evaluation,” Word Oil, March 2009.
10. Spencer, M.C., Ash, S.C. and Elkington, P.A.S., “A Pressure Activated Deployment System for Openhole Memory
Logging Tools and its Application in Directional Wells,” in Proceedings of the 2004 IADC/SPE Drilling
Conference, Dallas, TX, March 2004.
11. www.pdvsa.com/lexico. Retrieved: January 18, 2010.