WELL LOGGING

ASSIGNMENT 1

NAME: WARD BOULAD

wardfboulad@gmail.com
ABSTRACT
DLL Oilfield, Oman: Resistivity adjustment for drilling fluid invasion using LWD and wire-line logging
data: A case study of high-porosity and low-permeability carbonate reserves.

Using intergraded logging while drilling (LWD) and wire-line log data, the influence of drilling fluid
invasion on the resistivity of oil-bearing zones from penetrating the zone to completion well logging
was investigated. The findings show that porosity, oil saturation, pressure difference between
drilling mud column and formation, mud filtrate salinity, and invasion duration all affect resistivity
change during invasion. It rises as a power function of invasion time and oil saturation, as well as an
exponential function of porosity and a logarithmic function of pressure difference. The modified
resistivity equation was obtained in the presence of drilling fluid invasion. The oil saturation (So)
increases by 6.3 percent to 20.0 percent using the equation, average at 10.2 percent.

Introduction
The invasion of drilling fluid (mud filtrate) into oil or gas-bearing zones occurs during conventional
drilling because the mud column's pressure is higher than that of the reservoir. Drilling fluid loss,
pressure differential between mud column and formation, oil/water relative permeability, density
and salinity discrepancies between drilling fluid and formation water, invasion duration, and other
factors all play a role in invasion[1].

Drilling fluid displaces the original formation fluids (oil, gas, and water) in three ways near the well-
bore: displacement, mixing, and diffusion. . In certain situations, the considerable drop in resistivity
generated by drilling fluid invasion into reservoirs makes it difficult to identify hydrocarbon/water-
bearing zones and quantify fluid saturation, leading to erroneous findings. As a result, it's critical to
investigate the impact of drilling fluid invasion on resistivity for both identifying reservoir fluid and
quantitatively evaluating reservoir properties, particularly oil saturation.

Many prior investigations focused on the impact of drilling fluid invasion on resistivity. In principle,
the effects of invasion by drilling fluids with varying salinities on lateral and induction resistivity, as
well as the corrective procedures, were documented in references [3–5]. Reference [6] proposed a
chart reflecting the relationship between resistivity index and invasion time and porosity-
permeability exponent for array induction resistivity logs invaded by mud-filtrate, as well as a
numerical simulation and correction method for array induction resistivity logs invaded by mud-
filtrate. By using theory analysis and core experimental data, references [7,8] came to the following
conclusion: in the case of fresh drilling mud invasion, when the salinity ratio of mud filtrate to
formation water is appropriate, both the oil zone and the water zone have shown resistivity increase
and invasion, and also discussed the low-resistivity annulus in oil zones near the borehole. Through
the research of time-shift logs, reference [9] indicated that in the case of invasion by salty drilling
mud, the deep investigation resistivity may drop by 30%.After resistivity adjustment, re-evaluation of
reservoir characteristics raised reserves by 20%. All of the following results were drawn using log
data from vertical wells after completion, when the zones had been polluted by drilling fluid invasion
for several or dozens of days, and resistivity correction was done using time-shift log data or a
theoretical model. As a result, there is a degree of uncertainty in the resistivity correction, which
cannot be validated using real data.

Using array induction resistivity, LWD, and MDT (Modular Formation Dynamics Tester) data, this
paper focuses on the effect of drilling fluid invasion on the resistivity of oil-bearing zones in the
period from penetrating the zone to completion well logging, and provides a reasonable log
resistivity correction method for vertical wells.

METHADOLOGY
Natural gamma ray (GR), caliper (CALI), spontaneous potential (SP), array induction resistivities
(AHT10, AHT20, AHT30, AHT60, and AHT90), density (RHOB), neutron porosity (NPHI), and interval
transit time are some of the logs observed in wire-line logging (DT). GR, ROP5 RM, RPM ADN, 5
attenuation resistivity curves at 2 MHz (A10H, A16H, A22H, A28H, and A34H), 5 phase-shift resistivity
curves at 2 MHz (P10H, P16H, P22H, P28H, and P34H), 4 orientation density curves (ROBB, ROBL,
ROBR, and ROBU), 4 photoelectric factors (PEL, PER, and PEU), and 1 thermal neutron porosity
(TRNP)

The log value of phase-shift resistivity P34H from LWD is near to that of deep investigation resistivity
AHT90 from array induction log, according to log replies and detective depth of down-hole
equipment. As a result, the study uses the P34H and AHT90 curves for comparison.

Figure 1 shows a log response comparison of LWD and wire-line logging in two nearby vertical wells,
X1PH and X2PH, for the same reservoir. Well X1PH uses LWD real-time logging, whereas Well X2PH
uses wire-line logging. Pure shale, shaly limestone, and pure limestone make up the majority of the
observed intervals. Pure limestone intervals were separated into tight and high-porosity intervals
based on log responses. Because LWD operates in real time during drilling and mud filtrate seldom
enters the drilled zones, Different research ranges' attenuation and phase-shift resistivity profiles are
identical. The array induction resistivity curves from different investigation ranges are distinct (water
zone shows clear resistivity increase and invasion), but wire-line logging runs after completion and
the drilled zones are severely invaded by mud filtrate, so the array induction resistivity curves from
different investigation ranges are distinct. Furthermore, in terms of log value, the P34H curve of Well
X1PH is similar to the AHT90 curve of Well X2PH.

The answers of wire-line logging and LWD logging for Well X3 are compared. One vertical well and
two horizontal branch wells make up Well X3. Zone 2 (X3-H2) has LWD in the vertical well and
horizontal branch well, while Zone 1 has wire-line logging in the horizontal branch well (X3-H1). The
log replies of LWD and wire-line logging are compared using data from Well X3, as illustrated in Fig. 2
and summarized in Tables 1 and 2. (1) The deep phase-shift resistivity P34H of the horizontal branch
well H1 in Zone 1 is clearly higher than the deep investigation resistivity AHT90 of the same zone of
vertical Well X3 (Table 1), (2) The deep phase-shift resistivity P34H of the horizontal branch well H1
in Zone 1 is clearly higher than the deep investigation resistivity AHT90 of the same zone of vertical
Well X3 (Table 1), (3) (2) AHT90 log values of Zone 2 of horizontal branch Well H2 are lower than
those of the same zone of vertical Well X3 (Table 2), indicating that Zone 2 of horizontal branch Well
H2 is much more damaged by drilling fluid invasion; (3) AHT90 log values of Zone 2 of horizontal
branch Well H2 are lower than those of the same zone of vertical Well X3 (Table 2), demonstrating
that Zone 2 of horizontal branch Well H2 is much more damaged by drilling fluid invasion. As a
result, horizontal well LWD data may be utilized to investigate resistivity changes induced by
invasion.

3
BACKGROUND THEORY
The findings of the analysis demonstrate that the resistivity change produced by drilling fluid
invasion is related to

porosity, oil saturation, pressure differential between the mud column and the formation, invasion
time, and drilling fluid saltiness. The phase-shit resistivity decrease degree can be expressed as :

The ratio of the resistivity difference between the un-invaded and the invaded reservoir to the
resistivity of the un-invaded reservoir, assuming that the resistivity change caused by drilling fluid
invasion is expressed by resistivity decrease degree, namely, the ratio of the resistivity difference
between the un-invaded and the invaded reservoir to the resistivity of the un-invaded reservoir.

Where, rPH is the phase-shift resistivity decrease degree after the drilling fluid invades into the
reservoir, f; RPH0 is the phase-shift resistivity of initial reservoir, Ω·m; RPH1 is the phase-shift
resistivity after the drilling fluid invades into the reservoir, Ω·m.

5 Effects of application For wire-line logging used in DLL Oilfield, the dual induction and array
induction resistivity logging methods are used. Therefore, it is important to correct the resistivity for
oil saturation calculation. Table 4 shows the oil saturation of 11 vertical wells in the oilfield
calculated with original resistivity data (obtained by wire-line logging) and corrected resistivity. It is
clear that the oil saturation (So) calculated with corrected resistivity is 4.6%−10.0% more than that
calculated with uncorrected resistivity, averaging at 6.5%, with relative error of 6.3%−20.0% or
10.2% on average. Fig. 9 indicates the water saturation comparison based on resistivity before and
after drilling fluid invasion for Well X5. It is shown that water saturation calculated from corrected
resistivity increases significantly, about 4.0%−10.0%.

Conclusions
The impact of mud filtrate invasion on reservoir resistivity is efficiently explored using data from
LWD of horizontal wells, wire-line logging of vertical wells, and MDT.

The following are the results of the research:

Porosity, oil saturation, the pressure difference between the drilling mud column and the formation,
the mud filtrate salinity, and invasion duration all influence resistivity change during invasion. It rises
as a power function of invasion time and oil saturation, as well as an exponential function of porosity
and a logarithmic function of pressure difference.
Oil saturations in oil-bearing zones are recalculated using corrected vertical well resistivity based on
the resistivity correction equation, which are 4.6 percent to 10.0 percent (on average) greater than
before correction.
REFERANCES
1.https://books.google.com.lb/books?hl=en&lr=&id=-
nlSUiZkXIoC&oi=fnd&pg=PA47&dq=journey+about+well+logging+tools+comparing+&ots=kV
lz-t0eql&sig=Oizt8gOYDgo0Hw9gKXti81fZ3c8&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false
2 ile:///C:/Users/wardf/Downloads/Resistivity_correction_for_drilling_fluid_invasion.pdf

3. file:///C:/Users/wardf/Downloads/Electricalresistivityvariationinuniaxialrockcompression.pdf