Anisotropy from Deep Directional Resistivity LWD Measurements
- Brett Wendt (ConocoPhillips) | Tunde Akindipe (ConocoPhillips) | Malcolm Alexander (Schlumberger) | Douglas Hupp (Schlumberger) | Daniel Bourgeois (Schlumberger) | Soazig Leveque (Schlumberger)
- Document ID
- Society of Petroleum Engineers
- SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, 26-29 October, Virtual
- Publication Date
- Document Type
- Conference Paper
- 2020. Society of Petroleum Engineers
- 1.12.2 Logging While Drilling, 1.6 Drilling Operations, 5.1.8 Seismic Modelling, 1.6.6 Directional Drilling, 1.12 Drilling Measurement, Data Acquisition and Automation
- Deep directional resistivity, Anisotropy, Gauss-Newton
- 33 in the last 30 days
- 101 since 2007
- Show more detail
- View rights & permissions
|SPE Member Price:||USD 5.00|
|SPE Non-Member Price:||USD 28.00|
Deep directional resistivity LWD measurements have been shown to be sensitive to resistive transitions over a broad range of distances around the tool from tens to hundreds of feet. These detected transitional surfaces are primarily used to detect formation resistivity boundaries and assist with mapping geological profiles. The inverted formation dip and vertical resistivities are also resolved in the same search space. While the formation dip is used in conjunction with the reservoir-mapping interpretation results, the vertical resistivity, specifically the vertical and horizontal resistivity ratio, or anisotropy, has not received the same amount of attention.
Resistivity anisotropy is useful when calculating the formation resistivity in layered formations, as conventional resistivity tools measure the resistivity in one direction, which is perpendicular to the tool axis. With conventional induction and propagation resistivity tools, the electrical current preferentially transits the conductive lithologies, resulting in an apparent resistivity measurement that does not represent the true sand resistivity. The petrophysical evaluation often results in an apparent high-water saturation, which can result in incorrect decisions to abandon a prospect.
To understand two new fields located onshore Alaska, three horizontal appraisal wells were drilled with deep directional resistivity LWD technology. While the primary goal was to characterize the lateral resistivity profile and bed boundaries away from the wellbore, accurate water saturation calculations along the horizontal section are critical for making appropriate development decisions.
A review on how and why deep directional resistivity LWD technology is sensitive to anisotropy and how anisotropy is derived from parametric inversions is presented with a comparison between deep directional resistivity LWD measurements, 3D petrophysical modeling of propagation, and offset well triaxial induction anisotropy measurements. Integrating 3D petrophysical processing and triaxial-induction technology into deep directional resistivity LWD measurements add to the strength of the anisotropy output. The comparison shows that deep directional resistivity LWD measurements can be used independently to give accurate anisotropy results.
The result of this process provides a corrected resistivity measurement of vertical and horizontal resistivity in anisotropic formations for petrophysical models. Use of the corrected resistivity as a true resistivity (Rt) input for water saturation will ultimately drive better development decisions.
|File Size||1 MB||Number of Pages||12|
Abubakar, A.,Habashy, T. M.,Druskin, V.et al. 2004. A three-dimentional parametric inversion of multi-component multi-spacing induction logging data. Presented at the SEG Annual Meeting, Denver, Colorado, 10-15 October. SEG-2004-0616. https://doi.org/10.1190/1.1845272
Anderson, B. I.,Barber, T. D., and Habashy, T. M. 2002. The interpretation and inversion of fully triaxial unduction data; a sensitivity study. Presented at the SPWLA 43rd Annual Logging Symposium, Osio, Japan, 2-5 June. SPWLA-2002-O. https://doi.org/10.1190/1.3054806
Barber, T. D. 1985. Introduction to the Phasor Dual Induction Tool. JPT, 37, 09, September, 1699–1706. SPE-12049-PA. https://doi.org/10.2118/12049-PA
Barber, T. D., and Shray, F. 2001. Case studies using advanced interpretation techniques for induction logs. Presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, Louisiana, 30 September – 3 October. SPE-71707-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/71707-MS
Freedman, R., and Minerbo, G. 1991. Maximum-entropy inversion of the induction log. SPE Formation Evaluation, 6, 02, 259–267. SPE-19608-PA. https://doi.org/10.2118/19608-PA
Mendoza, A., Torres-Verdín, C., and Preeg, B. 2010. Linear iterative refinement method for the rapid simulation of borehole nuclear measurements: Part 2 – High-angle and horizontal wells. Geophysics, 75, 02, E79–E90. https://doi.org/10.1190/1.3267877
Moran, J., and Gianzero, S. 1979. Effects of formation anisotropy on resistivity-logging measurements. Geophysics, 44, 7, 1266–1286. https://doi.org/10.1190/1.1441006
Omar, S.,Thiel, M., and Omeragic, D. 2017. Reservoir scale resistivity anisotropy evaluation in vertical and low-angle wells using deep-directional resistivity LWD measurements. SEG International Exposition and Annual Meeting, Houston, Texas, 24-29 September. SEG-2017-17736815. https://doi.org/10.1190/segam2017-17736815.1
Wang, H.,Barber, T.,Rosthal, R.et al. 2003. Fast and rigorous inversion of triaxial induction logging data to determine formation resistivity anisotropy, bed boundary position, relative dip and azimuth angles. Presented at the SEG Annual Meeting, Dallas, Colorado. SEG-2003-0514. https://doi.org/10.1190/1.1817974
Wu, P. T.,Tabanou, J. R., and Bonner, S. D., 1996. Petrophysical interpretation of a multispacing 2-MHz MWD resistivity tool in vertical and horizontal wells. Presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver, Colorado, 6-9 October. SPE-36547-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/36547-MS