Hydrocarbon Type Identification With MWD Neutron Porosity Logging: A Case Study Q.J. Simms, SPE, Amoco Production Co., and C.A. Koopersmith, SPE, Sperry-Sun Drilling Services ‘Summary. Measurement-while-diling (MWD) information accurately defined gas, oil, and water in an offshore field. Basic MWD and wireline formation evaluation data compare favorably. A cost savin of $130,000 was realized when MWD information was used instead of wireline data on one well In the future, MWD logs may serve as the primary evaluation data on routine development wells in similar fields Introduction ‘The subject field is located in federal waters offshore Louisiana, Extensive drilling during the 1960's and 1970's developed mult ple gas and oil reservoirs. Five wells were dried in late 1987 and 1988 to develop unrained reservoirs within the field. These wells ‘were directionally drilled with 20 to 30° hole angles and 2,000- to 3,000-ft horizontal displacements. Although designed to drill ‘through partially pressure-depleted sands and sensitive shales, the first two wells inthe program encountered substantial problems dur- ing conventional wireline logging. An MWD logging program in- lading gamma ray, resistivity, and neutron porosity was initiated ‘onthe last three wells in an attempt to reduce evaluation costs and Finks associated with wielin logging, withou sacrificing forma- ton evaluation dat, Field History and Problems Inthe carly development phase ofthe field (1960's and 1970's), about 20 wells were died from two platforms. These wells en- ‘countered numerous oil and gas sands. As a result of extensive pro- duction, bottomhoe pressure in some ofthe reservoirs has del {60%, Inthe oil reservoirs large secondary gas caps have formed ‘because ofthis pressure eduction. The original wells were logged With conventional wireline tols, with few problems. ‘The lower reservoir pressure, sensitive shales, and deviated well- bores inthe recent drilling program, however, have complicated drilling and logging. In the mid-1980's, wireline tools became i- retrievaly stuck in two new wells, requiring complete redrlling in both cases. One ofthe frst two wells drilled as pat ofthe most recent five-well program encountered logging difficulties, incur- ing edtional costs in logging charges and rig time because of mul ‘tiple conditioning trips and wireline anempts. The average ime for conventional wireline logging ofthe ist two wells, including rob- lems, was 3.5 days Alternative Logging Methods ‘and Cost Considerations LLogeing costs in the frst two wells ofthe development program averaged $180,000 per well, including associated rig time. AS @ ‘result of the high trouble costs associated with wireline logging, ‘the Deiling and Formation Evaluation Depts. at Amoco Produc” tion Co, considered alternative methods to evaluate future devel- ‘opment wells in the field, Other methods considered were ‘rillpipe conveyed logging systems and MWD systems. The cost savings of MWD vs. drilpipe-conveyed wireline logging, were ssnall however, the expected trouble costs associated with the wire- Tine technique were mach higher than with MWD. This benefit sug- gested that MWD would be the biter alterative. This conclusion Js based on the assumption thi the neutron-porosity valves obtained with this MWD system are of sufficient quality for accurate for- ‘mation evaluation. This isthe major topic of tis work. MWD Logging Sensors ‘The commercially available MWD logging site consisted of natu- ral gamma ray, electromagnetic propagation resistivity, and dual- Copy 191 Sait of Poem Ergon SPE Fomation Evaluation, September 1991 detector neuron porosity sensors. Extensive documentation on these MWD logging sensors is avaiable," ig. I shows the 6¥-in.-OD MWD tool. As with any mulile- sensor loping device, sensor measure points are spaced at differ- tnt intervals from the efereace post, Which for the MWD is he bit Ths, a combination of ool configuration andthe distance be- {ween the tool andthe bit mst be used to determine the poston ofthe relevant sensor measure point. Table 1 provides Seuaed ‘hatomtole-assembly (BHA) information foreach ofthe thre sub- ject wells. Logging Program Objectives ‘The MWD logging program had three primary objectives. 1, To provide formation evaluation data in wellbores where wire- line logs could not be obtained. Especially critical was the need 1 evaluate whether productive zones were oll or gas productive. 2. To provide comparisons of MWD and wireline data to evalu- ae the accuracies of the MWD devices. 3, To develop ahistory of MWD logging experiences s0 that edu- cated choices between wireline and MWD techniques coud be made in future driling programs with similar logging problems. Evaluation Method and General Considerations Although evaluation of MWD logging data is essentially the same ‘as with conventional wireline data, some differences in response characlecstic and environmental parameters were observed in these ‘wells. The following three points address these differences 1, Care must be used in evaluations of the initial field quality ‘of MWD data received. Unlike wireline logging, MWD tools ypi- ‘ally are not evaluated for full functionality while they are in the ‘hole. Thos, data are received in ‘batch mode” at the end of abit ‘uf with recorded-only tools, as inthis case. Inthe case of real- time tools, more data typically are stored in downhole memory than are provided through mud pulse telemetry; thus, the same consid cations for batch-mode data are relevant. Inte event of intermit- tent tool failures, it may be unreasonable to repeat the logging, 50 ‘ot uncommon for logs to be displayed with bad or nonexis- tent data. As a result of batch-mode processing, the fact that data are bad may not become clear until some time after primary presen tation. This was the casein one well when the MWD resistivity tool had an intermittent tool failure. "2. Borehole effects on MWD neutron response can be substan- tial in cases where the borehole is not the same diameter as that assumed during processing, An MWD hole-size measurement was ‘not available for this stady. We assumed thatthe hole was in gauge, 0 we did not do a borehole correction on the neutron measure ‘meat. Our experiences inthis field support other works? inthe recognition of the importance of the time interval between bit penetration and sensor penetration. In instances of extensive cir- calating of the drilling fuid, the hole typically enlarges several inches. Sensor distances from the bit can be critical in these in- stances because the interval ffom the bit to the respective sensor ‘sno logged until drilling resumes, in many cases atthe beginning of the nex bit run. At such time as MWD hole-size measurements ‘become availabe, this problem may be alleviated. asBA [aeons [39 a we ‘seat mot Sh wave | Resistwmy sue coawun Bay Soe | on weas. 7 as (oreow ‘310 Toot weicNt = 2430 1s Fig. 1—Schematic of typical MWD tool with natural gamma fay, electromagnetic propagation resistivity, and dual- detector neutron-porosity sensors. TABLE 1—BHA DATA AND WELL INFORMATION -porosity data show good ———— "| | agreement sbout water (550 f) and ges (780 R) zones In Well Number_ | | wets. | 4 5 Distance (trom bit plots of near- and far-detector count-rate curves, gas-zone iden- | “Gamma ray 777 44 1105 tification frequently becomes clear. Dual-dtector compensated Becromagretls | neutron sensors have near- and fardetector banks; in ges zones, ropag || the taraetectors tendo exhibit apa effect” tha is ch greater Ouaeeteto e48op8 62) than that observed at near detectors, neutron porosity 19 9771245, Mud woight,fom/gal 95 87 OT Individual Well Analyses | Mua satiny, All three wells (Wells 3 through 5) were logged with MWD and "1,000 ppm Ci 130 14013102 aye eee So AE 94224 | conventional wireline tools. In Wel 3, witeline logs were unable to reach total depth and no wireline data were obtained through the objective sand In this study, it was determined, only after extensive compar- son of witeline and MWD neutron data from the three wells, that two ofthe thre wireline neutron logs were presented wilhout auo- atic caliper correction. This led to an inital difference in log responses, incorrectly suggesting thatthe MWD logs might be ia considerable error. All wireline neutron data presented in his work 4. The concept that replacement of gas by mud filtrate duing have been borehole corrected with wireline caliper dts and proc- invasion shoald result ina higher appatent neutron porosity some sed assuming a sandstone matrix. time aftr driling, as compared to MWD sensor measirements made _ The following are discusions of individual wells. Pseudodepths while dilng, has been documented.1-5 Although we agree with af© Usd to discus well zs. Emphasis is placed on comparisons this concept, cur results one major gas zone do not suppor this of wireline and MWD data, hypothesis because the MWD and wireline neutron responses ae essentially the same. Well No. 3. Fig. 2, alg plot of Well 3, compares wireline and Density-neutron erossplot techniques have become standard for MWD neatron porosities through a water zone at 580 fa shale hydrocarbon type identifications. Many experienced log analysis zone at 700 f, and gas-produtive interval at 750 ft. In all cases, might suggest that identification of gas zones without the benefit the MWD neutron porosity, which s assumed to log a gauge bore- ‘of density data would be difficult Because the neutron-porosity hole, is within to 3 porosity units of the wireline borehole corrected devices donot differentiate between low-porosity and gas-bearing _ neutron-poosiy log. The MWD and wireline neutron porosities intervals. Although this is rue with epar tothe apparent porosi- of 38 to 40% in the shales are consistent with neutron porosities ty curve alone, when tis used in conjunction with properly scaled expecied inthis field Hole deviation, cogrees 17t022 151020 23 Formation exposure time, hours. 1 4080 ‘average ROP* ‘of deep Intervals, ar 75.05.0380 ue ‘SPE Formation Evaluation, September 1991eee eee pe ae wear fs Nee | | ce ws ‘ ap | 4 me} = ae 7 + t £ i , aoso wo £ ox zoe a “ ss p00} co P: Toe BoP0.| If £ Le “ie A Fe, 3_MWD neuron porosity ured spina evauton tot |_| Fig. MWD near and far detector coun. cures reves Inn Zone a 10 Roh produce, G0 Sone a 788 and oh sone hom OHDOT Ae Wireline data indicate thatthe gas sand at 760 ft has 20 Q-m resistivity, 40% densiy-log porosity, and 12% neutron porosity. ‘The MWD neutron porosity is 15%. The MWD neutron alone easily ‘denies this sand as gas productive, when combined with the off- set well data indicating a true porosity of about 30%. "The hypothesis of ime lapse neutron-poresty logging would sug- gest that the MWD neutron device logged 1.5 hours ater bit peneta- ‘on would measure more gas effect (ower appareat neutron porosity) than the wireline neutron run 48 hours later. Is not clear ‘why the MWD neutron and wireline neutron responses are essen- tilly the same in the gas zone. One possible explanation is that :mud-ftrate invasion occurred very ealy, even before MWD neu- ‘ron logging, as the result of a large driling-Auid pressure over- ‘balance. This is suspected because the formation pressure has ropped 60% from intial pressure. 'A second objective sand Was encountered a the bottom of Well 3 at 1,050 to 1,110 ft. Fig. 3 shows the zone logged with MWD ‘measurements. Wireline logs failed to reach the objective sand be- ‘cause of poor hole conditions. Therefore, the MWD data alone were used asthe primary record ofthe wellbore and for formation eval- uation. Reservoir analysis before this well was drilled suggested ‘that the objective sand would be penetrated above the gas/oil con- tact (GOC) and thus would be gas productive. Based on a moder le MWD neutron porosity of 24 to 26%, however, it was determined thatthe reservoir had repressured, and the zone was evaluated as oil productive. The zone was completed and tested fn excess of 600 BOPD with a GOR of 1,100 f/bb1, confirming the oiL-productve evaluation ‘Another method of distinguishing gas and liquid zones is the use ofthe near- and far-detector coun-rate curves from the MWD neu- ‘SPE Formation Evaluation, September 1991 tron tool. Fig. illustrates the near and far count-rate plots through the gus zone at 750 ft and the oil zone at 1,050 ft. Near-to-far- = Fig. 8—MWD near- and far-detector count rates reves! gas. zone from 630 to 655 ft and high oll content at 655 ft in Well 5, which was tested mostly for gas. 1. Roeser, RP, Barnet, W.C., and Paske, W.C.: “Theory and Apli= cation of Measorement While Dring Netron Porosity Sensor,” pape ‘SPE 16057 pressed tthe 1987 SPEVTADC Dring Conference, New (Orleans, March 15-18. 2, Eliot, LAR. of al: “Recording Downhole Fomation Data Wile Dril- ing." JPT uly 1985) 1231-38 a8 7 good-quality ‘MW and wireline neutton dat in Wal ineato hot hole conditions degrade 20 hours after dling. Coope, D.F., Shen, LC, and Huang, F.S.C. “The Theory of 2 MHz Resistivity Tool and fis Application to Measurement-While Dring, The Log Anal (May-June 1988) 26, No.3, 35-46, 4. Coope, D.F: "Gamma Ray Messuremeat-While Dring,” The Log ‘Analyst (a. -Beb. 1983) 24, No. 1, 39. 5. Koopersmith, C.A. and Barnet, W.C.; “Environmental Parameters ‘Arfetng Neuron Porosity, Gamma Ray, nd Ressiviy Measurements ‘Made Daring Dring," poper SPE 16758 presented at he 1987 SPE ‘Annual Tecnica Confeenes and Exhibition, Dallas, Sep. 27-30 6, Greif, M.A. and Koopersmith, CA: "Pesropyscal Evasion of Thialy Bedded Reservoirs in High Angl’Displacement Devlopet Wells With the NL Recorded Lithology Loging System,” The Log Anas (Sep. (ct, 1986) 27, No. 5, 29-38 17. Cobern, M. and Nuskols, E.: “Application of MWD Resistivity Re- logs to Evaluation of Formation Invasion,” paper presented athe 26th SPWLA Annual Logging Symposiom, Dallas, June 17-20, 1985. 8. Chin, W. eral: “Formation Evaluation Using Repeated MWD Log- ing Measurements,” oper presented atte 7tbSPWLA Annual Log- fing Symposium, Hoste, June 9-13, 1986, 9, Holbrook, P: "Ect of Mad Fiat Invasion onthe EWR Log—A (Case Hisiory," paper presented at the 26¢ SPWLA Annual Logsing ‘Symposium, alls, Jone 17-20, 1985 $1 Metric Conversion Factors bbl x 1.589873 E-01 = m Tx 3048" E-Ol = m #8 x 2.831685 E-02 = m? gal x 3.785412 E-03 = m in. x 2.54" E400 = kPa bm x 4535924 B01 = kg “cone are set SPEFE gel SP mare eahed tren Ot 6158, Pou ext x anon a sae din ott tel ‘SPE Formation Evaluation, September 1991