Anda di halaman 1dari 11

SPWLA 50th Annual Logging Symposium, June 21-24, 2009


Asbjorn Gyllensten, Saif Al-Arfi, Mohamed Al Hammadi, Khalid Al Marzouqi
(ADCO), Ahmad Madjidi, Marie-Laure Mauborgne and Geoff Weller (Schlumberger)
Copyright 2009, held jointly by the Society of Petrophysicists and Well Log
Analysts (SPWLA) and the submitting authors.

made up of parasequences, cycles and subcycles.

Hierarchies of stratigraphic cyclicity may occur on
different scales as a result of sea-level oscillations
during deposition. If these cycles result in layers with
different properties, subsequent diagenesis and
hydrocarbon charge may create intercalations of
capillary bound water in microporous layers and
movable oil in layers with larger pores. Such thin beds
may be below the vertical resolution of most logging
tools and while porosity can be derived as a linear
average, formation resistivity (measured in the
horizontal direction by most conventional resistivity
logging tools) is controlled by the conductive waterfilled microporous layers. The water saturation derived
for such intervals using the conventional Archie
equation may therefore be too high and oil-bearing
macroporous layers may be completely overlooked.


This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPWLA 50 Annual Logging
Symposium held in The Woodlands, Texas, United States, June 21-24, 2009.

Carbonate reservoirs are often challenging to evaluate
in terms of accurate water saturations due to the
inherent heterogeneities. Conventional resistivity-based
water saturation estimates using Archie's equation
depend on petrophysical parameters strongly related to
reservoir rock texture, pore structure and wettability.
These parameters are often not readily available at the
time of evaluation, require time-consuming special core
analysis to obtain, and can vary significantly within and
across depositional sequences. Formation resistivity
may also be affected by electrical current flow via paths
of least resistance offered by the presence of brinefilled microporosity and fractures.

Further uncertainties in rock wettability and variation in

cementation factor in carbonate rocks are other reasons
that the resistivity-based empirical Archie equation may
not provide accurate water saturation in such rocks.

During drilling and shortly after, the dynamic process

of invasion provides unique environmental conditions
that we use to our advantage to evaluate measurements
from newly developed, neutron captured cross-section
(sigma) logging while drilling (LWD) at multiple
depths of investigation and with reduced borehole
environmental effects. The strong sensitivity of sigma
to both salinity and hydrocarbon type offers a new
solution to help solve the old enigma of determining
accurate fluid saturations in carbonate reservoirs.

Thermal neutron capture cross-section logging has been

in use for many years to monitor fluid saturation
changes in cased-hole observation wells and producers.
The macroscopic thermal capture cross-section, or
sigma, is sensitive to the presence of strong thermal
absorbers. Chlorine present in formation water is one
such absorber that is not present in any hydrocarbons.
Thus, sensitivity of sigma logging to chlorine present in
formation water can be used to derive water saturation.
The sigma log is a volumetric measurement,
independent of pore structures and their geometries,
layers and fractures.

In oil-base mud (OBM) systems, a comparison of the

LWD data obtained during drilling with a repeat pass
recorded while tripping can identify movable water as
well as the oil/water contact, and also provide accurate
oil saturations in the oil leg. In water-base, brine mud
systems (WBM) prior to deep filtrate invasion, accurate
water saturations independent of resistivity logs can be
obtained as well as an estimate of Sxo, which is essential
for hydrocarbon and lithology typing. Several field
examples illustrate successful application of these
techniques in carbonate reservoirs.

Recording such sigma logs while drilling reduces the

impact of mud filtrate invasion, leaving the effects of
original reservoir fluids on the LWD logs at a
maximum as compared with similar wireline logs
recorded after drilling. The LWD sigma logs, which
have a depth of investigation similar to conventional
neutron and density logs can therefore be used to
partition hydrocarbon into light and heavy phases,
providing information on hydrocarbon density in
addition to fluid saturation.

The complex and heterogeneous nature of carbonates
makes accurate determination of oil saturation difficult.
The variation in pore sizes can often range from visible
to microscopic in close proximity. Carbonate bodies are

SPWLA 50th Annual Logging Symposium, June 21-24, 2009

As sigma is a volumetric measurement, ff can be split

into the contribution of water (w) and hydrocarbon
(HC) components:

After water injection, depending on salinity contrast

between the connate water and injection water,
computation of residual oil saturation (SOR) becomes
challenging. In such unknown water salinity, standalone resistivity or sigma logs will be of limited use.
However, combining LWD resistivity and sigma allows
the computation of water saturation and salinity with
much reduced borehole environmental effects.

bulk = (1 ) ma + S w w + (1 S w ) HC

Sw can easily be extracted from this equation, but ma,

w and HC must be known or determined separately.
Sigma measurement in EcoScope * . This tool includes
several measurements including bulk density and
neutron porosity in addition to formation resistivity
(Weller et al. 2005). It uses a pulsed neutron generator
that removes the need for a chemical neutron source
and makes it possible to measure sigma while drilling at
a time when invasion is generally limited or negligible.

Reservoir fluid type and content derived from infill

wells are important to optimize ultimate recovery in
fields produced under depletion. Knowledge of gas
flood sweep efficiency derived from the measurement
of remaining oil saturation (ROS) is valuable during gas
injection for improved oil recovery (IOR) projects.
Basics. Sigma is the macroscopic thermal neutron
capture cross-section of the formation. If the formation
contains elements with high thermal neutron capture
cross-sections such as chlorine, boron and gadolinium,
neutrons emitted into the formation will be captured in
a very short time and the measured sigma will be high.
The sigma measurement can differentiate between
saline water and oil so that oil saturation in saline water
environments can be accurately calculated. However,
the calculation is less sensitive in freshwater reservoirs
because sigma of fresh water is similar to oil (Fig. 1).

A single detector records the gamma ray count rate as a

function of time. Initially, the decrease in the count rate
is due to the effect of tool and borehole in the
immediate proximity of the detector. The borehole
effect is relatively small, as the large LWD collar
displaces most of the mud in the borehole. Some typical
decay spectra recorded by the tool are shown in Fig. 2.
Assuming a single exponential decay, the decay rate of
the gamma rays is given by:

N (t ) = N 0 e t /

N(t) is the count rate at time, t.
N0 is the initial count rate.
is the decay constant in s.

Sandstone = 4.3
Dolomite = 4.7
Calcite = 7.1



Anhydrite = 12

















(sigma) is related to the decay rate of the gamma ray

counts in the detector by the equation:

Increasingly Salty

Fig. 1 Sigma value for different mineral and fluids.

In cased hole, the presence of casing, which is a strong

neutron absorber, in conjunction with commonly used
saline completion fluids results in a much faster decay
of the borehole signal than the formation signal, so at
later times the formation signal can be cleanly
observed. This is not always the case in open hole,
especially in fresh mud, where separation of the
borehole and formation signals can be more difficult.



In the simple case of a single mineral component,

measured sigma is the sum of two components
weighted by their porosities: the sigma of the matrix
(ma) and the sigma of the formation fluid (ff):

bulk = (1 ) ma + ff

Fig. 2 Sigma, the macroscopic thermal neutron capture

cross-section of the formation, is closely related to
formation salinity.


Mark of Schlumberger

SPWLA 50th Annual Logging Symposium, June 21-24, 2009

The pulsing scheme (Fig. 3) was designed to optimize

the measurement of time decay data to derive sigma. It
consists of a sequence of 32 short burst packets
followed by a 380-s (405-s, if the early decay is
included) interval. Sigma acquisition is repeated 62
times before background acquisition. The gamma ray
decay rate is determined over the 380-s interval
preceding the next burst packet after subtracting the
gamma ray background measured during the last 5 ms
of the burst-off-background pause.

With their reduced borehole effect compared to

wireline measurements - mainly due to their larger tool
size - LWD sigma logs have been successfully used to
derive formation water saturation near the wellbore
independent of Archies parameters (Amer 2008).
Sigma measurements from multiple depths of
investigation (deep, medium, shallow) can be
interpreted similar to resistivity logs with multiple
depths of investigation: overlying curves indicate
absence of invasion, and we can conclude that the
measurement is a true representation of formation
sigma. Similarly, separation of the multiple curves
indicates mud filtrate invasion that must be accounted
for before we can compute formation water saturation.
The basic layout of the MLWD tools neutron section is
shown in Fig. 4; each detector is presented with the
associated measurement on the right. The neutron
section includes the PNG and the detectors separated by
a tungsten shield. The neutron section includes four 3He
neutron detectors (thermal and epithermal near and two
thermal far) and two NaI gamma detectors (SSn and
LSn). These detectors are used for porosity,
spectroscopy and density measurements. The sigma
measurement is obtained from the gamma ray time
decay spectrum recorded by the SSn detector at the
same time as spectroscopy.

Fig. 3 Pulsing scheme and associated time bins.

Invasion of the formation by mud filtrate is a complex
process related to many factors like reservoir rock
quality, mud properties, pressure differential and time.
Considering the time only, under wireline logging
conditions where mud filtrate invasion already has
taken place, the original reservoir fluid effect on most
logs is minimized, since the invading fluid may have
displaced a significant amount of the original formation
fluid within the depth of investigation of the sensors.
However, under LWD conditions, where formation
exposure time to mud filtrate invasion prior to logging
is relatively short, the original reservoir fluid effect
tends to be much more important, since relatively little
formation fluid displacement will have taken place.

Pulsed Neutron Source

Neutron monitor
Tungsten shield

T h e rm a l Neutron Porosity ()

Near epithermal detector

Near thermal detector
Spectroscopy detector

L ith o lo gy (SpectroLith)
S ig m a ()

Far thermal detectors

N e u tro n -Gamma-Density (NGD)

Although in relative terms mud filtrate invasion effects

are reduced on LWD logs, LWD logs with shallow
depths of investigation can still be affected by mud
filtrate loss that takes place before mudcake buildup. In
oil reservoirs, invasion effect on porosity logs is
generally small, while in gas invasion effect can be
more severe. Although deep propagation LWD
resistivity logs are generally not sensitive to invasion,
shallow resistivity measurements can be affected. The
shallower depth of investigation compared to resistivity
measurements can lead to high invasion effects on nearwellbore water saturation computation from sigma
measurements. This can cause an overestimation of
water saturation in WBM and an overestimation of oil
saturation in OBM.

NGD far gamma detector

Fig. 4 Detectors layout of neutron section.

In the neutron section of the tool, four detectors are
suitable for measuring sigma. These are, with
increasing distance from the neutron source,

Near (short spacing 3He neutron detector)

SSn (short spacing NaI gamma detector)
Far (long spacing 3He neutron detector)
LSn (long spacing NaI gamma detector)

SPWLA 50th Annual Logging Symposium, June 21-24, 2009

The current processing to extract sigma from the time

decay spectra is called the Moments method. It
assumes the decay can be approximated as a single
exponential and uses the ratio of the first and second
moments of the time spectra to extract the decay time.
This method was not suitable for the near detector
because its decay cannot be approximated by a single
exponential. So a double exponential approximation
was used to determine the decay time using a leastsquare fit. This method also has the advantage of
removing a large part of the borehole contribution, so
less correction needs to be applied. It is also used for
the SSn detector, but it cannot be used if the count rate
is too low (as it is in the LSn detector.) The results from
the two methods match closely (Fig. 5).
Fig. 6 EECF invasion tank


Virgin theoretical value: 9.7

Raw sigma (two exponentials): 10.3
Raw sigma (moments): 13.2

Invasion was also studied using Monte Carlo simulation

and the results compare well with actual invasion
measurements described above; see Figs. 7 & 8.

Double exponential
Experiment vs. simulation
17 PU fresh water sandstone invaded by 200 kppm mud


Double exponential

SSn exp


LSn exp

Moments method


Near exp


Fig. 5 Results for double exponential and Moments

method match closely.







Invasion (inches)

Fig. 7 EECF test and Monte Carlo simulation of 200kppm salt mud invasion in 17 PU freshwater sandstone.

Environmental corrections are defined independently

for each detector and each analysis method using data
obtained at the Schlumberger Environmental Effects
Calibration Facility (EECF). They include diffusion,
borehole size, and mud salinity corrections. We
analyzed several logs with the three sigma
measurements. In the absence of invasion, the three
sigmas are in good agreement after environmental
corrections. We also studied the impact of invasion on
each detector response. First, invasion measurements
were taken at the EECF using special, layered artificial
formations. The experimental device consists of a 12in. borehole formation tank (Fig. 6) in which inserts are
placed to obtain the equivalent of 2-in. or 4-in. invasion
in an 8-in. borehole. The inserts are filled with the same
formation. The formation fluid of each section can be
changed independently.

Experiment vs. simulation

17 PU 200 kppm sandstone invaded by fresh mud


SSn exp

LSn exp
Near exp







Invasion (inches)






Fig. 8 EECF test and Monte Carlo simulation of freshwater invasion in 17 PU 200 kppm NaCl sandstone.

SPWLA 50th Annual Logging Symposium, June 21-24, 2009

to record gas effects prior to mud filtrate invasion can

be the optimal way of locating the GOC and evaluating
fluid saturation. We compared reservoir fluid properties
from MLWD and wireline pressure test data (Fig. 12).
In this case, we achieved excellent agreement between
GOC determined from logs and wireline formation
pressure. Moreover, a wireline fluid analyzer run to
analyze the fluid below the GOC indicated oil.

Field Example 1. Evaluation of a low-resistivity pay
reservoir in OBM. Water saturation from a previous
offset well was estimated as high as 80%, while the
well has been continuously producing over 1,000
BOPD dry oil, leaving a large difference between logderived oil in place and actual production (Gyllensten et
al. 2007). A sponge core in another well indicated water
saturation of around 40%, more in line with production
data. MWLD separation between deep and shallow
sigma while drilling clearly indicated the free water
level (FWL), confirmed by the wipe sigma log, in this
well (Fig. 9). A better water saturation is obtained by
using sigma across the oil column and resistivity below
the FWL.

Field Example 5. Hydrocarbon density from logs.

Establishing an accurate fluid gradient for hydrocarbon
typing using a wireline pressure tester is not always
possible, depending upon the reservoir depletion
mechanism, rock permeability, supercharging, and
reservoir thickness. We used a combination of
conventional logs with MWLD sigma to obtain
hydrocarbon density, which we compared with the
gradient from a wireline pressure test result (Fig 13).
Results indicate that with an on-going depletion and gas
injection process, establishing meaningful fluid
gradients from pressure measurements is not possible at
this time. The log-derived hydrocarbon saturation and
density data are better indicators of reservoir
performance and sweep efficiency.

Field Example 2. SOR after water injection. This 8.5-in.

borehole was drilled close to a horizontal water injector
and logged while drilling. The effective formation
water salinity across the injected interval is a mix of
formation and injection water and mud filtrate invasion.
Without knowledge of salinity and therefore formation
water resistivity (Rw), computation of water saturation
using the Archie equation would be inaccurate.
Simultaneous solution of both the Sigma (Eq. 2) and the
Archie equations for two unknowns provided both SOR
and salinity in clean carbonates.

Recording sigma at multiple depths of investigation
(MDIS) while drilling can verify the presence or
absence of mud filtrate invasion and thereby improve
the quality of water saturation estimation from sigma.
In the absence of a wipe log, MDIS is essential.

We examined the sensitivity of multidepth sigma across

oil- and gas-bearing formations underlying the flooded
area (Fig.10). The MLWD tool successfully captured
mud invasion across a swept and nonswept oil-bearing
interval that occurred when a trip was made to change
the BHA. The sigma shallow, medium, deep and the
Field Sigma (SIFA-derived form the short spacing
detector) responses and curve separation to WBM
filtrate invasion into oil is similar to the multiarray
resistivity curve separation across this interval.

In the case of a significant contrast between mud filtrate

and formation water sigma, the extent of the
hydrocarbon column can be established and can provide
more accurate fluid saturations in low resistivity pay
(LRP) reservoirs with saline connate water.

Field Example 3. ROS after gas injection. A common

practice in the oil industry for evaluation of gas
injection efficiency is to evaluate the ROS via sponge
coring. For this purpose, an 8.5-in. borehole was drilled
with WBM close to a well injecting gas into the lower
part of the reservoir. The top part of the reservoir was
logged while drilling in an attempt to examine the
ability of MLWD to obtain ROS without coring. The
middle part of the reservoir was logged after sponge
coring. Analysis of the wireline fluid samples supports
the evaluation and partitioning of gas and oil volumes
across the interval, providing results much faster than
the alternatives. (Fig. 11.)

Simultaneous solution of the sigma water saturation

equation (Eq. 2) and the Archie water saturation
equation can provide SOR under conditions of mixed or
unknown formation water salinity.
The medium sigma measurement with its depth of
investigation similar to that of the density and neutron
logs can be used along with those logs to partition the
hydrocarbon into light and heavy phases (gas and oil),
obtain a continuous hydrocarbon density log, and help
define fluid contacts including GOC and OWC.
There is good agreement between ROS obtained via
sponge coring and ROS from Sigma recorded after

Field Example 4. Thin oil rim development. Accurate

knowledge of the gas/oil contact (GOC) in development
of thin oil rims is essential. LWD logs with their ability

SPWLA 50th Annual Logging Symposium, June 21-24, 2009

and joined ADCO as a petrophysicist in 1996. He was

posted to Institut Franais du Ptrole (IFP) in France on
a special core analysis project in 2000 (4 months) and
was seconded to Schlumberger and British Petroleum in
Houston during 2004-2006. He is an active member of
SPE and is on the SPWLA Local Chapter Board in Abu

The authors wish to thank the Abu Dhabi National Oil
Company (ADNOC) and the Abu Dhabi Company for
Onshore Oil Operations (ADCO) for permission to
publish this work.
Amer, M. et al., 2008, An innovative approach in
tracking injected water front in carbonate reservoir
offshore Abu Dhabi, ADIPEC, Abu Dhabi.

Mohamed Al Hammadi has a BS in mathematics from

Al Ain University and joined ADCO in 1998 as a
petrophysicist. He was assigned to the Carbonate
Research Team with Shell in Holland during 2006. He
is now working as a senior petrophysicist in ADCOs
Undeveloped Fields and Reservoirs Team. He is a
member of SPWLA and SCA.

Hammadi, M., et al., 2007, Improving Oil In Place

Estimation through an Improved Water Saturation
Prediction A Case Study in the Middle East,
ADIPEC, Abu Dhabi, UAE.

Khalid Al Marzouqi graduated from United Arab

Emirates University in 2002 with a BS in physics and
joined ADCO the same year as a petrophysicist
working in the North East Bab Department. He is a
Member of SPWLA and SPE.

Gyllensten, A. et al., 2007, A new saturation model for

low resistivity pay in carbonates, SPWLA Middle East
Regional Symposium, Abu Dhabi.
Flaum, C., et al., 2008, Method for Extracting the Value
of Thermal Capture Cross Section from Pulsed Neutron
Tool Data by NMR-Like Inverse Laplace Transform,
SPWLA Annual Symposium, Edinburgh.

Ahmad Madjidi is Principal Petrophysicist and

Domain Champion for Schlumberger Drilling &
Measurements based in Abu Dhabi. Ahmad has an MS
degree in petroleum engineering from the University of
Oklahoma, USA. His formation evaluation experience
includes both carbonate and clastics deposits including
low formation water salinity, heavy oil, and lowresistivity pay reservoir situations. Ahmad's current
interests include state-of-the-art formation evaluation
techniques and applications in challenging deposit or
reservoir scenarios, using newly available LWD
measurements. He is a member of SPE and SPWLA.

Griffiths, R., et al., 2006, Evaluation of Low Resistivity

pay in carbonates a Breakthrough, SPWLA Annual
Symposium, Veracruz, Mexico.
Weller, G. et al., 2005, A new integrated platform
brings next-generation formation evaluation services,
SPWLA Annual Symposium, New Orleans.
Asbjorn Gyllensten is the petrophysics expert and
logging team leader for the Abu Dhabi Company for
Onshore Oil Operations (ADCO) in Abu Dhabi, UAE.
He has an MS in electrical engineering from Norway's
Technical University in Trondheim and has worked for
Schlumberger in the Far East and Africa. He joined
Shell after completing an MBA at INSEAD in France
and has worked in various positions in Holland, Oman,
the UK and Nigeria. Since 1998 he has been seconded
from Shell to ADCO. He has been on the Board of the
Society of Petrophysicists and Well Log Analysts and is
also member of the Society of Petroleum Engineers,
where he served on the Technical Committee for Well
Logging from 1997 to 2000. He is on the Editorial
Review Committees of the SPE Reservoir Evaluation &
Engineering and Geo-Arabia journals. His hobbies
include fishing and golf.

Marie-Laure Mauborgne holds an engineering degree

in scientific instrumentation and a PhD degree in
nuclear physics from the University of Caen. She has
been working on the EcoScope Sigma measurement for
three years since obtaining her PhD.
Geoff Weller is the interpretation mtier manager at the
Schlumberger Engineering Center in Clamart, France.
He joined Schlumberger as a wireline field engineer in
1982 and has since held a wide variety of field and
management positions ranging from geosteering
petrophysical support to marketing of LWD services for
the Middle East and Asia regions. He has worked in
Africa, the Middle East, Australia, and Asia prior to
moving to France, where he has worked on the
development of interpretation and answer products for
the EcoScope service. He now manages the
interpretation group in Clamart.

Saif Al-Arfi is a logging coordinator with the Abu

Dhabi Company for Onshore Oil Operations (ADCO).
He has a BS in geology from Al-Ain University, UAE,

SPWLA 50th Annual Logging Symposium, June 21-24, 2009

50 ft.

Fig. 9. Field Example 1. This 8.5in. borehole was drilled with OBM. Sigma was recorded while drilling. A repeat
log after reaching TD 2 days later was also recorded and is displayed along with the LWD drilling log above.
LWD density and neutron logs are displayed in Track 5, multiarray phase and attenuation resistivity offset by one
decade are displayed in Track 3, gamma ray, ROP, caliper and sigma time after the bit is displayed in Track 2.
Track 1 includes all the sigma logs, with deep sigma in red, medium sigma in green and shallow sigma in blue.
Sigma after drilling (wipe log) in solid black, and water-filled formation sigma (computed using Eq. 1) in dashed
black are also displayed. Across the oil column at the top, all recorded sigma curves overlie, and below they
separate, with the wipe sigma reading the lowest because of the large contrast between the formation water sigma
(around 90 cu) and the OBM sigma (around 20-25 cu). Sigma oil is around 20.
Decreases in sigma value compared to water-filled sigma and curve separation toward the lower part of the
reservoir indicate replacement of moveable formation water by OBM filtrate. The absence of curve separation
toward the top of the reservoir indicates no moveable water was displaced by OBM filtrate while drilling. Most
likely OBM filtrate is invading into the oil column, but it hidden by the similarity of the sigma values.
Sigma can be used as true formation sigma at the top of the reservoir to compute water saturation independent of
Archie parameters using Eq. 2. Water saturation from both sigma and resistivity are displayed in Track 6 with
corresponding fluid and rock volumes in Track 7. The final water saturation is obtained by using sigma across the
oil column and from resistivity below the free water level (FWL). Note the 30% to 40% difference between sigma
and resistivity water saturation.
Comparing the while drilling and wipe resistivity shown in Track 4 reveals similar curve separation and
information about free water movement via oil filtrate invasion and resistivity increase. However, the Low
Resistivity Pay nature of this reservoir prohibits the use of resistivity logs across the oil column. Separation between
deep and shallow sigma while drilling clearly indicated the FWL, confirmed by the wipe sigma log. In this
environment the direct measurements of sigma provided a much improved interpretation.

SPWLA 50th Annual Logging Symposium, June 21-24, 2009

50 ft.

10 ft.

Fig. 10. Field Example 2. This 8.5-in. borehole was drilled with WBM of 200 ppk salinity. Density and neutron
LWD with strong response to reservoir fluid are displayed in Track 6. Resistivity logs are displayed in Track 2,
gamma ray, ROP, caliper, and sigma time after the bit are displayed in Track 3 and multidepth sigma logs are
displayed in Track 1. Sigma logs with different depth of investigation all respond to water, oil, and gas saturation
with sigma deep least affected by saline mud invasion and sigma shallow most affected, as seen by their responses
across the gas interval. Water saturation across the oil- and gas-bearing intervals, computed using deep sigma and
resistivity, agrees well except at the base of the oil-bearing layer where Sw-sigma is lower than Sw-Archie.
Sor across the flooded area with connate water salinity of 180 ppk and injection water salinity of up to 250 ppk is
computed using simultaneous solutions of Archie (with imbibition n) and sigma equations.
With water mixture salinity of 225 ppk, SOR from sigma and resistivity are in close agreement and are around 25%,
in line with expectations.
The mud invasion across the swept and unswept oil-bearing interval in Track 5 was caused by drilling interruption
when a trip was made to change the BHA. The sigma and SIFA responses and curve separation to WBM filtrate
invasion into oil is similar to the multiarray resistivity curve separation across this interval.

SPWLA 50th Annual Logging Symposium, June 21-24, 2009

50 ft.

Fig. 11. Field Example 3. This well was drilled with WBM of 130 ppk. The top part of the reservoir was logged
while drilling and the lower part was logged after coring, with the continuation of LWD to TD after coring. A wipe
log after reaching TD was recorded around 10 days after logging while drilling of the top part. Track 5 shows
density and neutron logs and Track 6 shows the wipe density-neutron logs recorded 10 days later. Track 1 sigma
logs recorded while drilling and after drilling (wipe log).
Note the strong gas effect seen by density-neutron and sigma while drilling across the top interval and disappearing
by the time the wipe log was recorded 10 days later; it is also missing across the interval that was logged after
coring. Gas and oil volumes were derived from their respective downhole hydrogen indices, density, and sigma
properties across the uncored intervals.
Across the cored interval, ROS was computed using sigma as an Sxo tool with no gas in the model. Core analysis
results corrected to reservoir conditions are displayed along with sigma- and resistivity-derived water saturations in
Tracks 8 and 9. ROS from core plugs, which includes centrifuge plus Dean Stark (DS, Track 8), with similar trend
and magnitude as ROS from sigma (ROS=1-Sxo). Track 9 shows whole core analysis, which includes oil from DS
and sponge core. The match is very good between whole core ROS and sigma ROS at the top of the cored interval,
while the mismatch across the lower part indicates limited gas sweep.
Analysis of the wireline fluid sample taken across the uncored interval supports the evaluation and partitioning of
gas and oil volumes across the interval derived from the direct sigma measurements.

SPWLA 50th Annual Logging Symposium, June 21-24, 2009

10 ft.

Fig. 12. Field Example 4. This 8.5in. borehole section was drilled with WBM of 250 ppk. Density, neutron and Pe
logs while drilling are displayed in Track 5 and the same wipe logs that were recorded a few hours after reaching
TD are displayed in Track 4. Multiarray propagation resistivity while drilling and corresponding wipe logs are
displayed in Track 2 with one decade offset in between. Multidepth sigma while drilling, water-filled formation
sigma computed using Eq. 1, and wipe sigma are all displayed in Track 1. With high formation water salinity, the
separation between sigma curves indicates invasion of mud filtrate into the formation, replacing moveable
formation water.
The difference between water saturation computed by sigma deep and resistivity across the lower part of the
reservoir (Track 8) most likely indicates incorrect Archie parameters, and the hydrocarbon is most likely residual.
Wireline formation pressure across the top part of the reservoir (Track 9), indicates three different fluid gradients.
Density, neutron, Pe, deep propagation resistivity and medium sigma are used to partition the hydrocarbon into
light and heavy phases (gas and oil) based on their downhole density, hydrogen index and sigma. To relate the
invaded zone hydrocarbon properties into the uninvaded zone, we assumed equal gas to total hydrocarbon ratios.
Agreement between GOC determined from logs and wireline formation pressure is excellent. Moreover, a wireline
fluid analyzer run to analyze the fluid below the GOC indicated oil. Gas saturation (Sg) is displayed in Track 9.


SPWLA 50th Annual Logging Symposium, June 21-24, 2009

20 ft.

Fig. 13. Field Example 5. This 8.5-in. borehole was drilled with WBM of 185 ppk salinity. Density, neutron, and Pe
logs while drilling appear in Track 5 and the corresponding wipe logs recorded nearly 2 days after reaching TD in
Track 4. Track 2 displays multiarray propagation resistivity LWD and wipe logs with one decade offset between
curves. Multidepth sigma while drilling, water- filled formation sigma computed using Eq. 1, and wipe sigma are all
displayed in Track 1.
Hydrocarbon partitioning into light and heavy phases (oil and gas) is done using conventional LWD density/neutron
logs plus sigma. Hydrocarbon density is computed using volume fraction weight of each phase and displayed in
Track 9, which indicates rich gas (0.4 g/cc) at the top and oil of average 0.65 g/cc below.
Reservoir pressure from the wireline pressure tester (Track 9) indicates gas at top (0.1 psi/ft) and abnormal fluid
gradient of nearly 1 psi/ft over the lower interval. The reservoir pressure has dropped nearly 400 psi from the
original pressure and this area of the field has been injected via a nearby horizontal gas injector. These results
indicate that with ongoing depletion and gas injection, no meaningful fluid gradients can be established from
pressure measurements at this time. The log-derived hydrocarbon saturation and density data are better indicators
of reservoir performance and sweep efficiency.