Comparisons of MWD, Wireline, And Core Data From a Borehole Test Facility

SPESPE 22735

Comparisons of MWD, Wireline, and Core Data From a BoreholeTest FacilityM.W. Hutchinson, Conoco Inc.SPE Member

Copyright 1991, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 66th Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition of the Society of Petroleum Engineers held in Dallas, TX. October 6-9, 1991.

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 reflectany 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 Societyof Petroleum Engineers. Permission to copy is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words. Illustrations may not be copied. The abstract should contain conspicuous acknowledgmentof where lmd by whom the paper is presented. Write Publications Manager, SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836 U.S.A. Telex, 730989 SPEDAL.

ABS1RACf

Six service companies demonstrated commercial and prototypeMeasurement While Drilling (MWD) formation evaluation toolsin two research wells at a borehole test facility in northernOklahoma during the summer of 1990 as part of a joint industryproject. This paper compares both wireline and MWD resistivity,neutron porosity, bulk density, photoelectric and caliper data, aswell as MWD, wireline, and core spectral gamma data. The comparisons are made between tools run through the same geologicalformations and under the same borehole conditions. The data inthis report show that MWD tools can provide good quality datasuitable for geological and reservoir characterization. The dataalso demonstrate some of the differences between various designsof MWD sensors and wireline devices.

IN1RODUCfION

Service companies test and characterize prototype MWD devicesextensively in the laboratory and in calibration test pits whichcontain a variety of rock properties. From these experimentsdetailed environmental correction and response charts are produced. However, laboratory testing does not demonstrate how adevice will perform under operational conditions.

Test holes are not intended as replacements for calibration pits.Rather such wells provide complementary operational checkswhere the effects of tool sliding, tool rotation, borehole rugosity,field calibration and data sample rate can be evaluated. Researchwells also provide the database of conventional core and wirelinemeasurements necessary for tool development, but usually unavailable from operational wells. In this manner direct comparisons of different logging techniques can be made through wellcharacterized geological formations (Figure 1), at controlled rates

References and figures at end of paper.

741

of penetration and logging speeds, and under the same boreholeconditions.

BACKGROUND

The borehole test facility has four wells that are used for loggingresearch. In 1982 a fresh water based test well (33-1) was drilledand cored in its entirety to a total depth of 3035 f1. with a 7 7/8inch diameter bit and 8 5/8-inch casing set at 1500 f1. (Figure 1).In 1986 an oil based test well (33-4) was drilled and selectivelycored to a total depth of 2400 ft. with an 8 3/4-inch diameter bitand 9 5/8-inch casing set at 1380 f1. In order to run MWDdevices (many of which required a minimum hole size of 8 1/2inches) through the wide range of formation properties down to3000 ft., it was necessary to drill and core a new test well (33-5).Because it is not possible to simultaneously conventionally coreand log with MWD devices, it was also necessary to drill a secondwell (33-6) to investigate the difference between measurementsmade while and after drilling. The locations of the new wellswere selected so as to facilitate both interwell acousticexperiments and flow tests.

Between 1982 and 1991, borehole conditions have remained verystable in the 33-1 Well through the lower shales, sandstones andlimestones. Formation logging responses have not varied exceptin relation to temporary mud filtrate invasion or borehole salinitychanges. The four test holes continue to be used for the evaluation of new MWD tools as well as for wireline research.

TEST PROCEDURE

During the summer of 1990, twenty-nine operating oil companies,thirteen service companies, eight universities and three otherresearch organizations funded the drilling of these two jointindustry test wells near Newkirk, Oklahoma. Drilling details andtechnical programs were jointly planned by participants at groupmeetings over the course of the year preceding the drilling. The

2COMPARISONS OF MEASUREMENT WHILE DRILLING, WIRELINE AND

CORE DATA FROM A BOREHOLE TEST FACILITY SPE 22735

main objective of the project was to evaluate MWD toolresponses.

The 33-5 Well was drilled and cored with 8 l/2-inch drill bits tothe casing point at 1363 ft. where wireline logs were run. Thewell was then enlarged to a 17 l/2-inch diameter and 13 3/8-inchcasing was set. The lower section was also drilled and extensivelycored with 8 l/2-inch drill bits to a total depth of 3200 ft.Wireline logs were run and then a 500 ft. inteIVal below surfacecasing was enlarged to a 12 1/4-inch diameter in order to accommodate larger MWD collar sizes. The well was drilled verticallywith fresh water polymer drilling mud.

The 33-6 Well was drilled with a 17 l/2-inch diameter bit to acasing point at 479 ft. where 13 3/8-inch casing was set. Successively smaller openhole sections were drilled as the well wasdeepened with 12 1/4-inch, 9 7/8-inch and 8 l/2-inch drill bits toa total depth of 3194 ft. The lower sections of the well weredrilled with a fresh water polymer drilling fluid which was laterdisplaced with a high salinity water based polymer mud. The last500 ft. of the 33-6 Well were deviated up to sixteen degrees forthe purpose of investigating the effects of eccentering MWDtools in the borehole.

The 33-5 and 33-6 Wells were both logged with commercial andprototype MWD and wireline formation evaluation sensors.Mudlogging data were obtained from both holes. The data acquisition program included the testing of different MWD drill collarsin various hole sizes with and without stabilizers, running repeatpasses at various rates of penetration, and logging in fresh andsalt water drilling fluids. Five service companies ran wireline logsin order to establish benchmarks for the MWD tools.

Some MWD service companies typically perform calibrationchecks with their tools assembled in the rotary table. For thisproject, in order to save rig time, companies were asked to calibrate their tools before they were picked up, and then again afterthey had been laid down. Only operational checks were performed at the rig floor.

Rates of penetration while drilling varied between ten and onehundred feet per hour. On wiper runs the rates of penetrationwere more uniformly controlled, and sample rates were set toacquire data at least every foot.

All service companies were required to deliver a field print oftheir logs within hours of completing logging bit runs. This wasdone in an effort to control any adjustment, normalization orother alteration of data after the fact, and to ensure thatdelivered data were representative of more usual field operatingenvironments. Initial MWD data were all acquired before wireline logs had been run, although some MWD wiper runs didoccur after wireline logging. With the exception of Company X'sprototype density and photoelectric data (which were acquired ona proprietary basis outside of the contractual agreement), allMWD data were delivered in the field.

At different times during the project all seIVice companies hadvarious experts on location observing operations. One companyhad a satellite communications system, and another company useda modem link that enabled them to transmit data back and forthto headquarters. The advent of modern data communicationshave made the definition of "Field Processing" somewhat nebulous, but these systems were of particular use in sorting outsoftware problems with prototype tools.

742

Digital MWD data were requested every six inches, and boreholecorrections were applied when available. Each service companyhad different data handling software procedures and capabilities.Not all MWD companies had complete borehole environmentalcorrection software. Some companies process their data on atime sampled basis and then convert to depth based values,andothers convert their raw measurements to equally sampled depthvalues before processing. For this report all MWD logs havebeen manually depth matched to within six inches of wirelinedata, and log values which were missing on a six inch basis havebeen interpolated linearly from the data points six inches aboveand below. Wireline gamma-ray logs have not been borehole corrected. MWD and wireline neutron logs are all in limestoneporosity units. Wireline neutron logs are caliper corrected. Bulkdensity logs are in grams per cubic centimeter. Photoelectric logsare in photoelectric units.

It is assumed that when the various MWD porosity logs are correctly calibrated, environmentally corrected and lithologyadjusted, they read correct porosity. Verification of this willrequire sophisticated modeling beyond the scope of this paper.

Benchmarks (Table 1) of wireline responses to which the MWDdevices are compared were established. Five wireline servicecompanies ran resistivity, neutron, density, and photoelectricservices in the 33-6 Well. In each case, one of the five servicecompanies produced a log that was less similar than the others.The anomalous log was disregarded and a benchmark linearaverage was calculated using the remaining seIVice companies'data. Each service was run by only one wireline seIVice companyfor benchmarking MWD data in the 33-5 Well.

Log overlays, crossplots and histograms were generated to compare MWD services to wireline and core data. Correlation coefficients (cc) were calculated from a root mean average leastsquares fit through the plot of MWD and benchmark wirelinedata, and between the benchmark wireline data and each individual wireline company's data (Tables 1 through 8). If wirelineand MWD data exactly matched, then the crossplot would havedata tightly clustered around a forty-five degree line. Thisreference line has been drawn on each crossplot. Histogramswere generated for MWD log response subtracted from benchmark wireline log response, and for each individual wirelinecompany's data subtracted from the benchmark wirelineresponses. The average difference (~) and the standard deviationof the difference (u) were then calculated (Tables 1 through 8).

Hole conditions in the 33-5 Well were better than in the 33-6Well, so the 33-5 statistics should represent more optimal performance of wireline and MWD devices. The 33-6 Well does however, afford the opportunity to investigate MWD tool re;ponsewith varied hole enlargement.

All statistics were generated using the wireline calipers to discriminate bad data. Wireline calipers were normalized in thesurface casing and in the "assumed-gauge" 8 l/2-inch limestonesections of the boreholes. All cross-plots and histograms weregenerated using data where the holes were within a quarter inchof gauge, except when investigating the effect of hole size ondensity and photoelectric logs where different ranges of hole sizewere selected. Additional histograms were generated for theneutron and density logs in the 33-5 Well using the gamma-rayand depth to discriminate tool responses by lithology. It shouldbe noted that different hole sizes are also associated withdifferent lithologies.

SPE 22735 M. W. HUTCHINSON 3

RESULTS

The scope of this paper is focused predominantly on the lower8 l/2-inch diameter sections of the 33-5 and 33-6 Wells where theborehole conditions were the best. Care must be taken toaccount for slight variations in tool calibration when drawingconclusions from the statistics. Benchmark wireline tool statisticsfrom the 33-6 Well are presented in Table 1 where averagedbenchmark wireline tool responses from five service companiesare statistically compared to individual service company measurements.

Gamma-Ray

Compared to wireline logs, there is more consistency in calibration among the MWD gamma-ray logs, except for the nonspectrally processed total gamma curve from Company Y (Figure 2).Their spectrally processed total gamma log was consistent withother MWD logs. Personal communication with Company Yindicates that their algorithm used during the summer of 1990 forborehole corrections in light drilling muds was less accurate without spectral processing. Recent improvements have been madeto that algorithm.

MWD spectral gamma-ray logs from Company Y were verysimilar to wireline measurements from two other companies(Figure 3). The MWD thorium measurements were greater thanwireline and core measurements. MWD uranium measurementsread a little negative in the cleaner sandstone sections. Coremeasurements of potassium were lower than wireline measurements, and uranium measurements higher. Repeat passes of thecore spectral gamma-ray are being run as a quality check on thecore data.

Resistivity

Six MWD companies ran resistivity logs. Equipment problemsand shortages prevented the running of all the different types ofdevices in the small diameter sections of the boreholes. Fourcompanies ran 2 MHz resistivity logs over the entire drilled intervals. In general it was observed that all types of resistivity devicesworked in fresh drilling mud, but that in the large hole upper section of the 33-6 Well with high salinity mud, the 2 MHz resistivitytools performed better.

The four companies that provide 2 MHz resistivities each havetools with similar designs. Two companies have sensors with twotransmitters, and two companies have single transmitter designs.Three of the companies present both phase and amplitude resistivities, and the fourth company phase only.

In both the 33-5 and 33-6 Wells each of three service companies'phase and amplitude resistivities indicate relative separationthrough impermeable shales and limestone formations (Figure 4).These log responses are not due to invasion or different depthsof investigation. They illustrate that phase and amplitude resistivities are sensitive to both conductive and dielectric rockproperties in differing proportions. The apparent phase resistivityis less affected by formation dielectric than is the apparent amplitude resistivity.

Four different service companies measured MWD phase resistivities from various passes in both the 33-5 and 33-6 Wells at

743

varying stages of invasion (Figure 6). The logs indicate greatsimilarity in response under similar invasion conditions. Depth ofinvestigation of the MWD phase measurement appears to fallbetween shallow focused and medium induction wireline measurements. Vertical resolution appears more similar to wirelinemedium induction logs. The MWD phase measurement appearsvery similar quantitatively to the wireline medium induction logbetween one Ohm-m and sixty Ohm-m (Figure 5). Company Yran their phase log in the 33-5 Well far from the driII bit.Company X had a phase measurement on the same run in thehole that matched the log from Company Y. The crossplot ofCompany Y's phase resistivity data from the permeable watersand between 2400 ft. and 2500 ft. identifies the anomolouslyhigh MWD phase measurements near one Ohm-m from the wireline log on the crossplot as being due to filtrate invasion of thatsand and the time sequence of logging (Figure 5). There doappear to be some calibration or processing differences (oneOhm-m in a five Ohm-m zone) between service companies converting phase shift measurements to resistivity as depicted in theshale between 2600 ft. and 2700 ft. in the 33-6 Well (Figure 6).When the 33-6 borehole salinity was increased to 145,000 ppmchlorides, the phase resistivities decreased during the displacement of fresh filtrate by more conductive filtrate.

Amplitude resistivity comparisons between the three differentMWD service companies in both the 33-5 and 33-6 Wells showedvery close agreement with wireline deep induction resistivitybetween one Ohm-m and twenty Ohm-m (Figure 5). Verticalresolutions of the amplitude resistivities were unable to distinguish contrasting thirty Ohm-m and sixty Ohm-m limestone andshale beds three feet thick. These beds are distinguishable bothwith the conventional wireline deep induction, and particularlywith a higher resolution wireline deep resistivity device(Figure 7). When the 33-6 borehole salinity was increased to145,000 ppm chlorides the amplitude resistivities increased duringthe displacement of fresh filtrate by more conductive filtrate inpermeable zones. This is explained by the negative integratedpseudo geometrical factor, amplitude response for the boreholeand volume of rock immediately adjacent to 2 MHz resistivitydevices.

The differences in depth of investigation of phase and amplitudemeasurements are illustrated in the permeable sands between2400 ft. and 2500 ft. Three phase resistivity logs run on the samewiper drilling run in the 33-6 Well show various stages of invasionas fresh drilling mud displaces saline formation fluid, whereas theamplitude resistivities show little variation (Figure 6).

Both amplitude and phase resistivity tools are sensitive to borehole rugosity in high salinity mud. All 2 MHz raw logs had100 Ohm-m spikes which were filtered to greater and lesserdegrees by the service companies. Cosmetically smoothing thedata (Figure 6) in this manner enabled the log to be used for correlation, but quantitative reservoir analysis would be somewhatsubjective.

Company W provided a focused MWD resistivity log which closely resembled wireline shallow resistivity between four Ohm-m andtwenty Ohm-m (Figure 5) in fresh drilling mud. In salt drillingmud the focused MWD resistivity closely resembled wirelineshallow resistivity down to half an Ohm-m in the permeable sandsof the 33-6 Well. The focus MWD log was not as adverselyaffected by borehole rugosity as the 2 MHz resistivity devices.

SPE 22735COMPARISONS OF MEASUREMENT WHILE DRILLING, WIR'ELINE AND

4 CORE DATA FROM A BOREHOLE TEST FACILITYr----------------------~---------------------...,

Neutron Porosity

MWD neutron porosity tools all differ both in design and in theirlog response to different lithologies (Figure 8). In general thereis a good correlation between MWD and wireline neutron porosities as can be seen from crossplots (Figure 9). Seventy percentof the time MWD neutron measurements are within two porosityunits of wireline neutron porosity (Table 2), which is similar towireline thermal neutron porosity tools compared to one another(Table 1). None of the MWD neutron data presented in thispaper were corrected for varying borehole size. Hole enlargement can shift the MWD log approximately six porosity units forevery inch that the hole is enlarged. The advent of an MWDcaliper tool should improve this measurement.

Wireline neutron tools are either epithermal or thermal in design.The Company X neutron tool appears to be more similar to thewireline thermal neutron porosity. Company Y's neutron tool ismore similar to the epithermal wireline tool in sandstone rocks,closer to epithermal in limestone formations, and betweenthermal and epithermal in shales. The Company Z neutron toolmore closely resembles thermal wireline porosity in bothlimestones and shales, but because it works on the principle ofcapture gamma-rays, in shales it reads higher than both thermaland epithermal wireline neutron porosity. Table 2 presentsstatistics from histograms of the difference between MWD andwireline neutron porosities for all lithologies in the 33-6 Well.Tables 3 and 4 show the mean and standard deviation of thedifference between wireline and MWD neutron porosities in the33-5 Well discriminated by lithology (Figure 10).

Company X and Company Y demonstrated integral stabilizerdesign MWD density tools. Company X were field testing theirprototype tool. They did not deliver the density data in the field,but only after the results had been evaluated. Company Y usesa statistical method based on count rates to correct their tool forslight borehole rugosity. Company Z uses a different design thatcan be run either with or without conventional in-line stabilizers.

The integral stabilizer designed tools more closely duplicatedwireline bulk density (Figure 11). Seventy percent of CompanyX and Company Y density data are within 0.03 glcc of the wireline density (Table 5). Comparing wireline devices to each othergave a difference of between 0.02 and 0.03 glcc (Table 1). Differences in the density histogram statistics from differentlithologies (Table 5) could be due to depth alignment difficultiesin the thinly bedded limestones. The standard deviation of thedifference between wireline and Company Z's densities was lesswhen Company Z ran their tool with in-line stabilizers than whenthey ran without (Figure 12).

It was observed in the 33-6 Well, where the hole builds angle,that there is cyclical caliper activity. This had a detrimental effecton MWD integral stabilizer densities. Histograms under variousamounts of hole enlargement (Figure 13) of the differencebetween various MWD densities and benchmark wireline densityindicate that MWD densities degrade significantly when the holeenlarges one quarter inch over gauge. Comparing the statisticallycorrected and uncorrected densities from Company Y demonstrates the improved accuracy of the corrected measurement inwashed out boreholes, but also suggests that in a gauge holethere is greater precision with the uncorrected density (Table 6).This is explained by the error of two summed independent

744

statistical populations being greater than the error of eachindividually.

Photoelectric

Two MWD companies provided photoelectric logs. Company Yoffers this service commercially. Company X was field testing aprototype and experienced some hardware difficulty with thephotoelectric detection. The log that is presented from Company X is uncalibrated. Both logs appear able to discriminatelimestone, shale and sandstone (Figure 14). The MWD photoelectric response from Company Y reads slightly high in sandstones, which is explained by spectral distortion of low energygamma-rays by the drill collar.

The crossplots and histograms (Figure 15) and the statistics fromthe histograms (Table 7) indicate that, except for the lithologybias in sandstones, MWD photoelectric measurements fromCompany Yare statistically comparable to wireline measurements(Table 1) with seventy percent of the measurements within0.2 photoelectric units.

Statistical comparisons of photoelectric MWD data with differenthole enlargements (Table 8) indicate a continuous shift in MWDphotoelectric response which a borehole correction scheme mighthelp adjust.

Company Y demonstrated an MWD acoustic caliper that recordsboth a minimum and maximum hole size. Comparing this deviceto wireline four arm caliper measurements (Figures 16 and 17)shows that the acoustic caliper closely reproduces wireline calipermeasurements out to two inches over gauge. Some of the differences might be explained by mudcake or by mechanical resolution restrictions of the wireline caliper.

The count rates from the short spaced detector sampled at different times in various orientations around the borehole is usedby Company Y to estimate borehole enlargement. The crossplotof averaged wireline xy-caliper versus count rate derived calipersuggests that the latter does not match the wireline caliper whenthe borehole is more than one quarter inch over gauge(Figure 17).

CONCLUSIONS

Measurement While Drilling (MWD) tools are capable ofdelivering good quality formation evaluation data suitable forreservoir and geological characterization.

Gamma-ray logs from MWD were more consistent in calibrationthan wireline gamma-rays. Company Y alone provided an MWDspectral gamma service. These spectral logs were quite similar towireline data.

The 2 MHz and electrode-type resistivity logs from MWD compare closely to wireline induction and focused logs. 2 MHzMWD resistivity logs work well in fresh or salt drilling mud, butare sensitive to hole size with highly saline muds. 2 MHz MWDresistivity data were closer to wireline measurements thanelectrode-type MWD resistivities in large holes with high salinitydrilling mud. 2 MHz MWD phase resistivity is very similar to thewireline medium induction log, but is sensitive to invasion.2 MHz MWD amplitude resistivity is very similar to the wireline

SPE 22735 M. W. HUTCHINSON 5

deep induction log in fresh drilling mud. MWD 2 MHz phaseresistivities from different service companies in shales are lessconsistent than wireline resistivity logs from multiple servicecompanies.

u The standard deviation of the difference betweenbenchmark wireline and MWD or wireline logvaluesThe average of wireline sigma values

MWD neutron porosity logs have very similar quality to wirelinethermal neutron logs. MWD neutron tool designs vary quite significantly, and lithology effects must be taken into account.

Density logs run with integral stabilizers duplicated wirelinedensity responses more closely than MWD density devices without integral stabilizers. Running MWD density tools without anystabilization produced data that were the least similar to wirelinedensity data. Borehole enlargement in excess of one quarter inchdegrades MWD density data.

The MWD photoelectric log from Company Y is of similarquality to wireline data in low density drilling mud.

Company Y alone provided MWD caliper data from an acousticdevice. These data were far superior to density count ratederived caliper logs.

FUTURE WORK

The focus of this paper has been on the ability of MWD technology to deliver formation evaluation logs that are comparableto wireline measurements. Future work should further investigatethin bed responses for MWD tools and the effects of rate ofpenetration. Modeling of nuclear devices has already beenproposed using data from the 33-5 and 33-6 Wells. Additionalcore data and descriptions will be available from the 33-5 Wellwhich will help this work. New MWD and wireline loggingdevices continue to be tested and evaluated in these test wells.Many of the participants in this project have expressed aninterest in drilling a horizontal test well.

In addition to the reservoir rock samples the conventional corefrom the 33-5 Well contains a wide variety of shales. These couldbe of great value to the environmental industry.

This joint industry project has demonstrated that operating oilcompanies, service companies and academic institutions cansuccessfully meet their own individual objectives throughcooperation on a common project. Bringing together scientistsfrom all these different organizations will help accelerate thedevelopment of MWD technology.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author thanks the Conoco Borehole Test Group for theirjoint participation in drilling these two test wells. In particularConoco and the service companies are acknowledged for theircommitment of field personnel and equipment during the project.The author is also grateful to Conoco, R,:ag, Schlumberger,Sperry-Sun and Teleco for permission to pllblish these results.Individual appreciation goes to Joe Reinert for his legal advice,Billy Hendricks for his promotional assistance, and Dena Wagnerfor her help with data preparation.

REFERENCES

Shen, L.C., "Investigation Depth of Coil-Type MWD ResistivitySensor," Transactions of the SPWLA Thirty-Second AnnualLogging Symposium, Midland, Texas, June 1991.

Habashy, T. and Anderson, B., "Reconciling Differences in Depthof Investigation Between 2-MHz Phase Shift and AttenuationResistivity Measurements," Transactions of the SPWLA ThirtySecond Annual Logging Symposium, Midland, Texas, June 1991.

Locke, S. et aI., "Theory Response and Calibration of an MWDNeutron Porosity Sensor Employing Sidewall-Mounted Li6 GlassScintillation Neutron Detectors and Spectral Processing,"Transactions of the SPWLA Thirty-Second Annual LoggingSymposium, Midland, Texas, June 1991.

Best, D. et aI., "An Innovative Approach to Correct DensityMeasurements While Drilling For Hole Size Effect," Transactionsof the SPWLA Thirty-First Annual Logging Symposium,Lafayette, Louisiana, June 1990.

Wraight, P. et aI., "Combination Formation Density and NeutronPorosity Measurements While Drilling," Transactions of theSPWLA Thirtieth Annual Logging Symposium, Denver,Colorado, June 1989.

Orban, J. et aI., "New Ultrasonic Caliper for MWD Operations,"SPE/IADC Drilling Conference Paper 21947, Amsterdam, March1991.

NOMENCLATURE

MWD

Phase

Amplitude

CC

A

Measurement While Drilling, which includesformation evaluation loggingResistivity obtained from transforming the phaseshift of 2 MHz electromagnetic wavesResistivity obtained from transforming theamplitude attenuation of 2 MHz electromagneticwavesThe Correlation Coefficient from crossplots of logvaluesThe average difference between benchmarkwireline and MWD or wireline log values

745

Evans, H. et aI., "A Focused Current Resistivity Logging Systemfor MWD," Sixty-Second Annual Technical conference, SPE,Dallas, Texas, September 1987.

Clark, B. et aI., "A Dual Depth Resistivity Measurement ForFEWD," Transactions of the SPWLA Twenty-Ninth AnnualLogging Symposium, San Antonio, Texas, June 1988.

Hutchinson, M., "Measurements While and After Drilling byMultiple Service Companies Through Upper CarboniferousFormations at a Borehole Test Facility, Kay County, Oklahoma,"IADC/SPE Drilling Conference Paper 19969, Houston, Texas,March 1990.

TABLE 1--33-6 WIRELINE BENCHMARKS

4 II ii CC

Thermal Neutron -1.1 to 3.8 1.5 to 1.9 (1.7) 0.97

Epithermal Neutron -2.3 to 0.6 '1.2 to 3.1 (1.2) 0.99

Bulk Density -0.010 to 0.019 0.017 to 0.027 (0.019) 0.99

Photoelectric -0.12 to 0.15 0.16 to 0.22 (0.19) 0.99

TABLE 2--33-6 WIRELINE - MWD NEUTRON POROSITY

Wireline Thermal Wireline Epithermal

4 II 4 II

Company X -1.6 2.7 -3.8 2.6

CompanyY 2.5 2.2 0.2 1.3

Company Z -0.4 3.2 -2.7 4.1

TABLE 3--33-5 WIRELINE THERMALMWD NEUTRON POROSITY BY LITHOLOGY

Limestone Sandstone Shale

4 II 4 II 4 II CC

Company X -0.6 2.1 0.4 1.8 0.6 3.2 0.95

CompanyY 0.0 2.0 1.8 1.6 2.0 2.4 0.94

Company Z 0.1 2.2 -0.1 1.5 -4.5 3.3 0.93

TABLE 4--33-5 WIRELINE EPITHERMAL MWD NEUTRON POROSITY BY LITHOLOGY

Limestone Sandstone Shale

4 II 4 II 4 II CC

Company X -2.1 1.9 -1.3 1.9 -4.1 2.6 0.95

CompanyY -2.1 1.7 0.1 1.6 -2.7 22 0.95

Company Z -1.4 3.3 -1.8 2.4 -9.3 3.0 0.96

TABLE 5--33-5 WIRELINE - MWD DENSITY

Limestone Sandstone All Lithologies

4 II 4 II 4 II CC

Company X -0.040 0.037 -0.033 0.027 -0.030 0.032 0.96

CompanyY -0.022 0.028 -0.034 0.050 -0.011 0.035 0.95

Company Z -0.050 0.041 -0.158 0.065 -0.056 0.077 0.85

Company Z -0.015 0.073 -0.037 0.071 -0.015 0.092 0.72(Unstabilized)

746

$PE 2 27 -S 5,

TABLE 6-33-6 WIREUNE - MWD DENSITY

Hole0.0-0.1 0.0-0.25 0.25-0.5 0.5-1.0 1.0-2.0

Enlargement 4 II 4 II 4 II 4 II 4 11

Company X -0.026 0.051 -0.029 0.058 0.003 0.084 0.077 0.106 0.194 0.121

CompanyY -0.022 0.067 -0.037 0.066 0.025 0.081 0.032 0.102 0.128 0.161

CompanyY 0.026 0.041 0.030 0.054 0.116 0.078 0.211 0.086 0.324 0.111(Uncorrected)

Company Z -0.022 0.074 -0.016 0.076 0.001 0.097 0.021 0.095 -0.034 0.098

TABLE 7--33-5 WIRELINE - MWD PHOTOELECTRIC

4 II CC

Company X -0.07 0.47 0.92

CompanyY -0.17 0.20 0.97

TABLE 8--33-6 WIRELINE - MWD PHOTOELECTRIC

Hole0.0-0.25 0.25 to 0.5 0.5 to 1.0 1.0 to 2.0

Enlargement 4 II 4 II 4 II 4 II

Company X -0.31 0.35 -0.34 0.30 -0.42 0.31 -0.47 0.36CompanyY -0.43 0.23 -0.21 0.28 -0.01 0.23 0.14 0.17

SPE. '2 27 -s i

33-5 Stratigraphy

KEY

(so,,~,erio75~~~~~:"~::;'e~ 1056

FOflMATIONSn 'M_, LS

W,.ta'dlS

Hot>o~ S5

Il.d Eogi. lS

NW-Sec33T28NR3E

Kay County, Ok.

".,~~£~~~~:;t:hg~OA~~

70.5

oGW-2

t" ns. nd Well Cross Sec 10Map View, aFacility Stratigraphy,Figure 1.

E TEST FACILITYBOREHOL

~l33-5~I /~Jre-FreSh)

L ~~ ...~&"I:) .~ \

~3-6(MWD-Salt)

200 Ft • "--:-\

~""""'''''''= 33-.1. \

f,J "ffi'"¢,\~r ~3-2

33-P-~h)(Oi~

o 0GW-5 GW-3

747

33-5 Total Gamma-Rays

Wireline MWD

o 200 0 200

2400 ~~;;::""~'~==1

I-----=- I!!!!I:=---~ 2500

2600 L---.........--IIL----lFigure 2. MWD and Wireline Total Gamma-Ray

2300

2400

2500

33-5 Spectral Gamma-Rays

Potassium Uranium Thorium

----------------- Wireline-----------------······················Core.. ···· .. ······ .. ···· ..

MWD

0 5-5 20 0 25..

4•• 0 •••••

·.1"-1-ilo •

j

~ "~~

c .~~~ 'i: ' .......

~-~ ".~.. _.

~ l. tJ,·'~~L 3 ..~

,... '!~cIl

r~,..... :; 'I-::. l5 c

'.~

.rt~ J.111;....-

~i- s;··, . :5f?'".:~....~ -

1.1""}..

0" :~~~~

~~ I~-'"::'!::1'....

I~ ~!-Figure 3. MWD. Wireline and Core Spectral

Gamma-Rays

33-6 Phase & Amplitude

Company W Company X Company Y

-GammaRay

·.......... ·· .. Amplitude.... ·.. ·.... ···-----Phase----

Figure 4. MWD Phase and Amplitude Resistivity Relative Separation in Shales

748

7

SPE 2273 S

100'0

Wireline Medium

CompanyY33-5

Resistivities

'oo,------ -"

10010

Wireline Medium

'00'0

Wireline Medium

100 100

CompanyW ... ~. Company X33-5 ..... ,: 33-5

Resistivities Resistivities

ill j.."Q.

10 Q. 100 0:;:~:::!

100.----------__--.." 100.---_- --.." 100,-----------/1

'00'0Wireline Medium

CompanyY33-5

Resistivities

'00'0

Wireline Medium

CompanyZ33-5

Resistivijies

jQ. ,0

~

l,~-----,."O;--------,,;!,00

Wireline Focused

'00,--------------.." 100,----------_;-""""71 100,--------------.."

QompanyW33-5

Resistivities

Wireline Deep

Company X33-5

Resistivities

'0Wireline Deep

'00

CompanyY33-5

Resistivities", .:"

Wireline Deep

'00

Figure 5. Crossplots of Wireline Versus MWD Resistivity

33-5 33-6

Fresh Fresh Salt Fresh Salt

----x Caliper·_·-Y Caliper

~-Gamma

Ray

·.. ··PhaseW----Phase X-PhaseY-PhaseZ-FocusW

-PhaseV\-----Phase X..... Phase Y·-·-Phase Z

Phases Amplitude-W-

Amplitude------X------

Amplitude...... y .

Amplitudes

MWD Phase and Amplitude Resistivities

200

i I!

0.2 2000.220

I

! I~.

I J IIIII! '

II. i! I

II,

i Iii i III ! I III rl'I .1 iii

! Iii,! i III 'II:

2000.2

illl, I

I III

III~;I.

0.220o~~i(f-- 2400 1-tt-l/5!i>FJR-H-++H

III !

2500 I-ttHiWlI-H-++H

III-- !- 2600 i

I ill!"- ...... 2700 L.Ull......l&J...J....1",,-,

Figure 6.

749

33·5 Resistivities

Company WICompany X CompanyV

-----X Caliper

·_·-Y Caliper

8 12 ----------Deep Wireline----------

-Gamma- AmplitudeRay

0 200 0.2 2000.2 200 .2 200

i:::~ '" ~-

r-. 2850 - -

1~f---=" ~ ~ ~

~

~.,!,c::

2900 - - -" ,,-~ "'" - ;

- l! ---~ - -.'c;

!Dzo!b 2950Figure 7. MWD Amplitude and Wireline Resistivities

33-5 Neutrons

Company X Company V Company Z

----oX Caliper._._y Caliper MWD

··············Wireline Epithermal··············8 12 --------------Wireline Thermal--------------Gamma-

Ray

0 200 0.6 00.6 00.6 02300

~ 'Zo ~

~ i. J. ~.iii!:I J Jl ~i ,

2400t::- ~ i!-'

l~ :s-

~~ - ;0, ---- '""h

2500

ffiI~ I' i'" ,::"".-

1 .....:::~ ~4f2600 :,~..

Figure 8. MWD and Wireline Neutron Porosities

.5 .5 .5

Company XCompanyY Company Z.. .. 33-5 .. 33-533-5 Neutrons NeutronsNeutrons

.3 .3 .3

~ ~Cl;:

~ ~

.2 .2 .2

.1

.2 .3 .. .2 .3 .. .5 .2 .3 .. .5

Wireline Thermal Wireline Thermal Wireline Thermal

.5..Wireline Epithermal

.5...2 .3

Wireline Epithermal

.5...2 .3

Wireline Epithermal

.5 .5 .5

.. Company X .. CompanyY ..33-5 33-5

Neutrons Neutrons

.3 .3Cl Cl Cl;:

~;:

~ ~

.2 .2

Figure 9. Crossplots of Wireline Versus MWD Neutron Porosities

750

SPE 22 7J 5

60 60- 60

Company X Company Y CompanyZ33-5 33-5 33-5

"E40 Neutron 40 Neutron "E

40 Neutron"E'" Sand

~ Sand '" Sand~ ~

'" '" '"0.. 20 0.. 20 0.. 20

I

a a a-.2 -.1 .1 .2 -.2 .1 .2 -.2 -.1 .1 .2

Wireline Thermal - MWD Wireline Thermal - MWD Wireline Thermal - MWD

60 60 60

Company X CompanyY CompanyZ33-5 33-5 33-5

"E 40 Neutron "E40 Neutron "E 40 Neutron

'" Lime '" Lime '" Lime~ ~ ~

'" '" '"0..20 0.. 20 0.. 20

a a a-.2 -.1 .1 .2 -.2 -.1 a .1 .2 -.2 -.1 .1 .2

Wireline Thermal· MWD Wireline Thermal - MWD Wireline Thermal - MWD

60 60 60

Company X Company Y CompanyZ33-5 33-5 33-5

"E40 Neutron "E

40 Neutron "E 40 Neutron

'" Shale '" Shale '" Shale~ ~ ~

'" '" '"0.. 20 0.. 20 0.. 20

a a a-.2 -.1 .1 .2 -.2 -.1 .1 .2 -.2 .1 .2

Wireline Thermal - MWD Wireline Thermal - MWD Wireline Thermal· MWD

60 60 60

Company X Company Y Company Z33-5 33-5 33-5

"E 40 Neutron 40 Neutron 40 Neutron~ "E

~ Sand Sand

~Sand

'" ~0..20 0..

20 20

a a a-.2 -.1 a .1 .2 -.2 -.1 a .1 .2 -.2 -.1 a .1 .2

Wireline Epithermal MWD Wireline Epithermal MWD Wireline Epithermal MWD

60 60 60


"E40 Neutron 40 Neutron "E

40 Neutron"E'" Lime '" Lime '" Lime~ ~ ~

'" '" '"0..20 0.. 20

0.. 20

a a a-.2 -.1 a .1 .2 _ -.2 -.1 a .1 .2 -.2 -.1 a .1 .2


60 --------- 60 60


"E 40 Neutron "E 40 Neutron "E40 Neutron

~ Shale ~Shale '" Shale

~

~ '" '"20 0.. 200.. 20

a a-.2 -.1 a .1 .2 -.2 -.1 a .1 .2 a .1 .2


Figure 10. Histograms of Wirelines Minus MWD Neutron Porosities By Lithology

751

33-5 Densities

Company X Company Y Company Z

._._.Y Caliper ---------------------- Wireline ------------------------- X Caliper .................. Unstabilized MWD··· ............

8 12 MWD-Gamma-Ra~

0 200 2.2 2.8 2.2 2.8 2.2 2.8i.f r- ~ rai :'l ~;;::2300

~....~

~~~ ~

_.~

..: .0;;: ..:

~rr ~-1t ~-2400 ..,

'. ~ s= .>::~

~=Ii

:~;> ~~~

~kl ~~.,.~...~~

2500"1 III ~ ~""

}~~ ~...:

'"-~ :.~.

'I ,~

~. ~~ H~ ...<~

2600Figure 11. MWD and Wireline Bulk Densities

i" i 2.

j ii 2.' ~ .

22 2.222 2.' 2.2 2.' 2.'

Wireline Wireline

~y

33-SDensities

~yX33-5

Ilenolty

_·MWO

~y

33-SIlenolty

2

_-MWO

Figure 12. Crossplots and Histograms of Wireline and MWD Bulk Densities

752

SPE 2 27 J'

<00,---------- <00,-----------, <00,---------------.

iCompany X

33-6DensityGauge

0---.----.----'WireUne-MWD

'00

Company Y33-6

DensityGauge

Wireline • MWD

- ..-

CompanyY33~

DensityGauge

Wireline MWD (Uncorrected)

Company Z33-6

DensityGauge

'00

L-".----- .,.- - ..,;- ,--J

Wir&line • MWD

<00,---------------.

Wireline • MWO

Company Z33-6

DensityW'Washout

'00

-, 0

Wireline • MWO (Uncorrected)

Company Y33-6

Density'Ih~ Washout

300

o .,Wireline - MWD

Company Y33-6

Denalty1,J2"Washout

'00

300

'00

<00,------- <00,-----------, <00,------------,

300

Company X33-6

Density1" Washout

Company Y33~

Dens;ty'''Washout

Company Y33-6

Density1"Washout

CompanyZ33~

Density'" Washout

o -.4 -2 0

Wiretine - MWD

o .... -.2 0

Wireline - MWQ (Uncorrected)

<00,-----------,

300

Company X33-6

llenaIty2"Waahout

300

Company Y33~

Density2"Washout

CompanyY33-6

Density2" Waahoot

Company Z33-6

Density2" Washout

o _,4 ---2 0 2

Wireline-MWD Wireline • MWD

'00

oWire~ne MWO (Uncorrected)

o _.".-

Wireline-MWO

Figure 13. Histograms of Wireline Minus MWD Bulk Densities By Hole Size

753

SPE 2 27 J 5

33-5 Photoelectrics

Company X Company Y

-----x Caliper._._.y Caliper

15

33-5 Calipers

---Counts Model------Acoustic Max--------------Acoustic Min ----------._._._._. Wireline Max-·-·_·_···············Wireline Min·············

6

Wireline - MWO

Wireline

••i<-----,----.-----{

--------Wireline-----------MWD--

2200

2300

Figure 14. MWD and Wireline Photoelectrics

o 200

8 12

-GammaRay

Wiretine

Figure 15. Crossplots and Histograms of Wireline andMWD Photoelectrics

'.

"~x.. 33-5

I :.~ .. " ..Wireline·MWD

Figure 16. MWD and Wireline Calipers

16,--------------", 16,---_--_--_--"

Wireline Minimum

CompanyY33-5

Calipers

161514

.~'.

Wireline Average

·Company Y

~15 •

~5CBIipers .

Ii::E2

j~

1212 13 14 15 16

Wireline Maximum

16151413

CompanyY33-5

Calipers

·Figure 17. Crossplot of Wireline Versus MWD Calipers

754

Comparisons of MWD, Wireline, And Core Data From a Borehole Test Facility

Documents

Transcript of Comparisons of MWD, Wireline, And Core Data From a Borehole Test Facility