See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/289816460

Resistivity behind casing

Article · January 2002

CITATIONS READS
19 826

15 authors, including:

Karina Rizky Aulia Hendika Arif Wicaksono

Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic University Jakarta Universitas Gadjah Mada
10 PUBLICATIONS   105 CITATIONS    8 PUBLICATIONS   22 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Isabelle Dubourg
Schlumberger Limited
17 PUBLICATIONS   103 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Geografi View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Isabelle Dubourg on 13 January 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Resistivity Behind Casing

Hydrocarbon detection and saturation evaluation have long been

a problem in cased holes. After 60 years of dreams and designs,
measuring resistivity behind casing is now a reality.
Karsani Aulia
Bambang Poernomo
William C. Richmond
Ari Haryanto Wicaksono
PT. Caltex Pacific
Minas, Riau, Indonesia

Paul Béguin
Dominique Benimeli In their quest to improve field productivity, extend Now, 60 years after it was first imagined,
Isabelle Dubourg
field life and increase reserves, oil companies accurate and reliable measurement of cased-
Gilles Rouault
need to be able to identify bypassed hydrocar- hole formation resistivity is not only possible but
Peter VanderWal
Clamart, France bons, track changes in saturation and detect available as a standard service. The considerable
movement of reservoir-fluid contacts. Many of design and measurement hurdles involved with
Austin Boyd the world’s remaining discovered oil and gas measuring formation resistivity behind steel cas-
Ridgefield, Connecticut, USA reserves are contained in old fields that were dis- ing have been overcome (see “History of Cased-
covered from the 1920s to 1950s.1 In those days, Hole Resistivity Measurement,” page 12 ). With
Sherif Farag hydrocarbons were commonly detected solely the aid of innovative electronics, Schlumberger
Jakarta, Indonesia through openhole electrical surveys—often the engineers have developed a system that makes
only logging measurement available. Even today, an earlier design work.
Paolo Ferraris resistivity logs are still the most widely used As with openhole measurements, cased-hole
Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates
measurement for evaluating reservoir satura- resistivity and nuclear porosity measurements
tions and distinguishing hydrocarbon- from can be combined to provide enhanced saturation
Anne McDougall
Paris, France water-bearing zones in open holes. However, evaluation. In addition to reservoir monitoring
tracking saturation changes in older reservoirs and identifying bypassed pay, this service pro-
Michael Rosa requires making measurements through steel vides a resistivity measurement in high-risk wells
David Sharbak casing, which had not been possible with earlier where openhole logs cannot be run because of
Occidental Oil and Gas Company resistivity tools. borehole conditions or when tool failure prevents
Elk Hills, California, USA Until recently, cased-hole hydrocarbon satu- successful data acquisition.
ration evaluation was possible only with nuclear This article reveals how the new tool works,
For help in preparation of this article, thanks to Eric Bonnin, tools. These tools have shallow depths of inves- how its design overcomes previously insurmount-
David Foulon and Gregory Joffroy, TOTAL ABK, Abu Dhabi, tigation and their effective application is limited able obstacles to obtaining resistivity behind cas-
UAE; Bob Davis, Bakersfield, California, USA; Alison Goligher
and Don McKeon, Clamart, France; Russ Hertzog, Idaho in low porosity and salinity. Since the conception ing, and limitations of the technique. Field
National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, Idaho of openhole resistivity logs, experts around the examples demonstrate how well the new mea-
Falls, Idaho, USA; Pam Rahmatdoost, Sugar Land, Texas,
USA; and Lukas Utojo Wihardjo, Duri, Indonesia. world have struggled to develop a tool that could surement matches results from openhole logging
AIT (Array Induction Imager Tool), CBT (Cement Bond measure resistivity behind casing. tools and how the tool is being used to monitor
Tool), CET (Cement Evaluation Tool), CHFR (Cased Hole
Formation Resistivity), CPET (Corrosion and Protection
saturation changes and fluid contacts.
Evaluation Tool), ELAN (Elemental Log Analysis), HRLA
(High-Resolution Laterolog Array), Platform Express, RST
(Reservoir Saturation Tool), SCALE BLASTER, SpectroLith,
TDT (Thermal Decay Time) and USI (UltraSonic Imager) are
marks of Schlumberger. TCRT (Through Casing Resistivity
Tool) is a mark of Baker Hughes.

2 Oilfield Review
Rt
Rcem
Rc
Principle of Measurement
The CHFR Cased Hole Formation Resistivity tool
is effectively a laterolog, that is, an electrode
device that measures voltage differences created
when an applied current flows into the rocks
around the borehole. The usual way to compute
formation resistivity R t from a laterolog tool
requires measuring both emitted current I and
tool voltage V. To obtain resistivity, the ratio of
these two is multiplied by a constant coefficient
known as the tool K-factor, which depends on the
geometry of the tool itself: R t = KV/I. The CHFR
measurement is somewhat more complicated
due to the presence of steel casing, but it still
comes down to determining R t from V and I.
Openhole laterologs use electrodes to focus the
applied current deep into the formation. A signif-
icant difference in the physics governing the
Spring 2001
cased-hole measurement is that the borehole
casing itself serves as a giant electrode directing
the current away from the wellbore.
Current follows the path of lowest resistance
to complete an electrical circuit, and when the
option is to pass through low-resistance steel or
through the earth, most of the current will flow
through the steel. A high-frequency alternating
current (AC) will stay almost entirely within the
steel, but at low-frequency AC—or with a direct
current (DC)—a small part of the current leaks
into the formation.
To travel from the source in the tool to the
electrical ground located at a surface return elec-
trode, the current passes along the casing and
leaks gradually into the surrounding formation,
passing through the earth to the electrical
ground. The leakage into the earth around the
Rc
Rcem
Rt
wellbore occurs over the entire length of the cas-
ing, so the amount of leakage within each meter
is very small. The major challenge to measuring
resistivity behind casing is measuring this tiny
leakage current.
The way the measurement is made can be
understood by following the current from the tool
along the paths it takes to the electrical ground.
The current electrode is in contact with the inside
of the casing. Some of the current travels up the
casing, and some travels down. The amount
going each direction depends on the position of
1. Staff Report: “Through-Casing Logging Tools Approach
Commercialization,” Gas Research Institute GRID,
Summer (1998): 19-21.
Blaskovich FT: “Historical Problems with Old Field
Rejuvenation,” paper SPE 62518, presented at the
SPE/AAPG Western Regional Meeting, Long Beach,
California, USA, June 19-23, 2000.
3
the tool in the well and the formation resistivity—
the higher the formation resistivity, the less cur-
rent goes down the casing (below). This is
because the downgoing current path reaches
ground by traveling through the formation. It also
means the tool becomes less sensitive—less
current enters the formation—at higher forma-
tion resistivity.
As the current flows down the casing, a small
part goes into the formation. The leakage can be
described as a certain fraction of current
decrease each meter. When the tool is near the
surface, most of the current goes up the casing
because it is the shortest—least resistive—path
to ground, so there is little leakage into the for-
mation. Through most of the casing length, the
leakage is almost constant for low-resistivity for-
mations, until the tool approaches the casing
shoe at the bottom of the well. At that point,
although the downgoing current decreases, pro-
gressively more of it leaks into the formation
with each meter, until the last meter when all the
downward current goes into that meter of forma-
tion, making the leakage quite high. In fact, cur-
rent leakage is maximum at the casing shoe. This
is usually an advantage, since most intervals of
logging interest are located near the bottom of
the casing string.
Downgoing Current
0.5
0.4
Current, A
The difficulty of measuring resistivity behind
casing over the 60-year development period has
been with the measurement itself. It is straight-
forward to measure the current passing down the
pipe, because the tool design can include elec-
trodes that contact the casing. It is impossible to
directly measure the current flowing in the for-
mation, because there is no access for electrodes
there. The formation current must be inferred
from the casing current by subtraction. An
applied current of one ampere (A) yields leakage
currents of a few milliamperes per meter, and
even less for formations of higher resistivity.
Finding a small quantity by taking the difference
of two much larger ones is difficult, particularly
when there is noise in the data.
The technical hurdles in measuring resistivity
behind casing have been overcome by careful
tool design and improved accuracy and precision
of measurements. Downhole electronics now are
precise and stable enough to determine forma-
tion resistivity behind conductive casing.
But how is the measurement made? The first
stage of the measurement uses a source in the
tool to apply low-frequency alternating current to
the casing (next page, left). Four voltage elec-
trodes lie below the injection point with a 2-ft
[0.6-m] separation. Three of these are used in
each measurement. The voltage drop between
pairs of electrodes is a combination of losses due
to leakage into the formation plus resistive
losses in the casing. A second step, called the
calibration step, is needed to determine the
resistive losses in the casing.
The circuit in the calibration step starts at the
same current-application point, but flows down
the casing to a current electrode about 10 m
[33 ft] lower on the tool (next page, top right).
There is negligible leakage into the formation
since the current does not need to flow through
the formation to complete the circuit. With the
same voltage electrodes as in the measurement
step, the casing resistance can be determined.
Thus, the formation resistivity can be obtained,
essentially by difference of the two measure-
ments. Alternatively, if the steel resistivity is
known or assumed, then casing thickness can be
derived—as the CPET Corrosion and Protection
Evaluation Tool service does now.
The high resistivity contrast between the steel
and the formation dictates the direction of cur-
rent leakage into the formation—perpendicular
to the casing—because the casing is essentially
an equipotential surface. The tool is most sensi-
tive to the resistivity of the formation near its
voltage electrodes because the voltage measure-
ments used to determine it are primarily affected
by leakage radially into the formation immedi-
ately outside the casing.
Another step is required to obtain the casing
voltage V0. Extremely precise voltage measure-

0.3
Rt = 1 ohm-m
Rt = 10 ohm-m ments in the range of 10 to 100 mV are required
0.2 Rt = 100 ohm-m
(next page, bottom). They cannot be performed in
0.1 alternating current like the measurement and cal-
0 ibration steps. In a separate sequence, direct cur-
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
rent is sent from the top injector to surface
Formation Current following the same path used in the formation-
5
current measurement. The voltage is measured
4 between the bottom injector and a different ref-
Rt = 1 ohm-m
Current, mA

3 Rt = 10 ohm-m erence electrode at surface. The measurement is

Rt = 100 ohm-m
2 performed twice—with positive and negative
polarities—to remove systematic errors such as
1
polarization or drift. Since the voltage varies
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
quite slowly with depth, one voltage measure-
Depth, m ment for 10 depth stations is usually adequate.
The surface reference electrode for the volt-
> The effect of tool position on current in a homogeneous formation
for a 3000-m [9840-ft] deep well with 7-in., 29-lbm/ft casing and
age calibration should be located as far as possi-
current returns at the wellhead. One ampere (A) is applied. The ble from the wellhead. However, this is not
current going downward in the casing varies most near the top and always possible or feasible in actual field opera-
bottom of the well, and decreases as formation resistivity increases tions. The inability to obtain sufficient distance
(top). Current leakage also decreases with increasing formation
resistivity. Near the casing shoe at 3000 m, the leakage rate increases for the reference electrode or good electrical
dramatically, even though the downgoing current decreases, because contact between the surface electrode and the
all of the downgoing current flows into a short remaining section of ground can adversely affect the quality of the
the formation (bottom).

4 Oilfield Review
 Return

Surface Casing Casing

electrode Rc Rc

Rt
Top current- Rt Top current-
injection injection
electrode electrode

I
I

∆I
∆Rc
V1

V0
∆I and
∆Rc
V2

Bottom
current
electrode

> The first step in the CHFR two-step principle of measurement. In the mea- > The CHFR calibration step with current passing
surement step, low-frequency alternating current (AC) passes up the pipe only from the upper current electrode to the
to the surface and down the pipe through the formation to a surface return lower, yielding Rc, the difference in casing
electrode. The tool measures the difference I in downgoing current between resistance between two measurement points.
pairs of voltage electrodes. At every station, three measurement electrodes
contribute to one resistivity measurement (right side of figure). With four
measurement electrodes available, two resistivity measurements can be
made at a time. V0 is casing voltage, and V1 and V2 are voltages measured
in the formation between two pairs of electrodes. Rc is casing resistance.

voltage measurement and ultimately, the reliabil-
ity of the formation-resistivity measurement.
To overcome this difficulty, an empirically
derived equation can estimate resistivity without a
voltage measurement. When this method is used,
the CHFR formation resistivities are apparent
rather than absolute. One term of the equation
compensates for the casing shoe, and a second
term accounts for the geometry of the casing
where the measurement is taken. While this for-
mula is not universally applicable, it has provided
shifted from the actual resistivity curve. This is CHFR Measurement Components Value
considered acceptable for the CHFR tool since an (approximate)
openhole reference log will often be available and Differential voltage (V1 -V2 ) 5 to 500 nV
will permit adjustment of the K-factor. Upper, lower voltage (V1,V2 ) 20 to 100 µV
Calibrating CHFR logs with respect to open- Casing voltage (V0 ) 10 to 100 mV
hole logs consists of adjusting the gain of the Calibration current 0.5 to 3.0 A
CHFR formation-current measurement (effec-
Casing-segment resistance (Rc ) 20 to 100 µohm
tively the K-factor) to shift the cased-hole log
Applied current (I ) 0.5 to 6.0 A
onto the openhole log. Determining the proper
Formation current (∆I ) 2 to 20 mA
shift requires knowing the resistivity of one layer,
such as a shale or unperforated reservoir zone, Downgoing casing-segment current (Id ) 0 to 3 A

satisfactory results in many cases. Even where it whose resistivity has not changed since open-
> Typical values detected during CHFR
does not work, the general character of the resis- hole logging. measurements.
tivity curve is preserved but the entire curve is

Spring 2001 5
 Design and Measurement Challenges currents are in the milliampere range. Because
The main objective in the design of the CHFR tool the formation currents are measured through a
was to accurately and reliably measure formation drop in the casing resistance of a few tens of
resistivity behind casing, unaffected by casing- µohms, the CHFR measurement is made in the
Telemetry
contact problems, cement layers and near- nanovolt range. The main design challenge was
wellbore invasion fluids. Additional rigorous to develop tool hardware that could accurately
objectives were set for thin-bed detection: to measure nanovolts.
determine resistivity boundaries, such as bed-
Top current ding, water-oil or oil-gas contacts, to within 1 ft The CHFR Tool
electrode [0.3 m], and to determine the resistivity-contrast The CHFR tool consists of a newly designed elec-
ratio across the boundary to within 5%. tronics cartridge, a current-injection electrode
To design such a tool it was first necessary to that also acts as a centralizer, four sets of mea-
Insulating joint
resolve major technical challenges in three surement voltage electrodes, and a current-
areas: physics, electronics and mechanics. The return electrode that also acts as a centralizer
physical behavior of electrical current in a cased (left). The tool is 43 ft [13 m] long with a diame-
well is different from the openhole situation. ter of 33⁄8 in., which allows it to be run in 41⁄2 in.
Analytical work and modeling provided a good tubing and liners. Although the tool can be run
understanding of the physics and the best way to through tubing, it cannot measure formation
handle inherent sources of error and noise asso- resistivity through tubing, only through a single
Electronics ciated with electronic components. This work string of casing. The tool can be run in holes with
allowed resistivity logs to be derived from the up to 70º deviation using an extra centralizer, or
raw measurements. even horizontally, using insulating standoffs.
Typical formations have resistivities about Each set of electrodes consists of three pads
1 billion times higher than that of typical steel spaced 120° apart and connected in parallel.
casing. However, because of the large volume of Three arms per set provide improved contact
13 m reservoir rock, the ratio of the formation current with the casing and redundant measurements in
to the applied current falls in the range of 10-3 to the event of poor contact on any one electrode, or
10-5, rather than 10-9. Since the wireline cable in case an electrode is located at a casing perfo-
limits the total current that can be applied to the ration or collar. A typical casing collar is approxi-
casing to a few amperes, typical formation mately 2 ft long, the same distance that

CHFR Invasion Response

Measurement-
electrode 10 1
Rt = 10 ohm-m
arm section
Rxo = 1 ohm-m
Rsh = 100 ohm-m
No cement
J = 0.5
CHFR resistivity, ohm-m

Hydraulics Bed thickness

500 ft
200 ft
50 ft
20 ft
10 ft

DOI = 16.3 ft
10 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Invasion depth, ft
Bottom current
electrode > Depth of investigation (DOI) of the CHFR tool. Depth of investigation
is defined as the point at which half the signal comes from the invaded
zone and half from the uninvaded zone (J = 0.5). For the formation parame-
ters shown—virgin zone Rt = 10 ohm-m, invaded zone Rxo = 1 ohm-m,
and shoulder bed Rsh = 100 ohm-m—the CHFR depth of investigation is
> Elements and modules of approximately 16 ft [5 m]. Depth of investigation of the CHFR tool, like
the CHFR tool (not to scale). all laterolog tools, is affected by the resistivity of the shoulder beds.

6 Oilfield Review
separates each electrode set, and can affect the CHFR Modeling
CHFR measurement. Collars may appear as 10 2

Resistivity, ohm-m
spikes on the raw casing-impedance curve. Rt
When a CHFR station straddles or overlaps a cas- Rxo
10 1 RCHFR
ing collar, the added steel thickness may affect RCHFR/C
the resistivity measurement. Relogging using a
lower operating frequency has minimized the 10 0
casing-collar effect in some cases. 9050 9100 9150 9200 9250 9300 9350 9400 9450 9500 9550
Small voltage electrodes on the sonde are HRLA Modeling
designed to push through small amounts of cas- 10 2
RHRLA1

Resistivity, ohm-m
ing scale and corrosion to establish good electri- RHRLA2
cal contact with the casing, essential for the RHRLA3
10 1
CHFR measurement. The tool moves uphole with RHRLA4
RHRLA5
electrode arms out to maintain best casing
contact. The three-electrode per level design pro- 10 0
vides built-in redundancy, so few measurements 9050 9100 9150 9200 9250 9300 9350 9400 9450 9500 9550

have been lost because of electrode failure. HALS Modeling

10 2
There is no correlation between contact
Resistivity, ohm-m

quality and age of well. To date, only 6 of the
100 wells logged with the CHFR tool have expe-
rienced problems with contact quality. In three
of the wells, good contact was maintained
about half the time, while in the other three
wells, good electrical contact was not possible
because of scale buildup or casing corrosion.
The quality of electrical contact is indicated by
the injection-impedance and casing-resistance
measurements.
Prior to running the CHFR tool, preliminary
casing conditioning is recommended to improve
electrical contact, particularly in corroded wells
or when scale—resulting from water production—
is present. Prejob preparation can include a bit-
and-scraper run to remove corrosion or the
SCALE BLASTER service to remove scale.2 Even
in fields where these problems are not seen,
operators may wish to pull tubing and prepare
the casing prior to running the CHFR tool to
reduce the risk of electrical contact problems.
The CHFR tool operating frequency can range
from 0.25 to 10 Hz but is normally kept to 1 Hz.
This low frequency is needed to avoid the polar-
ization and drift that accompany use of DC cur-
rent and also the casing skin effect that,
depending on casing thickness—typically 5 to
15 mm [0.2 to 0.6 in.]—can become a concern
even at low AC frequencies. When the operating
frequency is too high, the injected current con-
centrates on the inner part of the casing and will
return directly to the surface during the measure-
ment step without going down first. In these cir-
cumstances, there will be no formation current
and therefore no measurement.
The CHFR two-step measurement requires
three levels of electrodes to obtain one resistiv-
ity data point. Since the CHFR sonde has four
RHRLS
RHRLD
10 1 RHLLS
RHLLD
10 0
9050 9100 9150 9200 9250 9300 9350 9400 9450 9500 9550
Depth, ft
> Comparison of computed CHFR, HRLA and HALS tool responses for a synthetic formation.
The depth interval 9280 to 9500 ft is representative of an oil zone, with a series of invaded
resistive beds (Rt = 40 ohm-m, Rxo = 4 ohm-m, invasion radius of 20 in.) of varying thickness
surrounded by conductive shoulders (1.5 or 2 ohm-m). The upper interval (9080 to 9250 ft) is
characteristic of a water zone with conductive beds and resistive invasion (Rt between 1.5
and 3 ohm-m, Rxo = 10 ohm-m, invasion radius of 20 in.) in a resistive environment (20 ohm-m).
In the “water zone”, the K-factor of the CHFR log is slightly shifted. Note the negligible impact
(top) of the presence of a cement layer (resistivity = 3.5 ohm-m, thickness = 0.75 in.) added on
the CHFR computed response RCHFR/C (purple) compared to the log computed with no cement
(solid red curve).
levels, duplication of the main acquisition Tool-Response Modeling
channel makes it possible to acquire two resis- For openhole tools, the depth of investigation
tivity measurements, 2 ft apart, at each depth (DOI) is defined for an infinitely thick formation
station. The measurement is made with the tool layer as the point where half the signal comes
stationary for two reasons. First, the magnitude from the invaded zone and half from the virgin
of the measured quantities is very small and zone. With this definition, the CHFR DOI has a
therefore highly sensitive to error. Second, move- range of 7 to 37 ft [2 to 11 m] depending on for-
ment of the electrodes along the casing intro- mation parameters (previous page, right).
duces significant noise—as high as 104 times Models of the CHFR resistivity response
greater than the formation signal. At best, this demonstrate that it compares well with the
leads to large errors in the formation-resistivity responses from other resistivity tools that have
calculation; at worst, it makes reliable measure- similar characteristics, such as the deep-reading
ment impossible. Station times, including down- curve from the HRLA High-Resolution Laterolog
hole calibration, vary from two to five minutes, Array tool and the deep-reading curves from the
depending on the estimated formation resistivity, High-Resolution Azimuthal Laterolog Sonde
desired accuracy and casing properties. Two- (HALS) (above).
minute stations provide an equivalent logging
2. Brondel D, Edwards R, Hayman A, Hill D, Mehta S and
speed of 120 ft/hr [37 m/hr]. A typical logging Semerad T: “Corrosion in the Oil Industry,” Oilfield
run, consisting of one 1500-ft [457-m] interval, Review 6, no. 2 (April 1994): 4-18.
Crabtree M, Eslinger D, Fletcher P, Miller M, Johnson A
takes 12 hours. As with nuclear tools, longer and King G: “Fighting Scale—Removal and Prevention,”
CHFR station times improve the accuracy and Oilfield Review 11, no. 3 (Autumn 1999): 30-45.
extend the range of measurable resistivities.

Spring 2001 7
 Similar to openhole laterologs, the CHFR tool
measures resistances in series; in contrast,
induction response is measured in parallel.
Consequently, the measurement of the current
leaking out of the casing must pass through and
is affected by whatever lies between the casing
and the formation (below).
In the CHFR cased-hole measurement, the
cement layer plays the same role as the invaded
zone in the openhole. Thus, the critical parame-
ters are the contrast between cement and forma-
tion resistivities (Rt /Rcem ) and cement thickness.
Results of 2D modeling show that the effect of
cement on the CHFR measurement is negligible
for a conductive cement (Rt /Rcem greater than 1),
but becomes important for a thick or resistive
cement (Rt /Rcem less than 1) (next page, top).
Modeling showed that resistive cement or
very thick cement can cause CHFR apparent
resistivity to read too high in low-resistivity for-
mations (next page, bottom left). This influenced
the decision to set the lower limit of the CHFR
resistivity range at 1 ohm-m.
In-situ measurement of cement resistivity is
not possible, but laboratory studies show that
the resistivity of fresh cement typically ranges
from 1 to 10 ohm-m.3 In addition, cement has a
microporosity of around 35% that allows cement
water to exchange ions with formation water.
High-salinity formation water can lower the
cement resistivity and minimize its impact.
Modeling results have been used to develop
cement sensitivity charts for 4.5-in., 7-in. and
95⁄8-in. OD casings (next page, bottom right). For
typical values of cement thickness (0.75 in., for
example) and cement resistivity (between 1 and
5 ohm-m) within the CHFR resistivity measure-
ment range (1 to 100 ohm-m), the error due to
cement is less than 10%. A cement correction
has not been required in more than 95% of the
CHFR logging jobs.
There are two additional cement-related fac-
tors whose effects on CHFR apparent formation
resistivity are uncertain. One factor is the possi-
ble change of cement resistivity with time. This
cannot be determined because measurement of
cement resistivity in situ is not currently possible.
The second factor is the effect of cement job
quality. In this case, it is recommended that
3. Klein JD, Martin PR and Miller AE: “Cement Resistivity
and Implications for Measurement of Formation
Resistivity Through Casing,” paper SPE 26453, presented
at the 68th SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Houston, Texas, USA, October 3-6, 1993.
Klein JD and Martin PR: “The Electrical Resistivity of
Cement, Final Report,” Gas Research Institute Report,
GRI-94/0273 (1994).

Logging tool

Borehole
Invaded zone or casing
or cement

Rm Rxo
Rt
Laterolog and
CHFR respon
series se,

Uninvaded zone

Rm

Rxo

Rt
n response,
Inductio
parall e l

> Difference in tool response of the CHFR tool or laterolog tools

and induction logs. Laterolog devices, including the CHFR tool,
measure borehole and formation resistances in series, while
induction devices measure those resistances in parallel.

8 Oilfield Review
 Rt model
No cement
0.75 in. Rcem = 1 ohm-m
1.5 in. Rcem = 1 ohm-m
3 in. Rcem = 1 ohm-m
10 1 10 1
0.75 in. Rcem = 10 ohm-m
Resistivity, ohm-m

Resistivity, ohm-m
1.5 in. Rcem = 10 ohm-m
3 in. Rcem = 10 ohm-m

Rt model
No cement
0.75 in. Rcem = 0.1 ohm-m
1.5 in. Rcem = 0.1 ohm-m
3 in. Rcem = 0.1 ohm-m

10 0 10 0
9450 9460 9470 9480 9490 9500 9510 9520 9450 9460 9470 9480 9490 9500 9510 9520
Depth, ft Depth, ft
> Models showing the effect of cement resistivity, or other material between casing and formation, on the CHFR apparent resistivity response.
Low-resistivity cement (left) has almost no effect on the measurement in a high-resistivity formation. The resistive bed is 500 ft [152 m] above the
shoe of a 10,000-ft [3048-m] length of 51⁄2-in. diameter casing. In the reverse situation (right), resistivity measurement is significantly affected where
high-resistivity cement is present in a low-resistivity formation.

Cement Effect on CHFR Measurement CHFR Cement Sensitivity Chart (7-in. OD Casing)
120 1.6

100 1.4

Rcem , ohm-m
0.1 1.2
Relative error on CHFR reading, %

80 1
2
1.0
5
60 10
Rt /RCHFR

20 0.8
40 No cement
0.6 0.5 in.
0.75 in.
20 1.5 in.
0.4 3 in.
5 in.
0
0.2

-20 0
10 -1 100 101 102 10 -2 10 -1 100 101 102
Formation resistivity, ohm-m RCHFR /Rcem

> Relative error in formation resistivity measurement due to cement
resistivity. For a 7-in. OD casing, 0.75-ohm-m cement layer and forma-
tion resistivities less than 1 ohm-m, the effect of cement becomes
increasingly greater. For this reason, the CHFR applications are
recommended for formation resistivities higher than 1.0 ohm-m.
> CHFR cement sensitivity chart for 7-in. OD casing. Similar to
openhole laterolog borehole-correction charts, this plot shows
the correction coefficient as a function of the apparent resistivity
contrast RCHFR /Rcem, for typical values of cement thickness.

Spring 2001 9
 Casing Resistance, Pass 1 Openhole Laterolog Deep
0 µohm 100 1 ohm-m 1000

Casing Resistance, Pass 2 CHFR Resistivity, Pass 1

Depth, m
0 µohm 100 1 ohm-m 1000
USI
Casing Thickness CHFR Resistivity, Pass 2 Cement
0 in. 0.5 1 ohm-m 1000 Map

1100

1125

1150

> CHFR log in poor cement. Although the USI cement map (far right) shows poor quality (pale blue) in
places, the agreement between the two CHFR passes (Track 2) and the openhole log in the Schlumberger
test well in Villejust, France, is very good. A groove worn into the casing by wireline is also visible in
the cement map.

10 Oilfield Review
 Casing-Segment Resistance
0 ohm 0.0001 CHFR Apparent Resistivity Density
Gamma Ray 1 ohm-m 1000 1.95 g/cm3 2.95

Depth, m
0 API 100
Platform Express Deep Laterolog Neutron Porosity
CCL
-19 1 1 ohm-m 1000 0.45 m3/m3 -0.15

1450

1500

> Good agreement between CHFR results and openhole Platform Express deep laterolog measure-
ments (Track 2) in the lower section of an Austrian gas well. The overall agreement between the
two is very good. In Track 3, formation density and neutron porosity show crossover in the gas
reservoir (shaded).

cement quality be evaluated using CBT Cement
Bond Tool, CET Cement Evaluation Tool or
USI UltraSonic Imager services. Cement thick-
ness can be approximated from the openhole
caliper and casing size. An example from the
Schlumberger test well in Villejust, France, com-
pares two CHFR passes made two years apart
with the original openhole laterolog log, made
30 years earlier (previous page). Field results in
both old (30 years) and new (9 days) wells did not
show any noticeable cement effect.
Measurement Repeatability,
Reliability and Limits
CHFR field logs have demonstrated that the mea-
surement is repeatable and directly comparable
to openhole formation resistivity recorded at
drilling time. CHFR data have clearly identified
virgin, depleted and unswept zones.
Because of hole problems, an openhole resis-
tivity log could not be obtained in an intermedi-
ate section of an Austrian gas well drilled by
Rohoel-Aufsuchungs AG (RAG), prior to setting
7-in. casing. Drilling continued in the lower zone,
and after openhole resistivity logs were run, 4.5-in.
liner was set. The CHFR tool was then run in both
sections (above). The agreement between the
Platform Express deep laterolog and CHFR resis-
tivity in the lower section provided a high degree
of confidence in the CHFR measurement, which
allowed RAG to evaluate the intermediate section
without further testing. A second pass made over
(continued on page 14)

Spring 2001 11
History of Cased-Hole Resistivity Measurement
Measuring resistivity behind casing has long
been a dream in the oil field. In the 1930s, soon
after Conrad and Marcel Schlumberger intro-
duced the first openhole electric logs, the
industry recognized the need for an equivalent
cased-hole measurement to evaluate bypassed
pay and monitor production in the thousands
of wells completed prior to the advent of log-
ging. To obtain resistivity behind casing, the
current leaking through the steel casing into
the adjacent formation must be measured.
Although relatively simple in theory, this is
extremely difficult in practice because of the
enormous contrast in electromagnetic proper-
ties of steel and earth formations. Steel casing
is 107 to 1010 times more conductive than the
formations being measured and has a magnetic
permeability that is 10 to 200 times greater.
The net effect of this wide dynamic range is
that the tiny formation signal is masked by the
overwhelming casing signal.
During the past 60 years, numerous patents
have been issued for theories, methods and
apparatus designed to measure and acquire
cased-hole formation resistivity. These patents
have included proposals for both galvanic—
electrode or laterolog methods—as well as
induction methods.1
Many of the proposed methods fail to recog-
nize and compensate for a number of factors
1. Examples of proposed galvanic methods include the
following:
Stewart WH: “Electrical Logging Method and Apparatus,”
U.S. Patent No. 2,459,196 (January 18, 1949).
Fearon RE: “Method and Apparatus for Electric Well
Logging,” U.S. Patent No. 2,729,784 (January 3, 1956).
Fearon RE: “Method and Apparatus for Electric Well
Logging,” U.S. Patent No. 2,891,215 (June 16, 1959).
Desbrandes R and Mengez P: “Method and Apparatus
for Measuring the Formation Electrical Resistivity in
Wells Having Metal Casing,” French Patent No. 72 41218
(2,207,278) (November 20, 1972).
Gard MF, Kingman JEE and Klein JD: “Method and
Apparatus for Measuring the Electrical Resistivity of
Geologic Formations Through Metal Drill Pipe or Casing,”
U.S. Patent No. 4,837,518 (June 6, 1989).
Kaufman AA: “Conductivity Determination in a Formation
Having a Cased Well,” U.S. Patent No. 4,796,186
(January 3, 1989).
Vail WB III: “Methods and Apparatus for Measurement of
the Resistivity of Geological Formations from Within Cased
Boreholes,” U.S. Patent No. 4,820,989 (April 11, 1989).
12
affecting the measurement. These include opti-
mal electrode spacing, variations in electrode
contact resistance, and variations in casing
thickness, resistance and skin effect—the
amount of current actually leaking into the
formation is a small fraction of the current
introduced into the casing. Variations in casing
resistance may result from differences in
manufacturing tolerances, chemical composi-
tion, corrosion and fractures. In theory, some of
the proposed methods could produce valid data.
However, the extremely low signal-to-noise ratio
and the limited technology available at the time
these patents were granted made it virtually
impossible to accurately measure the tiny,
nanovolt formation signal.
To date, only the electrode methods have been
demonstrated as feasible. The basic principles of
measurement were proposed independently in a
USSR patent issued to Alpin, in 1939, and a USA
patent to Stewart, in 1949.2 In 1972, a French
patent proposed a six-electrode design and used
a two-step measurement that is close to the one
used by the first demonstration tool, developed
by Vail, almost 20 years later.3 It was not until the
early 1990s that advances in electronics technol-
ogy enabled development of this wireline device.
Beginning in the late 1980s, ParaMagnetic
Logging (PML) laid out the design and acquisition
methods that resulted in its first demonstration
Vail WB III: “Methods and Apparatus for Measurement
of Electronic Properties of Geological Formations
Through Borehole Casing,” U.S. Patent No. 4,882,542
(November 21, 1989).
Vail WB III: “Methods and Apparatus for Measurement
of Electronic Properties of Geological Formations
Through Borehole Casing,” U.S. Patent No. 5,043,668
(August 27, 1991).
Vail WB III: “Measurement of In-Phase and Out-Of-Phase
Components of Low Frequency A.C. Magnetic Fields
Within Cased Boreholes to Measure Geophysical
Properties of Geological Formations,” U.S. Patent No.
5,065,100 (November 12, 1991).
Vail WB III: “Electronic Measurement Apparatus Movable
in a Cased Borehole and Compensating for Casing
Resistance Differences,” U.S. Patent No. 5,075,626
(December 24, 1991).
Examples of proposed induction methods include the
following:
Vail WB III: “Methods and Apparatus For Induction
Logging in Cased Boreholes,” U.S. Patent No. 4,748,415
(May 31, 1988).
Gianzero SC, Chemali RE, Sinclair P and Su SM: “Method
and Apparatus for Making Induction Measurements
Through Casing,” U.S. Patent No. 5,038,107 (August 6, 1991).
tool.4 During the same period, Alexander
Kaufman independently arrived at a solution
similar to Vail’s.5 Initial feasibility studies,
tool development and cement evaluation were
supported and funded by a diverse group that
included operating companies, service compa-
nies, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE),
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the
Gas Research Institute (GRI, now the Gas
Technology Institute, GTI).6
The first experimental logging of the PML tool
in 1992 proved the measurement concept and
demonstrated several important points.7 First,
the measurements confirmed the theory of oper-
ation, and the acquired data generally repro-
duced features of the openhole laterolog.
Second, measurements were repeatable and
worked in the range of 7 to 100 ohm-m. Third,
casing cement did not appear to affect the
measurement. Finally, vertical resolution was
within an interval of several electrode spacings.
The first successful oilfield test took place in
the DOE MWX-2 research gas well in Rifle,
Colorado, USA, in 1994, using an improved PML
tool design.8 In 1995, Western Atlas began devel-
opment of a commercial instrument, in conjunc-
tion with GRI, and two years later acquired
PML and its technology.9 The Baker Atlas TCRT
(Through Casing Resistivity Tool) is currently
a prototype device in field testing.10
2. Alpin LM: “The method of the electric logging in the
borehole with casing,” U.S.S.R. Patent No. 56,026
(November 30, 1939).
Stewart, reference 1.
3. Desbrandes and Mengez, reference 1.
Mamedov NB: “Performance of Electrical Logging of
the Cased Wells with a Six-Electrode Sonde,” Izvestiya
Vysshikh Uchebnykh Zavedeniy, Neft I Gaz, (News of
Higher Academic Institutions, Oil and Gas) no. 7 (1987):
11-15 (in Russian).
4. Vail, reference 1.
5. Kaufman, reference 1.
Kaufman AA: “The Electrical Field in a Borehole with
a Casing,” Geophysics 55, no. 1 (1990): 29-38.
Kaufman AA and Wightman WE: “A Transmission-Line
Model for Electrical Logging Through Casing,”
Geophysics 58, no. 12 (1993): 1739-1747.
6. Schenkel CJ and Morrison HF: “Effects of Well Casing on
Potential Field Measurements Using Downhole Current
Sources,” Geophysical Prospecting 38 (1990): 663-686.
Oilfield Review

> Close-up of the CHFR measurement electrodes.
Schenkel CJ: “The Electrical Resistivity Method in Cased
Boreholes,” University of California, Berkeley, USA, PhD
dissertation (1991). Published as report LBL-31139:
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley,
California (1991).
Schenkel C and Morrison HF: “Electrical Resistivity
Measurement Through Metal Casing,” Geophysics 59,
no. 10 (1994): 1072-1082.
Klein et al, reference 3, main text.
Klein and Martin, reference 3, main text.
Vail WB and Momii ST: “Proof of Feasibility of the
Through Casing Resistivity Technology, Final Report,”
Gas Research Institute Report GRI-96/033 (1996).
Zhang X, Singer B and Shen LC: ”Quick Look Inversion of
Through-Casing Resistivity Measurement, Final Report,”
Gas Research Institute Report GRI-96/0001 (1996).
7. Vail WB, Momii ST, Woodhouse R, Alberty M, Peveraro
RCA and Klein JD: “Formation Resistivity Measurements
Through Metal Casing,” Transactions of the SPWLA 34th
Annual Logging Symposium, Calgary, Alberta, Canada,
June 13-16, 1993, paper F.
Spring 2001
8. Vail WB, Momii ST and Dewan JT: Through Casing
Resistivity Measurements and Their Interpretation for
Hydrocarbon Saturations,” paper SPE 30582, presented
at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
Dallas, Texas, USA, October 22-25, 1995.
Vail WB, Momii ST, Haines H, Gould JF Jr and Kennedy WD:
“Formation Resistivity Measurements Through Metal
Casing at the MWX-2 Well in Rifle, Colorado,”
Transactions of the SPWLA 36th Annual Logging
Symposium, Paris, France, June 26-29, 1995, paper OO.
9. Tabarovsky LA, Cram ME, Tamarchenko TV, Strack K-M
and Singer BS: “Through-Casing Resistivity (TCR)—
Physics, Resolution and 3-D Effects,” Transactions of
the SPWLA 35th Annual Logging Symposium, Tulsa,
Oklahoma, USA, June 19-22, 1994, paper TT.
Singer BS, Fanini O, Strack K-M, Tabarovsky LA and
Zhang X: “Through-Casing Resistivity: 2-D and 3-D
Distortions and Correction Techniques,” Transactions
of the SPWLA 36th Annual Logging Symposium, Paris,
France, June 26-29, 1995, paper PP.
Schlumberger interest in cased-hole resistivity
logging was a natural outgrowth of the develop-
ment of the CPET Corrosion and Protection
Evaluation Tool method. This tool already
applied four levels of electrodes to the casing
to measure its resistance and current. Research
began in the late 1980s at Schlumberger-Doll
Research (SDR), Ridgefield, Connecticut, USA,
and in 1992, a cased-hole formation-resistivity
project was established at the Schlumberger
Riboud Product Centre (SRPC) in Clamart,
France. In 1995, the SRPC project team evaluated
the PML technology in relation to their own
design efforts and elected to continue the devel-
opment of Schlumberger CHFR Cased Hole
Formation Resistivity technology. An intensive
research and engineering effort developed new
downhole electronics and signal processing as
well as methods for supplying power downhole
and maintaining electrode contact. A single-
channel experimental tool obtained the first
log in 1996. In 1998, a second-generation experi-
mental tool, using a two-channel design, was
introduced to the field. The subsequent engineer-
ing prototypes and commercial tools employ this
two-channel design.11 More than 100 wells around
the world have been successfully logged with the
CHFR service, and tool production is gearing up
to meet increasing worldwide demand (left).
The CHFR tool delivers a measurement that
reads deeper, approximately 2 m [6.6 ft], than
conventional cased-hole saturation monitoring
from nuclear tools, approximately 25 cm
[10 in.]. Unlike nuclear measurements, the
CHFR resistivity measurement can work
at low formation porosity or salinity and allows
easy and direct comparison with openhole
resistivity logs.
Singer BS, Fanini O, Strack K-M, Tabarovsky LA and
Zhang X: “Measurement of Formation Resistivity
Through Steel Casing,” paper SPE 30628, presented at
the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
Dallas, Texas, USA, October 22-25, 1995.
Maurer H-M, Fanini O and Strack K-M: “GRI Pursues
Goal of Commercial Through-Casing Resistivity
Measurement,” Gas Research Institute Gas Tips 2,
no. 2 (1996): 10-13.
Singer BS and Strack K-M: “New Aspects of Through-
Casing Resistivity Theory,” Geophysics 63, no. 1 (1998):
52-63.
10. Maurer HM and Hunziker J: “Early Results of Through
Casing Resistivity Field Tests,” Petrophysics 41, no. 4
(2000): 309-314.
11. Wu X and Habashy TM: “Influence of the Steel Casings
on Electromagnetic Signals,” Geophysics 59, no. 2
(1994): 378-390.
Béguin P, Benimeli D, Boyd A, Dubourg I, Ferreira A,
McDougall A, Rouault G and VanderWal P: “Recent
Progress on Formation Resistivity Measurement
Through Casing,” Transactions of the SPWLA 41st
Annual Logging Symposium, Dallas, Texas, USA,
June 4-7, 2000, paper CC.
13
 Gamma Ray
0 API 100
CHFR Apparent Resistivity
Casing-Segment Resistance

Depth, m
1 ohm-m 1000
0 ohm 0.0001

Repeat Casing-Segment Resistance Repeat CHFR Apparent Resistivity

0 ohm 0.0001 1 ohm-m 1000

1200

1250

> Excellent repeatability of the CHFR measurement (Track 2) in a shallower

section of the same Austrian well.

the interval 1220 to 1250 m illustrates the excel-
lent repeatability of the measurement (above).
Due to the physics of measurement and depth
of investigation, the CHFR resistivity is not
affected by borehole washout. An example from
the Middle East shows how the CHFR tool reli-
ably reads resistivities even in enlarged bore-
holes (next page).
The CHFR tool measures a resistivity range of
1 to 100 ohm-m with ±10% accuracy. The lower
limit of 1 ohm-m is set by the influence of cement.
The upper limit of 100 ohm-m is set by the signal-
to-noise ratio and the acceptable time per station.
Depending on casing diameter, thickness and
weight, and distance to the casing shoe, the
actual upper limit may be higher than 100 ohm-m.
Prejob planning can determine whether reservoir
properties are suited to the CHFR service as well
as the relationship between the maximum forma-
tion resistivity that may be measured and the sta-
tion acquisition time required to achieve the
desired accuracy and precision.
Results from a TOTAL ABK monitoring well
offshore Abu Dhabi, UAE, show the importance
of complete data acquisition and cement correc-
tion for extending the specified operating limits

14 Oilfield Review
 CHFR Resistivity
0.2 ohm-m 2000

Rxo
0.2 ohm-m 2000

Caliper Platform Express Shallow Laterolog Neutron Porosity

Depth, ft
6 in. 16 0.2 ohm-m 2000 0.6 ft3/ft3 0

Gamma Ray Platform Express Deep Laterolog Sonic Slowness

0 API 150 0.2 ohm-m 2000 140 µsec/ft 40

X400

X450

X500

X550

Washout X600

> Comparing the effects of extreme borehole enlargement (washout) on nuclear and CHFR measure-
ments. In this Middle East well, at depth X600 ft, the caliper (Track 1) indicates a washout with a
borehole diameter of nearly 16 in. [41 cm]. In Track 2, the CHFR resistivity (black dashed/open circles)
overlays the Platform Express openhole deep laterolog (red) and appears to be unaffected by the
hole washout. In contrast, at the same depth, the openhole porosity logs presented in Track 3 (blue,
neutron porosity; green, sonic slowness) are significantly affected.

Spring 2001 15
 Gamma Ray
0 API
Formation Current
0 µA/cm2
Voltage
0.015 µohm/m
Total Current
7 µA/cm2
> Comparison of CHFR processing with and without voltage measurement and cement correction
in an offshore Middle East well. The cement correction becomes very small above 1.5 ohm-m and
negligible above 3.0 ohm-m as indicated by merging of the yellow and red dots (Track 2). Inset shows
reduced current above 41⁄2-in. liner due to poor electrical contact between liner and casing.
of the CHFR tool (above). Review of other field
data indicated that the distribution of the applied
casing current in this well varied significantly
from the CHFR model: the downward component
of the applied current was much greater than the
upward component. This situation can be
explained by poor electrical contact between the
41⁄2-in. liner and the 7-in. casing above the injec-
tion point, which prevented the current from
flowing in the path expected for homogeneous
casing. Poor electrical contact between casing
strings can result in significant error in the CHFR
resistivity calculation, particularly when the volt-
age is estimated, rather than measured.
In this case, a DC voltage measurement had
been acquired on the same run and could be
included in a recomputation of CHFR resistivity.
The recomputed results are closer to the open-
hole data but still high.
In the aquifer zone from XX45 to XX70 m, open-
hole resistivity is in the range of 0.2 to 0.3 ohm-m,
well below the normal operating range of the
16
CHFR Resistivity Recomputed Using Voltage
150 0.1 ohm-m
Cement-Corrected CHFR Resistivity
100 0.1 ohm-m
CHFR Resistivity
Depth, m
0.005 0.1 ohm-m
Openhole Resistivity
8 0.1 ohm-m
XX30
XX50
XX70
CHFR tool. Cement resistivity is known to be
within the acceptable range. However, at these
low formation resistivities, the influence of
cement on CHFR measurements cannot be
ignored. A cement correction (5-ohm-m cement
resistivity and 0.75-in. thickness) was calculated
and applied to the recomputed CHFR data. The
resulting CHFR resistivities now closely match the
openhole data over this interval that was initially
thought to be outside the CHFR operating range.
In addition to cement and formation-resistivity
restrictions, CHFR vertical resolution has some
limitations. Vertical resolution is a function of the
voltage electrode spacing. The 4-ft [1.2-m] value
represents the minimum bed thickness for which
the reading is correct in the middle of the bed. An
oil-water contact (OWC) can be localized to ±1 ft,
even with a 2-ft station spacing acquisition. The
depth of investigation is 7 to 37 ft [2 to 11 m]—
nearly unlimited by most wireline logging stan-
dards. It varies slightly with the contrast between
the cement and formation resistivity.
100
100
100
100
7-in.
casing
41/2-in.
liner
Applications
The basic applications for cased-hole resistivity
measurements were recognized in the 1930s;
these consist of primary logging, contingency log-
ging, identifying bypassed pay and reservoir mon-
itoring. Primary logging is a planned decision to
replace all or most openhole services with cased-
hole measurements. This decision comes from a
desire to reduce risks associated with borehole
instability or poor logging conditions, or perhaps
for improved economics. For example, in a pro-
ducing field where the geology is already well-
characterized through existing wells, a combination
of CHFR log and cased-hole nuclear measure-
ments, such as TDT Thermal Decay Time or RST
Reservoir Saturation Tool logs for porosity, can
provide complete formation saturation analysis.
Contingency logging—This type of logging is
appropriate for unplanned situations in which
openhole conditions such as borehole instability
Oilfield Review
or tool failure prevent successful logging. Now,
Openhole Laterolog Deep
with the CHFR service, cased-hole devices can 0.2 ohm-m 200
provide the needed data. In one recent North Sea
well, logging-while drilling (LWD) tools failed and Openhole Laterolog Shallow
0.2 ohm-m 200
no other openhole logs were available. Without
the evaluation provided by the CHFR log, the MSFL Resistivity
operator might have abandoned the well. In 0.2 ohm-m 200

Depth, ft
another case, hole conditions prevented acquisi- Gamma Ray Bulk Density CHFR Resistivity
tion of openhole logs; without the cased-hole 0 API 200 1.65 g/cm3 2.65 0.2 ohm-m 200
evaluation provided by the CHFR tool, the opera-
tor would have had to drill another well for
proper evaluation of the reservoir. Field experi-
ence now indicates that contingency logging
comprises a substantial portion of the total mar- X750
ket for behind-casing resistivity.
Identifying bypassed pay—Bypassed pay
constitutes a significant percentage of potential
reserves in many old fields. This category
X800
includes not only zones that were inadvertently
missed or misidentified, but also those that were
deliberately bypassed and others that experi-
enced resaturation after years of production. In
these cases, wells may have been drilled prior to X850
the availability of well logging or of modern
tools. Cased-hole evaluation facilitates identifi-
cation of these zones and allows estimation of
additional reserves.
X900
Deep invasion sometimes masks producible
zones. The openhole laterolog in one Indonesian
well was highly affected by invasion and under-
estimated the resistivity (right, top). Since curve
separation from X725 to X950 ft suggested a wet
zone, it was not perforated. Soon after the well > Bypassed pay. In this Indonesian well, the openhole laterolog underesti-
was completed, it produced nearly 100% water mated the resistivity due to deep invasion in the interval X725 to X950 ft, and
from deeper zones and was shut in. A few months this interval was not completed. The CHFR tool, run several months after
drilling, suggested this same zone to be hydrocarbon-bearing. This was
later, after the mud filtrate had time to disperse, a borne out by subsequent completion and production.
CHFR log indicated that this zone was actually
hydrocarbon-bearing. The zone was completed on
the basis of the CHFR log interpretation and is Openhole Laterolog Shallow
producing at the rate of 200 BOPD [32 m3/d]. 2 ohm-m 200
Spontaneous
Reservoir monitoring—Reservoir monitoring Potential
Depth, ft

Openhole Laterolog Deep

consists of time-lapse logging—logging at dif- -80 mV 20 2 ohm-m 200 Depletion
ferent times—to track changes in saturation and CHFR Resistivity Sw2 /Sw1
Gamma Ray
monitor the position of fluid contacts during pro- 0 API 200 2 ohm-m 200 3 0
duction and flooding projects. This technique has
been successful in another Indonesian well,
X630
where the CHFR log showed an unexpected
oil-water contact 12 ft [3.5 m] below the origi- X640
Openhole OWC
nal OWC determined from the openhole logs
(right). This lower zone was perforated and three X650
CHFR OWC
weeks later was producing 2150 BOPD
X660
[342 m3/d] with no water cut, confirming the
CHFR results. The most likely explanation is that
X670

> Reservoir monitoring in Indonesia. In this well, the CHFR OWC at X656 ft (Track 2,
black) is 12 ft [3.5 m] below the OWC indicated on the openhole deep laterolog at
X644 ft (Track 2, red). This interval was subsequently perforated and produced at a
rate of 2150 BOPD [342 m3/d].

Spring 2001 17

Formation
Low porosity (<15 p.u.)
Moderate porosity and low
salinity (< 20 ppk)
Moderate porosity
and moderate salinity
High porosity (>30 p.u.) and
high salinity (Gulf of Mexico)
Variable (flood)
Very low water saturation
Completion
Casing collars
Run-in through small tubing
Log inside tubing
Heavy casing
Dual casing
Alloy or chrome casing
Fiberglass casing
Borehole
Dry microannulus
Gas-cut cement
Washed-out holes
Flowing wells
Fluid contacts in hole
Near-wellbore effects
Deviated wells
Acid effect
Perforations
Lithology
Scale
> Chart comparing the applicability of CHFR resistivity and
RST carbon/oxygen and sigma measurements to different
formation conditions. In many borehole and reservoir
conditions, the tool measurements are complementary.
the waterflood project in the field had swept a
bank of oil to the vicinity of this well, but the oil
could not be produced through the higher perfo-
rations because of a vertical-permeability barrier.
While the CHFR tool can provide resistivity
measurements behind casing, more can be
18
Carbon/
CHFR
Oxygen Sigma Remarks
Tool
Ratio
Limitation on maximum measurable Rt
Limitation on maximum measurable Rt
CHFR tool could work but cement effect
becomes important at low Rt /Rcem.
CHFR tool can identify change from original
reservoir saturation but not quantitatively.
Limitation on maximum measurable Rt
Remarks
CHFR tool may lose data over 4 to 6 ft. RST tool
C/O mode will give good answers after SpectroLith
processing quantifies the iron content.
RST tool will give answer as long as the fluid
effect between tubing and casing can be corrected.
40 lbm/ft limit for CHFR signal-to-noise
RST tool will give answer as long as the
fluid/formation/cement effect between
tubing and casing can be corrected. In C/O
mode, characterization may be needed.
Electrode scratching may induce corrosion.
Induction logging is another option.
Remarks
Sigma can stand washout size roughly
twice as large as in C/O mode. If washout is
comparable to depth of investigation, then
sigma also will be affected.
Sigma is robust compared to C/O mode
due to depth of investigation.
CHFR tool relies on good electrical contact
between electrodes and casing. Casing
must be clean.
Not recommended except with expert advice
Use as recommended in remarks
Application is recommended
learned by combining these with nuclear mea- in reservoirs with low porosity and low formation
surements. The CHFR resistivity tool provides salinity, conditions that are generally unfavorable
saturation measurements from a depth of inves- for accurate evaluation by nuclear tools. Where
tigation significantly beyond that of the nuclear borehole and conditions are unfavorable for the
logging tools currently used for behind-casing CHFR measurement, nuclear logs can provide the
evaluation. The dynamic range of the CHFR mea- necessary data (above).
surement is such that evaluation also is possible
Oilfield Review
 Openhole Porosity Openhole Porosity Openhole Porosity
0.5 ft3/ft3 0 0.5 ft3/ft3 0 0.5 ft3/ft3 0
Openhole Porosity
0.5 ft3/ft3 0 Hydrocarbon (OH) Water Vol. Undisturbed CHFR Hydrocarbon (2)
Zone CHFR Run 1
Openhole (OH) Hydrocarbon Water Vol. Undisturbed CHFR Hydrocarbon (3)
0.5 ft3/ft3 0
Zone CHFR Run 1
Moved Hydrocarbon 0.5 ft3/ft3 0 CHFR Hydrocarbon (1) Water Vol. Undisturbed
Zone CHFR Run 2
Water Vol. Undisturbed Filtrate or Depletion CHFR Hydrocarbon (2) 0.5 ft3/ft3 0
Zone Openhole
0.5 ft3/ft3 0 CHFR Hydrocarbon (1) Filtrate or Depletion Filtrate or Depletion

Depth, ft
Water Vol. Flushed Zone Water Vol. Undisturbed Water Vol. Undisturbed Water Vol. Undisturbed
Openhole Zone Openhole Zone CHFR Run 2 Zone CHFR Run 3
0.5 ft3/ft3 0 0.5 ft3/ft3 0 0.5 ft3/ft3 0 0.5 ft3/ft3 0

X0950

X1000

X1050

X1100

> Fluid-volume calculations based on CHFR measurements in a Middle East well illustrating the grad-
ual hydrocarbon resaturation of this reservoir zone. By cased-hole Run 1 (Track 2), filtrate has mostly
been replaced or diluted, and by cased-hole Run 2 (Track 3), hydrocarbon saturation has returned to
pre-invasion levels. By the time of cased-hole Run 3 (Track 4), the CHFR tool is beginning to detect the
influence of a new injector drilled 100 m [330 ft] away.

To better understand reservoir behavior, CHFR
resistivity and porosity measurements from
nuclear devices, such as the RST tool, can be
combined to provide a quantitative saturation
evaluation that is equivalent to an openhole inter-
pretation. The RST tool provides two important
measurements for determining hydrocarbon satu-
ration and porosity. The ratio of the relative abun-
dance of carbon and oxygen in a formation can
predict hydrocarbon and water saturations inde-
pendently of water salinity. The thermal-decay
measurement, sigma, is used to estimate porosity
and hydrocarbon saturation in salty formations.4
A combined interpretation of cased-hole resistiv-
ity and nuclear measurements can be seen in a
monitoring well from a Middle East carbonate oil
reservoir (above). After openhole logging, casing
was set in this monitor well and several cased-
hole devices, including the CHFR and RST tools,
logged at intervals over the next 15 months.
During this period, and before an injector well
was active in this area, the series of log runs
showed a progressive increase in CHFR apparent
resistivity indicating hydrocarbon resaturation in
the primary oil zone between X0995 to X1085 ft.
Subsequent to the second run, water injection
began in a well approximately 100 m away. At the
time of the third cased-hole logging run, the flood
front was approaching the monitor well and influ-
encing the deep-reading CHFR measurement,
thereby enabling the effects of water injection to
be detected and quantified. In contrast to the
4. Adolph B, Stoller C, Brady J, Flaum C, Melcher C, Roscoe B,
Vittachi A and Schnorr D: “Saturation Monitoring with
the RST Reservoir Saturation Tool,” Oilfield Review 6, no.
1 (January 1994): 29-39.
Albertin I, Darling H, Mahdavi M, Plasek R, Cedeño I,
Hemingway J, Richter P, Markley M, Olesen J-R,
Roscoe B and Zeng W: “The Many Facets of Pulsed
Neutron Cased-Hole Logging,” Oilfield Review 8, no. 2
(Summer 1996): 28-41.

Spring 2001 19
CHFR data, analyses based on the shallow-
reading RST tool showed no change from the
openhole data during this period (below).
The difference between resistivity and nuclear
evaluations indicates that a damaged zone has
been created around the borehole in which filtrate
invaded at least as far as the RST depth of inves-
tigation. A combined interpretation from the
CHFR and RST tools provided a complete under-
standing of the resaturation, flood progress and
formation damage around the borehole.
Another way to detect changes in hydro-
carbon saturation over time is with the quick-
look depleted hydrocarbon index. This index is
based on the Archie water-saturation equation,
Sw = 1/ø (Rw /Rt ) 1/2, and relates cased-hole resis-
tivity and saturation derived from CHFR data to
the reference openhole values through the ratio:
(RCHFR /R OH )1/2 = S WOH /S WCHFR , where RCHFR is
CHFR apparent formation resistivity; ROH is refer-
ence openhole formation resistivity; S WOH is
Archie openhole water saturation calculated
using ROH; and S WCHFR is Archie cased-hole water
saturation calculated using RCHFR .
The advantages of this approach are that it is
relatively immune to the CHFR geometrical-
factor, does not require knowledge of the forma-
tion water resistivity—although it is assumed
that it has remained unchanged between the
openhole and cased-hole logs—and does not
require knowledge of the porosity. If an incorrect
K-factor is used, the curve baseline, which
should be 1.0 in clean, water-bearing formations,
will be shifted. Even in this case, however, it
should still be possible to identify the baseline
position and to detect depleted zones by deflec-
tion of the curve toward the left of this baseline.
At the same time, this approach retains the limi-
tations inherent in the Archie approach, such as
the assumption of a clean sand formation.
The depletion index provided a quantitative
measure of the extent of reservoir depletion in a
27-year old North Slope, Alaska, USA, production
well (next page, top). The casing-resistance
curves for each measurement channel for two
separate runs overlay, indicating good electrode
contact. The reduced CHFR resistivity relative to
the openhole resistivity clearly indicates deple-
tion in the two squeezed-off oil zones, X720 to
X740 ft and X820 to X955 ft.

Hydrocarbon (OH) Water Vol. Flushed Zone RST Sigma Hydrocarbon (2) < Fluid-volume calculations based
RST Run 1 on cased-hole nuclear measure-
Openhole Porosity RST Sigma Hydrocarbon (1) 0.5 ft3/ft3 0 RST Sigma Hydrocarbon (3) ments for the same Middle East well
0.5 ft3/ft3 0 made at the same times as the CHFR
Openhole Porosity RST Sigma Hydrocarbon (1) Water Vol. Flushed Zone tool runs. In contrast to the CHFR
Hydrocarbon (OH) 0.5 ft3/ft3 0 RST Run 2
logs, the shallow-reading nuclear
Openhole Porosity 0.5 ft3/ft3 0
Moved Hydrocarbon Filtrate or Depletion log indicates no significant change
0.5 ft3/ft3 0
Filtrate or Depletion in saturation over time, that is,
Water Vol. Flushed Zone Water Vol. Flushed Zone Water Vol. Flushed Zone within its shallow DOI it continues to
Openhole RST Run 1 RST Run 2 Water Vol. Flushed Zone measure mostly filtrate. The hydro-
0.5 ft3/ft3 0 0.5 ft3/ft3 0 0.5 RST Run 3 carbon volumes remain essentially
ft3/ft3 0
0.5 ft3/ft3 0 the same as they were during
Depth, ft

Water Vol. Undisturbed Water Vol. Undisturbed RST Sigma Hydrocarbon (2) openhole logging. The difference
Zone Openhole Zone Openhole Openhole Porosity
between resistivity and nuclear
0.5 ft3/ft3 0 0.5 ft3/ft3 0 Filtrate or Depletion 0.5 ft3/ft3 0
evaluations indicates an annulus or
damaged zone has been created
around the borehole. Consequently,
the effect of nearby injector wells
cannot be monitored using the RST
tool alone; a combined interpretation
X0950
is necessary.

X1000

X1050

X1100

20 Oilfield Review
 Another monitoring example comes from a
Gamma Ray Openhole Deep Induction
mature field in Indonesia. The reservoir is made Squeezed
30 API 180 0.2 ohm-m 200
up of a series of channel sands with a wide range
of permeability. Production from these sands is Casing-Segment Resistance Open CHF Apparent Resistivity Archie Sw Depletion Ratio
often commingled and, because of low formation 0 ohm 5x10-5 0.2 ohm-m 200 0 2

pressures, requires downhole pumps. Typically,

Depth, ft
the high-permeability zones are the major con-
tributors to production; they deplete first, then
X700
produce significant amounts of water. Nuclear
carbon/oxygen (C/O) logs are routinely used to
monitor reservoir production and depletion.
Interpretation of C/O logs is complicated by
two factors. First, because of low reservoir pres- X750
sure, once the pumps are stopped to work over
the well, borehole fluid reinvades the reservoir.
This newly created invaded zone causes the
shallow-reading C/O logs to underestimate the
oil saturation. Also, pressure differences X800
between zones can result in crossflow.
One solution is to squeeze off all the perfora-
tions and leave the well idle for two to three
weeks to allow the near-borehole region to
return to reservoir conditions before running the X850

C/O log and perforating new intervals. This

approach, however, is expensive and results in
significant lost production.
Furthermore, the squeeze process itself, dur-
X900
ing which a large volume of water is injected into
the formation at high pressure prior to cement-
ing, may actually result in a long-term change in
the formation saturation near the wellbore. The
C/O logs often show oil saturations below the X950
residual oil saturation; this finding could be due
to the permanent flushing of residual oil away
from the near-borehole region by the high-
pressure squeeze. These practices, combined
with variable cement quality in old wells, make
> Monitoring hydrocarbon depletion in North Slope well. Separation between the resistivity
accurate interpretation of C/O logs a challenge.
curves from the CHFR log and the original openhole induction log clearly indicates that the oil
zones from X820 to X955 ft and from X720 to X740 ft are depleted.

Pull completion Wait for invaded Reperforate

fluid to dissipate appropriate zones
The CHFR service suffers from none of these
Cement all zones drawbacks and gives the operator a more accu-
Run carbon/oxygen log
rate and cost-effective alternative to C/O logging
for identifying depleted zones (left). Prior to exe-
cuting a squeeze job in an Indonesian well, a
Production CHFR run was performed, followed weeks later
0 5 10 15 by two more CHFR runs and a C/O log acquisi-
Time, days
Production tion. The deep CHFR depth of investigation
> Reservoir monitoring time line for an Indonesian allowed the first log to be run immediately after
well. The numbers of steps and days required for
Run scraper carbon/oxygen (C/O) monitoring (top) are con-
trasted with those for CHFR monitoring (bottom).
Run CHFR tool CHFR logging resulted in 14 days earlier produc-
Selectively cement
Pull completion depleted zones tion plus savings that resulted from elimination of
unnecessary interval cementing and reperforating.

Spring 2001 21
 Moved Water Many oil fields in the Middle East use
Moved Hydrocarbon enhanced methods to improve oil recovery in
their carbonate reservoirs. Flood projects use
Water
injected water, gas or both, to sweep oil to the
Depletion Depletion Oil producing wells. Logs in monitor wells generally
Porosity Porosity Calcite indicate good drainage in the high-permeability,
0.5 ft3/ft3 0 0.5 ft3/ft3 0 Orthoclase
grain-supported carbonates but frequently indi-
cate inconsistent drainage in the lower- and
Oil Openhole Oil Openhole Quartz
mixed-permeability mud-supported carbonate
0.5 ft3/ft3 0 0.5 ft3/ft3 0
Openhole Resistivity Bound Water zones. Individual flow units within these lower
RST Oil Volume CHFR Oil Volume permeability zones are often capped by thin,
0.2 ohm-m 200 Illite
0.5 ft3/ft3 0 0.5 ft3/ft3 0 high-permeability layers that allow water or
Gamma Ray CHFR Resistivity ELAN Volumes
Remaining Oil Remaining Oil gas fingering during the floods and prevent
0 API 200 0.2 ohm-m 200 1 vol/vol 0
good recovery.5
Historically, the progress of these floods has
been evaluated through dedicated monitor wells
Perforation using thermal-decay sigma or C/O nuclear mea-
#2 surements in steel casing, or induction logs in
fiberglass casing. Each of these methods has lim-
itations. Nuclear tools work best in steel casing
and in medium- to high-porosity formations. The
nuclear sigma measurement requires saline for-
mation water. Mud filtrate and acids used to stim-
ulate the reservoir may damage the near-borehole
region, often lingering for months or years.
Nuclear devices, which have a shallow depth of
investigation—less than 12 in. [30 cm]—may not
see beyond the filtrate-invaded zone. Fiberglass
casing deteriorates with time and develops leaks;
induction logs run in such circumstances may be
unreliable. Typically, when leakage occurs, fiber-
glass is replaced by steel casing. Under these
conditions, CHFR logging may be more suitable
and may provide better answers than traditional
Perforation
#3 nuclear measurements.
The CHFR depth of investigation allows it not
only to monitor the uninvaded zone but, under
some conditions, to provide early indication of
approaching flood fronts. In one Middle East
monitor well, two CHFR logs were acquired in a
four-month period (next page, left). No change
was detected in the reservoir between runs. In
> ELAN Elemental Log Analysis interpretation of CHFR and RST reservoir monitoring logs. In this
addition, except for one zone, the overall match
Indonesian well, the C/O log results are affected by near-wellbore effects, in this case underestimating
the remaining oil due to invasion. The deeper CHFR depth of investigation helps to better estimate between openhole LWD deep resistivity and
the remaining oil. CHFR apparent resistivity is excellent at both low
and high resistivities. Modeling has shown that
the higher CHFR resistivity in the interval X850 to
pulling the completion, prior to squeezing and at the same time as the third CHFR run greatly X890 ft is due to an event far from the borehole,
waiting for the invaded zone to return to residual underestimates the saturation of remaining oil possibly an oil leg or the gas-flood front, perhaps
conditions (above). due to its inability to see past the invaded zone. 50 to 100 ft [15 to 30 m] beyond the borehole.
The first CHFR job was the most accurate run The first CHFR run shows that beyond the inva- The LWD resistivity is responding to the near-
because it occurred before the cement squeeze sion this interval has preserved nearly the origi- borehole water-flooded zone.
job, which injected a large amount of water into nal oil saturation. Compared to the C/O log,
5. For more on production from carbonates: Akbar M,
the formation. The second and third CHFR runs the CHFR tool provided a more accurate, deep- Vissapragada B, Alghamdi AH, Allen D, Herron M,
showed reduced resistivities because of the reading log, as well as considerable savings in Carnegie A, Dutta D, Olesen J-R, Chourasiya RD, Logan D,
Stief D, Netherwood R, Russell SD and Saxena K:
large amount of injected water. The C/O log run production time and expense. “A Snapshot of Carbonate Reservoir Evaluation,”
Oilfield Review 12, no. 4 (Winter 2000/2001): 20-41.

22 Oilfield Review
 CHFR Run 2 (Sep 28) CHFR Run 3 (Dec 16)
0.2 ohm-m 100 0.2 ohm-m 100

Gamma Ray CHFR Run 1 (May 30) CHFR Run 2 (Oct 20)
0 API 150 0.2 ohm-m 100

Depth, ft
0.2 ohm-m 100

Casing Collars LWD Resistivity Caliper CHFR Run 1 (July 26)

Depth, ft
-9 1 0.2 ohm-m 100 4 in. 14 0.2 ohm-m 100

Gamma Ray Openhole Deep Laterolog

0 API 150 0.2 ohm-m 100

X800

X1000

X1050
X900

X1100

> Log example from an Abu Dhabi monitor well in a carbonate oil formation.
Track 2 presents two CHFR runs logged four months apart (Run 1, red; Run 2,
blue) and the openhole LWD resistivity curve (black). No change was detected
between CHFR runs. However, compared to the openhole log, the higher
CHFR resistivity in the zone X850 to X890 ft is the result of sensing a far-
borehole event (an oil leg or a gas-flood front), while the LWD resistivity
is responding to the near-borehole water-flooded zone.
> Reservoir monitoring log examples in an Abu Dhabi carbonate oil reser-
voir. Track 2 presents three CHFR runs and the reference openhole deep
laterolog. Run 1 (red) was logged three months after casing was set, Run 2
(blue), six months after casing, and Run 3 (green), eight months after casing.
The CHFR measurement repeats except from X0970 to X1020 ft, where
resistivity is clearly increasing with time. The increased resistivity between
Runs 1 and 2 supports a simulation model that predicts that water injected
in a nearby well would push a bank of oil past this wellbore.

In another well, the CHFR tool was run three
different times: three, six and eight months after
the well was cased to monitor fluid movement
during a waterflood (above right). All three runs
repeat and match the openhole deep laterolog
except between X0970 and X1020 ft, where
CHFR apparent resistivity is progressively
increasing with time. The increase in cased-hole
resistivity between the first and second runs
validated the reservoir-simulation model that
predicted that water injection into this high-
permeability zone would push a bank of oil past
this well. This example demonstrates CHFR
repeatability and the ability of the deep-reading
CHFR tool to detect remote changes long before
near-borehole nuclear methods could detect
changes in reservoir fluids.
Enhancing Production Efficiency
Elk Hills oil field, near Bakersfield, California,
USA, is one of the largest in the United States,
with cumulative production exceeding 1.2 billion
BOE [190 million m3] and remaining reserves of
250 million BOE [39 million m3]. Prior to privatiza-
tion in 1998, Elk Hills was part of the United
States Naval Petroleum Reserves. Now operated
by Occidental Oil and Gas (OXY), the field has

Spring 2001 23
 Elk Hills, California

40
00

450 6000
0 550
0

0 km 5 Horizontal well MBB sand pinchout

0 miles 3 Injector well Approximate MBB waterflood front

> Structure map of the Main Body “B” (MBB) Stevens sand on the 31S structure. The approximate
present-day location of the flood front is depicted with the blue line. OXY is drilling horizontal wells
ahead of the advancing waterflood front to improve oil-recovery efficiencies.

recently served as a testing ground for cased-
hole resistivity services. OXY is seeking to
develop confidence in the measurement and is
testing its potential applications. More than
25 wells in the field have been logged with the
Schlumberger CHFR tool and the Baker Atlas
TCRT tool. The primary applications are reservoir
monitoring and enhancement of reservoir produc-
tion efficiency, primarily through reduction of
unwanted water or gas—known as conformance
control. Location of bypassed pay, including
zones of resaturation, is a secondary application.
Many of the 900 production wells in this field,
discovered in 1911, date back to the 1940s. The
field consists of stacked siliceous shales and
thin, interbedded turbidite reservoirs primarily
within the Miocene Monterey formation.
Openhole resistivity logs frequently are old nor-
mal or laterologs whose response must be mod-
eled to modern equivalents before they can serve
as reference logs for cased-hole resistivity. The
logging and producing environments present
challenges for conventional cased-hole formation
evaluation. The sands contain fresh pore water
and frequently have low porosities. Pulsed neu-
tron and C/O logs are rarely run because of the
existing wellbore completions. A shallow depth
of investigation causes the cased-hole nuclear
tools to detect the kill fluid that has invaded the
perforated intervals.
For running of cased-hole resistivity tools
here, standard operating practices include
pulling the completion and preparing the casing
using a scraper and brush to ensure good electri-
cal contact. To build confidence in the cased-hole
measurement, the CHFR tool was logged at 1-ft
[0.3-m] high-density sample spacing. This reduced
the statistical uncertainty in the measurement by
increasing the signal-to-noise ratio and improved
vertical resolution.
The average CHFR log in this field covers a
1000-ft [300-m] interval, including a short unperfo-
rated interval used to verify the CHFR calibration
with the openhole logs. Although a 1-ft sample
interval is used, because the CHFR tool makes two
measurements per station, the time required for
logging an average well was only 12 hr.

24 Oilfield Review
 In 1978, a peripheral water-injection project
Scale
was implemented in the Main Body “B” (MBB)
Stevens sand on the 31S structure. The Cased-Hole Gamma Ray CHFR Resistivity
0.7 API 70 2 ohm-m 20

Depth, ft
31S structure is the largest and most prolific of
the Elk Hills Stevens structures and contains the Openhole Gamma Ray Openhole Deep Induction
26R and MBB turbidite reservoirs. 0.7 API 70 2 ohm-m 20
Water has steadily advanced up the structure
during the past 20 years of injection (previous
page, top). The 315A-34S well was drilled in
1982 as a vertical producer in the MBB and was 6800
producing more than 300 BWPD [48 m3/d]. A log-
ging program consisting of cased-hole gamma
ray and CHFR measurements was proposed to
6900
identify water and the location of water entry. In
the upper, permeable interval, differences between
the openhole and cased-hole gamma ray are
attributed to barium scale and used to identify 7000
water entry (right).
Before the CHFR tool was run, the casing was
cleaned. In oil zones depleted through production
7100
and swept by the waterflood, CHFR resistivity is
less than openhole resistivity. The dark blue flag
indicates intervals where both the gamma ray
and the CHFR resistivity indicate water break- 7200
through. The tighter lower intervals show fewer
breakthrough effects. A casing patch was set
over the original perforations (yellow flags), and
7300
then the well was reperforated in the lower inter-
val. However, as a result of operational difficul-
> Log of Elk Hills 315A-34S well. Green shading (Track 1) indicates zones
ties, an attempt to test this section was
of increased radioactivity due to barium scale deposition caused by water
mechanically unsuccessful. entry. Blue shading between openhole deep induction (black) and CHFR
Occidental’s experience with cased-hole resistivity (blue) in Track 2 indicates reduced resistivity in water-swept oil
resistivity and the CHFR tool has been extremely zones. The yellow flag on the right side of the depth track indicates the
original perforations, and the purple flag indicates water breakthrough.
positive. OXY engineers and petrophysicists now
prefer cased-hole resistivity to traditional nuclear
measurements because they find resistivity inter-
pretation is simpler, more straightforward, and The Future of Cased-Hole As an addition to the traditional nuclear and
less uncertain than interpretation of thermal- Formation Evaluation acoustic measurements, the new CHFR tool pro-
decay sigma or C/O measurements. With cased- With the enormous base of existing wells in old vides a familiar measurement that solves impor-
hole resistivity, high resistivity indicates pay, and and producing fields, as well as the huge poten- tant industry formation-evaluation needs in both
lower resistivity relative to openhole logs indi- tial for future wells, the need for cased-hole for- new and old wells. Cased-hole resistivity allows
cates produced or swept zones. High-density mation evaluation is clear. Cased-hole logging reservoir monitoring in conditions unfavorable for
sampling at a 1-ft sample interval is recom- not only provides information on bypassed pay traditional nuclear logs and enhanced evaluation
mended in laminated beds. Finally, Occidental’s and changing fluid contacts, but also reduces risk when combined with nuclear measurements in
petrophysicists now have sufficient confidence in by allowing formation evaluation when openhole favorable conditions.
the measurement to recommend it in problem resistivity logs are not practical. The benefits are No one can predict what advances will
wells, instead of nuclear logs. also clear: more revenue, lower costs and earlier be made in the next 60 years, but the near future
production of reserves. Cased-hole resistivity is easy to foresee. As more operators gain expe-
enables operators to better optimize their opera- rience with the CHFR tool and push the limits of
tions, while still acquiring the data for evaluation current technology, innovative applications will
and planning. be established and more cased-hole formation-
Over the past 10 years, the suite of cased- evaluation hurdles will be overcome. The rewards
hole devices providing behind-casing formation will be finding more oil and gas. —SP, LS
evaluation has expanded to meet growing demand.

Spring 2001 25

View publication stats