Lecture Presentation

Fundamentals of Well Logging

Principles of Open Hole

Electrical Resistivity Logging

Carlos Torres-Verdín, Ph.D.

Professor
Department of Petroleum and Geosystems Engineering
The University of Texas at Austin

Objectives:
1. To understand the physical principles behind the
operation of induction and laterolog resistivity tools,
2. To learn how to interpret resistivity logs acquired
with induction and laterolog tools that exhibit
multiple radial lengths of investigation,
3. To quantify the influence of the process of mud-
filtrate invasion on resistivity logs,
4. To understand the importance of environmental and
interpretation corrections applied to induction and
laterolog measurements, and
5. To survey the types of resistivity tools used for LWD
operations.
 Induction Log Example
(Case of a water-base mud invading a hydrocarbon-bearing formation)

Open Hole
Borehole
Environment

Dynamic Mud Filtrate Invasion

and
Mud Cake Buildup
MUD-FILTRATE INVASION EXPERIMENT

The Effect of Time of Invasion

(Case of a water-base mud invading a hydrocarbon-bearing formation)

W ell 1, R o ck 1A, IN V AD E R es u lts

0.25 day
1 1 day
Water Saturation, frac

1.5 day s
0.5 2 day s

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Ra d ia l Dista n ce , ft

200
Salinity, kppm

150

100

50

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Ra d ia l Dista n ce , ft
 Electrical Conductivity,
Salt Concentration, and Temperature
Conductivity – saturation model (Archie’s law) :
σ w (r, t ) φ m (r) Swn (r, t )
σ (r, t ) = f (φ , Sw , Cw ,T ) =
a
Brine conductivity – salt concentration model:
−1
⎡⎛ 3647.5 ⎞ 81.77 ⎤
σ w (r, t ) = ⎢⎜ 0.0123 + 0.955 ⎟⎟ ⎥
⎜
⎢⎣⎝ T + 6.77 ⎥⎦
Cw (r , t ) ⎠

m, n , and a from lab measurements or other estimation:

The Effect of Time of Invasion on Electrical Resistivity

(Case of a water-base mud invading a hydrocarbon-bearing formation)
W e ll 1 , R o c k 1 A, IN V AD E R e s u lts
1
Water Saturation, frac

0.5

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Ra d ia l Dista n ce , ft

200
Salinity, kppm

150
100

50

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Ra d ia l Dista n ce , ft
Resistivity, Ohm-m

0.25 day
2
10 1 day
1.5 day s
2 day s

0
10
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Ra d ia l Dista n ce , ft
 The Effect of Invasion: Interplay Between Water Saturation,
Salt Concentration, and Electrical Resistivity
(Case of a water-base mud invading a hydrocarbon-bearing formation)

Well 3, Rock 1A, INVADE Results after 1 day

1

Water Saturation, frac

0.5

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Ra dia l Dista nce , ft

200
Salinity, kppm

150
100

50

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Ra dia l Dista nce , ft
Resistivity, Ohm-m

2
10

Shallow 0
resistivity’s 10 Low resistivity
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
reading zone Ra dia l Dista nce , ft annulus

ELECTRICAL BEHAVIOR OF INVASION PROFILE

 BOREHOLE
ENVIRONMENT

Electrical Resistivity
Profiles

The Physics of Mud-Filtrate Invasion

(Case of a water-base mud invading a hydrocarbon-bearing formation)

Well

Water Saturation

Salt Concentration

0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 log (m)

 Example of Annulus Response

NOMENCLATURE
TWO TYPES OF ELECTRICAL LOGGING TOOLS

Induction Conduction (Laterolog)

Low Frequency Excitation: 10 Hz – 500 KHz

ELECTRICAL LOGGING TOOLS

Induction Laterolog

Electrical Conductivity of Mud is an Important Issue

 Logging Tools

INDUCTION LOG 80 cm
RESISTIVITY

RESOLUTION
LATEROLOG 80 cm

NEUTRON 40 cm
RADIOACTIVITY
GAMMA RAY 30 cm
DENSITY 20 cm
ACOUSTIC SONIC 60 cm
MICRO RESISTIVITY 5 cm
RESISTIVITY MICROLOG 2 cm
DIPMETER
0 cm
250 cm 200 150 100 50 0 cm

DEPTH OF INVESTIGATION

INDUCTION
vs.
LATEROLOG,
When?
GUARDED ELECTRODE MEASUREMENT

LATEROLOG 7
 LATEROLOG
(GALVANIC)
TOOLS

MICRO
LATEROLOG
DEVICE:
a
Pad Tool
 MSFL TOOL:
a
Micro-Laterolog
Device

FORMATION MICRO-IMAGING TOOL

SUMMARY: MEASUREMENT CORRECTIONS

Environmental Corrections:
• Borehole Size
• Mud Resistivity and Temperature
• Eccentricity

Interpretation Corrections:
Bed Thickness
• Invasion
• Shoulder Beds

RESISTIVITY
ANISOTROPY
 Delta Front

Bedding Orientation vs. Measurement Orientation
Deltaic Sequences: Thinly‐Bedded Rock Formations 

Origin of Electrical Anisotropy

• Laminated sand‐ • Different grain sizes
shale sequences • Poor sorting
 Origin of Electrical Anisotropy

Laminated 
sand‐shale sequences

Sands With 
Different Grain Size

Thin resistive or 
conductive  streaks

20‐30% of global reserves in anisotropic reservoirs

Resistivity: example
30 80 0.2 200
Core
x545 Clean
sand

x580

x600

Thin beds
Production
x630 test

Gamma ray Laterologs

1750 BOPD
GOR 3250
 Measurement Principle
Shale: low Rt

Rh

Sand: high Rt

Rv

Sand‐Shale Resistivity Model

Rh = 1.8 Ω -m Rv = 5.5 Ω -m

Rsand = 10 Ohm-m

Rshale = 1 Ohm-m

1 10
Resistivity (Ohm-m)
Example No. 4 Conventional
Shaly-Sand
Analysis
Rt-Scanner
Analysis

Differences due to inconsistent

interpretations

Anisotropic Sand‐Shale Resistivity Model
Case of Electrically Isotropic Shale
Horizontal Resistivity

1 Vsh-lam 1- Vsh-lam
= +
RH R sh R sand

Vertical Resistivity

R V = Vsh-lam iR sh + (1- Vsh-lam )iR sand

Solve for R sand
 Anisotropic Sand‐Shale Resistivity Model
Case of Transversely‐Isotropic (TI) Shale

Horizontal Resistivity
1 Vsh-lam 1- Vsh-lam
= +
R H R H− sh R sand

Vertical Resistivity

R V = Vsh-lam iR V − sh + (1- Vsh-lam )iR sand

Solve for R sand

xial

20.5 ft Schlumberger’s
Rt‐Scanner Tool
 LWD
RESISTIVITY TOOLS

2 MHz Propagation - 1984

• 1967 patent by M.
Gouilloud
• Transverse E-field
• Works in conductive or
insulating drilling fluids
• Small borehole effects in
smooth boreholes
• 1st quantitative LWD
resistivity measurement
• ~0.1 – 200 ohm-m range
 2 MHz Propagation - 1988
• Symmetric array
- increased accuracy
- reduced effects in rugose
holes
• Two resistivities derived
from Phase Shift and
Attenuation
• Dual radial depths-of-
investigation
• Anisotropic formations

Close-Up of Tool
Loop antennas located under slotted metal shields.
 Advances in Propagation
Resistivity

• 1991 – Array with 4 depths-of-investigation

• 1995 – Array with 10 depths-of-investigation
• 1995 – Dual frequencies 400 kHz and 2 MHz
• Different size drill collars (3” to 9” OD)

6.75” Toroidal Resistivity

Toroid
Buttons Ring Toroid

Location of drill bit

 Borehole Resistivity Imaging
• Each button scans 360°
as collar rotates
• Stacked scans provide
continuous image
• Geological features:
– Beds
– Dipping formations
– Fractures
– Faults
• Geosteering

Some Review Questions (Part I):

1. Why are there two basic types of well-logging tools to
measure the electrical resistivity of rock formations?
2. What are the factors that need to be taken into account
in deciding whether to use an induction or a laterolog
resistivity tool?
3. How are resistivity tools designed to exhibit variable
radial lengths of investigation?
4. What is the vertical resolution of induction and laterolog
tools?
5. How can the separation of the shallow, intermediate, and
deep resistivity curves be associated with the process
of mud-filtrate invasion? What petrophysical variables
would have the most impact on the separation of these
three curves?
6. What would be the petrophysical information available
from the ratio of virgin-zone resistivity to flushed-zone
resistivity?
 Some Review Questions (Part II):
8. What types of super-shallow electrical resistivity tools
are there available? What are they used for? Why are
they pad tools?
9. What are the environmental corrections that are
normally applied to resistivity logs?
10. Why does one need to worry about bed thickness in
the interpretation of resistivity logs in terms of in-situ
hydrocarbon saturation? When are bed thickness
corrections necessary?
11. Why does one need to worry about invasion in the
interpretation of resistivity logs in terms of in-situ
hydrocarbon saturation? When are invasion
corrections necessary?
12. What are the so-called resolution-enhanced resistivity
curves?
13. Describe the types of resistivity tools used in LWD
operations. What is the frequency of operation of these
tools compared to that of open hole wireline tools?
What is the length of investigation and vertical
resolution of LWD resistivity tools?

Acknowledgements:

• Baker Atlas
• Schlumberger