SPE 68081
Cased Hole Formation Resistivity Tool Trial
Asbjorn Gyllensten, SPE, Abu Dhabi Company for Onshore Oil Operation; Austin Boyd, SPE, Schlumberger-Doll
Research.
Copyright 2001, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2001 SPE Middle East Oil Show held in
Bahrain, 1720 March 2001.
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,
as presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are
subject to correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily
reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers
presented at SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the
Society of Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part
of this paper for commercial purposes 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 where and by whom the paper was presented.
Write Librarian, SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-
952-9435.
Abstract
In the past hydrocarbon saturation have been
monitored behind casing by pulsed neutron capture
(PNC) logs. These tools have been quite successful in
our environment onshore Abu Dhabi characterized by
good porosity carbonate reservoirs with high salinity
waters.
The ability to measure formation resistivity directly
through casing in monitoring wells adds a new
dimension, by allowing the measurement of water
saturation further away from the borehole, less
affected by the damaged zone invaded by mud
filtrate and drilling fines. Until recently, resistivity
logging in cased hole has been restricted to Induction
logs in fiberglass lined wells. New advances in digital
electronics has made it possible to produce the
sufficiently accurate and stable downhole sensors
required to measure formation resistivity through steel
casing. The first Middle East trials of a new Cased
Hole Formation Resistivity Tool (CHFR) took place in
1999/2000 in several ADCO wells.
Monitoring fluid saturation changes and movement in
fluid contacts with time, including the identification of
swept zones, barriers to flow and bypassed oil are the
main applications for the CHFR. With a greater
dynamic range than PNC-logs, the CHFR will
complement data from sponge cores and open hole
logs in swept zones, leading to more robust ROS
determination.
The CHFR may also be used for primary evaluation,
where no logs could be acquired in open hole, and
allows re-examination of wells with old resistivity logs.
In low resistivity where the CHFR is near its specified
limit of 1 Ohmm, the effects of resistive cement behind
casing become important and require careful
correction. PNC-logs are favored in this low resistivity
range.
Field logs obtained in this trial will be presented and
discussed in the paper.
INTRODUCTION
Several of the oil-fields onshore Abu Dhabi are
GIANTS, with producing lives expected to exceed 100
years. Generally water-injection is installed to support
natural waterflood and maintain reservoir pressure.
Monitoring focused on water-sweep plays an important
role. Since the potential gain from an improved
recovery mechanism is large, at any one time other
recovery processes are being tested in pilot form to
optimise the next phase of field development. These
pilots also require monitoring.
Up to now fluid saturation was determined behind
casing by time-lapse pulsed neutron capture (PNC)
logging tools. Although these tools are shallow reading
- depth of investigation is about 1 foot behind casing -
they provide good quality data in our fields
characterized by good porosity reservoirs with
formation waters and injection waters of high salinity.
The first Middle East trials of a new Cased Hole
Formation Resistivity Tool (CHFR) were carried out
during 1999 and 2000 in several ADCO wells. The
theory of measuring formation resistivity through steel
casing has been known for some time, but only recent
advances in digital electronics have made it possible to
produce the sufficiently accurate and stable downhole
sensors required. The main objectives of the trial were
to evaluate the capabilities of the CHFR prototype tool
in typical ADCO wells and conditions. Successful trial
results would impact not only our cased hole logging
programs and monitoring strategies, but also the
design of pilots and observation wells.
2 ASBJORN GYLLENSTEN, AUSTIN BOYD.
APPLICATIONS.
The main application of the CHFR is Reservoir
Monitoring. During the producing life of a reservoir,
through casing formation resistivity data may help
understand fluid flow and recovery processes in
several ways:
Evaluation of reservoir fluid saturation changes
with time including the identification of swept
zones, potential flow barriers and bypassed oil.
Monitoring movement in oil/water contacts (OWC).
Identification of off-take rate induced water coning,
by repeat logging at different off-take rates,
allowing time to re-establish stable conditions.
Estimating residual oil saturation (ROS) to a water
flood or a combined water-alternating-gas (WAG).
Open hole logs in dedicated wells through swept
zones and sponge cores or low invasion cores
may provide important information. PNC logs in
casing may support such data. Measuring
formation resistivity through casing allow the
evaluation of ROS further away from the borehole,
less affected by mud filtrate or acid effects.
The CHFR tool may also be used for primary
evaluation of reservoirs where no logs could be
acquired in open hole, due to operational problems
where the risks of open hole logging were too large.
Wells with old or faulty logs may also be re-examined.
TOOL PRINCIPLES
Measurements are taken while the tool is stationary.
The CHFR measures formation resistivity by injecting
current into the casing through a centralizer at the top
of the tool that returns to surface. Slight variations in
the current loss through the casing are related to
current leaking into the formation and may be
calibrated to formation resistivity. The voltages
investigated by the tool are in the Nano-Volt range,
which requires exceptionally stable and low noise
electronics down hole. Frequency of operation is
limited to around 1 Hz; to avoid polarization associated
with a DC-measurement and skin effects caused by a
higher frequency. Casing current loss is measured
through 4 rings of 3 electrodes attached to caliper-like
arms that open up and establish contact with the steel
casing at each station. Good electrical contact is
essential; a problem in wells with scale or corrosion
products on the inside of the casing. In double casing
the CHFR will only read the resistivity of the cement
between casings.
Downhole tool calibration is achieved by comparing
the cased hole measurements to open hole logs.
SPE 68081
Tool Specifications
Length.................................. 43 ft.
Measuring point to bottom:15 ft.
3
Tool OD.............................3 /8 in.
5
Casing range: ......4 - 9 /8 in.
Temperature.................... 150C (300F)
Pressure ............................... 15,000 psi
Deviation ...........................25 (70 with extra centralizer)
Bore hole fluid: .Water / oil / gas
Operating frequency:1Hz
Electrode spacing: ....2 ft.
Vertical Resolution........... 4 ft.
Depth of investigation: ....7 ft to 30 ft.
Equivalent Logging Speed.120 ft/ hr (2 ft. spacing)
Resistivity range ....................... 1 to 100 Ohmm
Combinability: Bottom only tool; run with Gamma Ray
and CCL above the CHFR tool for depth control.
TRIAL RESULTS.
W-1
The first trial well was chosen because it has a
variable resistivity profile ranging from 0.5 to 100
Ohmm. W-1 was drilled and completed in July 1996 as
an observer with a 5 GRE Liner in a Gas Injection
Pilot pattern.
After the GRE liner developed leaks, it was worked
over in November 1997, sidetracked and completed
with a 7 steel liner. At the time of drilling, the upper
part of the main reservoir was already partially water
flooded as seen on the open hole LWD logs. LWD
resistivity logs provide an excellent basis for
comparison, since these logs are less affected by
invasion, being recorded very soon after penetration of
the formation by the drill bit. The well has since been
regularly monitored using PNC logs. The first CHFR
log was run in May 1999; Fig. 1.
Initially, the differences observed between CHFR and
LWD resistivity were thought to be related to saturation
changes from water- and gas-injection in the Pilot
area. However, detailed comparison with PNC logs
from May 1999, highlights significant discrepancies
between 50 and 100 ft. and from 145 to 180 ft. Here
the PNC logs agree very well with the original LWD
resistivity logs. A second CHFR run in September
1999 is virtually identical to the first CHFR; see Fig. 1.
Possible reasons for the discrepancies between the
CHFR and the LWD resistivity and PNC logs include:
Different depths of investigation of PNC and
CHFR. The PNC tool measures approximately 1 ft
behind casing, while the CHFR reaches up to 30 ft.
Mud invasion may impair the near wellbore so that
any oil re-saturation further away from the
borehole is only seen by the CHFR and not (yet?)
by the PNC.
Open water-filled fractures nearby may perturb the
CHFR measurements by providing low resistivity
current paths away from the wellbore.
SPE 68081 CASED HOLE FORMATION RESISTIVITY TOOL TRIAL
PNC logs may be more influenced by variable
cement quality and thickness than the CHFR. On
the other hand the CHFR may also be influenced
by cement in ways we do not yet fully understand.
The effect of resistive cements on Through Casing
Resistivity Tools was first highlighted by Klein in 1993.
Different cement thickness (12 in. thick annuli) and
resistivity (1-100 Ohmm) effects on the CHFR have
been modeled and reported by Beguin (2000). Cement
effects may at least partially explain the observed
differences between the CHFR and LWD. Perhaps the
inclusion of a short-spacing measurement on a future
CHFR would allow these corrections to be more
accurately defined.
The impact on the W-1 evaluation is significant. Using
the CHFR data in the petrophysical model established
for this well give much higher oil saturation across the
water-flooded interval in the upper part of the zone.
This saturation profile is unlikely; from the several
passes of time-lapse data acquired to date and the
open hole logs in the sidetrack there is no hint of any
such re-saturation across this interval. The specified
optimum range of operation for the CHFR is from 1-
100 Ohmm. In this example we see the greatest
deviation from PNC results as we approach 1 Ohmm.
Given that the CHFR is operating near its specified
limit it would be prudent to favor the PNC as the
preferred method for analyzing the swept zone.
However the far greater depth of investigation of
CHFR should make it very useful for detecting early
water breakthrough in other intervals before the flood
water enters the zone of investigation of a PNC tool.
It is also unlikely that the plugged back original hole
100 feet from the steel cased sidetrack would affect
the CHFR logs with a depth of investigation limited to
30 ft.
W-2.
This observer was drilled and completed with a 4
steel monobore completion in April 1999. The CHFR
was run in June 1999, allowing direct comparison
between open hole and cased hole resistivity. A
second CHFR log was run in October 1999. Note the
increase in resistivity from 60 to 110 ft; Fig.2. While
mud filtrate dissipation may explain this increase, there
is no support for the much higher oil saturation derived
from the CHFR runs (relative to the open hole oil
saturation) from the two PNC logs, taken at the same
time as the CHFRs; Fig.3. It shows the PNC-
evaluations to the left and the results of the CHFR runs
to the right. Mud filtrate seen by PNC # 1 (in blue at
the top) has dissipated as expected by the time of
PNC # 2, which agrees with open hole log saturation.
Oil saturations derived from the two CHFRs are higher
and appear to increase with time.
3
A third set of CHFR/PNC logs was run in December
1999. The CHFR shows a slight increase around 90 ft;
otherwise there is generally good agreement with the
CHFR from October 1999. There is hardly any change
between PNC # 2 and # 3. Even if the CHFR shows
resistivity increasing with time which implies
resaturation with hydrocarbons in the swept zone, it is
operating near the 1 Ohmm limit and until further
measurements can verify these results the PNC
interpretation seems more realistic. It is noteworthy
though that in the lower interval of this well the CHFR
resistivity clearly matches open hole resistivity and
PNC results even at the 1 Ohmm range. The
observation that this interval is not showing resistivity
changes with time implies the greatest deviation
between PNC and CHFR results occur in the swept
zone where the saturation profiles could have some
radial complexity that is not well understood.
W-3.
This well was also drilled and completed with a 4
steel monobore completion as an observer in May
1999. Two CHFR logs were acquired respectively in
July and October 1999. The two runs repeat well
except around 70 ft where the second log reads
higher. The CHFR reads lower resistivity than the LLD
where the latter is higher than 6 Ohmm (below 110 ft),
but higher than the LLD when it is less than approx. 2
Ohmm; across the water swept zone from 65 to 110 ft,
see Fig. 4.
The logs were also compared with the PNC logs: there
is good agreement between PNC and open hole log
derived saturation in this zone. The significantly higher
hydrocarbon saturation derived from the CHFR in the
swept zone should be taken with caution as the tool is
operating in the lower limits of its specified range.
W-4.
W-4 was drilled as an observer to monitor water sweep
in May 1999 and was chosen for the CHFR trial
because it has three different resistivity logs across the
interval of interest; Array Induction, Dual Laterolog and
High Resolution Laterolog. Micro-resistivity data is
available from Rxo and borehole imaging logs. The
open hole logs show resistivity ranges from 0.2 to 40
Ohmm across the interesting zone. At the time of
drilling, the well was partially water flooded in the top
part, see Fig 5.
W-4 was completed in June 1999 with 7 steel liner,
and 5 single string tubing. As part of a water
injection pilot, the well has been regularly monitored.
PNC and CHFR were run in September 1999 to
observe water front movement in zone B. The tool
suffered from bad contact several times, possibly
related to the presence of grease (reported while
rigging down) which could have come from the
wellhead during rig-up.
4 ASBJORN GYLLENSTEN, AUSTIN BOYD.
Three passes were merged together and noisy spikes
- due to bad contact or collars - removed. Edited
CHFR and open hole logs are plotted in Fig. 5. The
comparison shows that although the CHFR responds
to the main changes in formation resistivity, it does not
read the low resistivity of water-flooded zones. The
CHFR may qualitatively detect swept zones, but
cannot provide accurate Sw data in this low resistivity
range.
Variations in texture, sorting and cementation may
cause differences in horizontal and vertical formation
resistivity, just like seismic velocity and permeability
may vary in the horizontal and vertical direction. In
layered reservoirs, logging devices whose electrical
currents cross the layers (or carbonate cycles)
vertically (DLL and CHFR) will measure the resistivity
of the layers in series giving a high apparent Rt.
Sensors injecting electrical currents horizontally into
the formation (AIT & LWD) measure the resistivity of
the layers in parallel resulting in a low Rt. Such
formation anisotropy effects may in some cases
explain observed differences between DLL and AIT
resistivity. In W-4, however, the resistivity inversion
results indicate that the initial differences between raw
AIT and HRLA logs were merely caused by invasion
effects and the different vertical resolution and depth of
investigation of the two tools.
It follows that formation anisotropy cannot explain the
observed differences between the open hole resistivity
tools and the CHFR in W-4.
W-5.
W-5 was drilled vertically in June 1999 and completed
with 7 liner as an observer to help monitor water front
advance from a nearby injector. CHFR and PNC were
run in October 1999 as a base run before commencing
injection. The CHFR resistivity compares well with
open hole Dual Laterolog Deep (LLD) and Shallow
(LLS) below 60 ft, see Fig. 6. From 20 to 60 ft. the
CHFR reads nearly a decade higher. In the top part,
the CHFR is unable to read the high resistivities
ranging from 200-2000 Ohmm seen by the LLD and
LLS. High CHFR readings seen from 9060 to 9020
have given rise to speculation about possible re-
saturation of flushed oil. This is unlikely as the Wireline
formation tester pressure data suggests an OWC @
9044 ft, inline with Open Hole and PNC logs. It is
important to note though that in several zones the
CHFR clearly matches the open hole resistivity.
However the discrepancies between PNC and CHFR
occur in the low resistivity zones where CHFR is near
its specified limit of 1 Ohmm and until further
information is obtained to resolve this discrepancy the
PNC interpretation should be favored.
SPE 68081
SUMMARY OF TRIAL RESULTS
The CHFR trial in ADCO is encouraging and
represents a breakthrough in Cased Hole logging
technology.
The data may be used qualitatively to monitor water
front movement. Quantitative analysis of fluid
saturation in low resistivity water flooded zones
requires knowledge of cement resistive parameters
and careful application of the relevant corrections. The
greatest discrepancies between CHFR and PNC logs
occur in swept zones where CHFR is near the lower
limit of its operating range. Until other deep reading
measurements become available to resolve this
discrepancy, the PNC results are preferred in swept
zones and CHFR should be used for indications of
early water breakthrough where its far deeper depth of
investigation would be most useful.
Operationally the CHFR tool worked fine and
repeatability is satisfactory.
CHFR vertical resolution is almost the same as the
Dual Laterolog.
In intervals with resistivity less than 2 Ohmm,
CHFR generally reads too high Rt.
Compared with cased hole PNC-logs, oil
saturations derived from the CHFR are higher,
particularly in water swept zones in the low
resistivity range.
Different depths of investigation between PNC-
logs and CHFR complicate direct comparison.
Adding of a short spacing measurement to the
CHFR, may better define the cement effects.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.
The authors wish to acknowledge the support by
Management of ADCO, ADNOC and Schlumberger for
permission to publish this paper.
REFERENCES.
Recent Progress on Formation Resistivity
Measurement through Casing. P.Beguin,
D.Benimeli, A.Boyd, I.Dubourg, A.Ferreira,
A.McDougall, G.Rouault, P.van der Wal.
Schlumberger. SPWLA Annual Symposium in
Dallas, USA, June 2000.
The Petrophysics of Electrically Anisotropic
th
Reservoirs. J.D.Klein et al. SPWLA 36 Annual
Symposium, Paris, June 1995.
Cement Resistivity and Implications for
Measurement of Formation Resistivity Through
Casing. SPE 26453. J.D. Klein, P.R.Martin and
A.E.Miller. 1993.
SPE 68081 CASED HOLE FORMATION RESISTIVITY TOOL TRIAL 5

Fig. 1.
6 ASBJORN GYLLENSTEN, AUSTIN BOYD. SPE 68081

Fig. 2.
SPE 68081 CASED HOLE FORMATION RESISTIVITY TOOL TRIAL 7

Fig. 3.
8 ASBJORN GYLLENSTEN, AUSTIN BOYD. SPE 68081

Fig. 4
SPE 68081 CASED HOLE FORMATION RESISTIVITY TOOL TRIAL 9

W-4 Fig. 5.
10 ASBJORN GYLLENSTEN, AUSTIN BOYD. SPE 68081