SPE 135319-PP

Does the Presence of Natural Fractures Have an Impact on Production? A

Case Study from the Middle Bakken Dolomite, North Dakota
M. Mullen, J. Pitcher, D. Hinz (HES), M. Everts, D. Dunbar, (RTA), G. Carlstrom, G. Brenize, (Anshutz)

Copyright 2010, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Florence, Italy, 19–22 September 2010.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have not been reviewed
by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or
members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is
restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
During the past 10 years, over 2,000 horizontal wells have been drilled and completed in the Middle Bakken formation
sandwiched between the two Bakken organic rich shales. While most of the debate about this reservoir has centered on the lateral
length, stimulation treatment, and the number of treatments, little work has been done to explore the variations of rock properties
and the effect of natural fractures along the 6,000— 10,000-ft lateral lengths.

Keeping the horizontal well between the two Bakken shales is simple to do with just a gamma ray. But, is this an optimal practice
for well placement? Is there a “sweet spot” layer in which the horizontal well should be placed to increase production?

In a recent well, an azimuthally-focused resistivity tool and an azimuthal deep-reading resistivity tool were run as a final wiper trip
to investigate the location of natural fracture swarms and variations of rock properties along the 10,000-ft lateral. The goal of this
exercise was to test the concept of improving production by using a “smart” horizontal completion technique, spacing the swell
packers, and locating frac stages based on horizontal reservoir data. The azimuthally-focused resistivity image log identified over
839 individual fractures in four fracture swarms. The azimuthal deep resistivity mapping showed approximately 40% of the lateral
in the “sweet spot” layer. The evaluation of post stimulation oil tracer indicates that these “sweet spot” layers contribute 70% of
the production after stimulation. If the well could have been geosteered to stay in the “sweet spot” using a “smart” completion
technique, production modeling suggests a 20% increase in production could have been realized.

Introduction

The Bakken Formation is part of a petroleum system that comprises five distinct stratographic units: the overlying Lodgepole
Limestone, upper, middle, and lower members of the Bakken, and the underlying upper Three Forks-Sanish Formations [1]. The
upper and lower shale members of the Bakken are the source rocks for the oil contained in all these reservoirs. The Lodgepole and
Three Forks Formations serve as sealing formations except where fracturing has allowed Bakken-sourced hydrocarbons to bleed
off into porous zones (e.g., Bakken middle member and the Sanish sand) and charge these formations. The history of Bakken
completions started in the late 1950’s with a few vertical completions. The first horizontal Bakken “boom” in the late 1980’s
targeted the upper Bakken shale member for open hole horizontal completions. This program had a short life span due to high
costs of horizontal drilling, low permeability and completion techniques. The second Bakken horizontal drilling “boom” began in
Montana with the Lyco Energy’s Sleeping Giant project in the Elm Coulee field. Most of these wells were drilled in the maximum
stress orientation to create longitudinal hydraulic fractures. This process simplified the completion and stimulation process. This
development began in early 2000. The idea of doing multiple frac stages in one horizontal wellbore was technically challenging
and risky. Over the past 10 years, over 2000 wells have been drilled and completed with a variety of completion techniques to
make the Middle Bakken Play one of the more significant oil plays onshore North America of the past decade. Cumulative
Bakken production exceeds nearly 200 million barrels of oil and has a daily average production of 6 million barrels per month
(HPDI, 2010) Fig. 1. The success of this program is largely attributed to a combination of technologies: cost-effective horizontal
drilling, multi-stage stimulation.
2 SPE 135319-PP

Fig. 1. Monthly Bakken Production since 2000. (HPDI, 2010)

The Middle Bakken clastics ranges in thickness from 35 – 85’ and is more carbonate to the west and quartz rich carbonate to the
east side of the play. The upper and lower shale serves as a pressure seal making them overpressured throughout much of the
basin. LeFever (1991) [2] described the Middle Bakken with five distinct lithofacies (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2. Lithofacies defined within the middle member of the Bakken Formation (LeFever et al., 1991; Helms and LeFever,
2005)[2,3].
SPE 135319-PP 3

The open natural fractures represent the primary flow path of oil in the Bakken formation. These fractures are a result of structural
tectonics, regional stress and hydrocarbon expulsion and are lithologically dependant (Murray, 1968)[5]. Sonnenberg and
Pramudito, 2009[4] suggested the lithofacies 3 is the facies that is more susceptible to natural fracturing and has 5 – 10 times the
fracture permeability. Ideally, this would make the lithofacies 3 this ideal target to place a horizontal lateral. Thus the subject of
this paper. Does it make any difference placing the lateral in the “sweet spot” layer using geosteering or is it sufficient to place the
lateral and get it close to the “sweet spot” because we will frac into it anyway? In a recent test, the AFR and ADR LWD tools
were used to determine the position of the lateral within the lithofacies of the Middle Bakken and the degree of natural fracturing
observed in the different lithofacies. Based on the geologic model, a reservoir simulation was conducted to compare the production
between placing the lateral in the “sweet spot” zone and 20’ below the “sweet spot” zone. Another purpose of this test was to
observe the difference between the ball actuated stimulation sleeves and plug and perf type completion methodologies.

Scope of Trial
The intent of the trial was to gather data. Initially, the well was drilled to T.D. using conventional geosteering techniques. A
gamma ray sensor is the principal sensor used and was successfully deployed to keep the well in the Middle Bakken unit for a total
section length of 10400’. The TST gamma profile is very correlatable across the line of section and provide adequate control to
keep the drilling assembly in the zone. Several tags of the upper and lower boundaries were made, but the well was placed
successfully in the target zone for almost the complete section.
Once the drilling phase was completed, two LWD tools were run to acquire geological data from the reservoir section. An
Azimuthal Deep Resistivity (ADR) tool was run to provide accurate boundary mapping relative to the wellbore. This would allow
the wellbore to be evaluated in context of structural position. The second tool was an Azimuthal Focused Resistivity (AFR) tool
that was run to acquire very high resolution image logs of the entire lateral. By combining the output from the two tools, the
lithofacies and natural fracture patterns determined by the AFR could be placed in structural context by the ADR, giving a much
more complete picture of the distribution dynamics of the lithofacies and fractures.

Geological Mapping

ADR

The azimuthal deep-reading resistivity tool is based on the multi-frequency, multi-spacing tilted antenna concept (Bittar et al.
2007). The tool consists of a single 25-ft collar with six transmitters and three receivers with transmitter to receiver distances span
from 16-in to 112-in (see Fig. 3). This tool operates at three different frequencies: 2 MHz, 500 kHz, and 125 kHz. With multiples
spacing and multiple frequencies, the azimuthal deep-reading resistivity tool covers the entire range from shallow- to very deep-
reading, thus mapping the formation parameters from near the borehole to up to 18 feet radially. The compensated spacings are 16-
in, 32-in, and 48-in. Transmitters T1, T2, T3, T4, T5 and T6 are non-tilted coaxial antennas while receivers R1, R2, and R3 are
tilted antennas. These receiver antennas are tilted 45 degrees with respect to the tool axis.
As the tool rotates, phase shift and attenuation data are acquired in 32 azimuthally oriented bins referenced to either the high side
of the borehole or magnetic north using magnetometers. The phase shift and attenuation measurement are transformed to resistivity
to obtain 32 azimuthally oriented phase shift and attenuation resistivites at multiple spacing and frequencies.

Fig. 3 An azimuthal propagation resistivity tool. The tilted receivers provide the azimuthal sensitivity. The long- and short-
transmitter-receiver spacing enables both shallow and deep measurements.

A feature of the tool is the production of geosignals (Bittar et al. 2010). These are used in a mathematical inversion process to gain
a determination of the distance to a boundary around the tool. In this trial, the geosignals were processed via inversion to
determine the distance to the closest boundary, either above or below the tool. The results of this inversion process are shown in
figure 4.
4 SPE 135319-PP

Fig.4 Distance to bed results and geological model for the lateral.

The inversion results were combined with a geological model using geosteering software (J. Pitcher et al. 2010) and the
subsequent geological model exported to the reservoir modelers.

AFR

A 4.75” Azimuthal Focused Resistivity sensor equipped for imaging in a 6.125” borehole was used to obtain resistivity images in
the lateral after drilling. The AFR is configured with transmitter toroids at the top and bottom of the tool and with three sets of
measurement electrode “buttons” between the transmitters (Prammer et. al. 2007). Figure 5. The AFR was equipped with high
resolution measurement buttons at the lower and upper button rows, and standard resolution measurement buttons at the middle
button row. The tool was programmed to acquire 32 azimuthal sector measurements from the standard resolution buttons that
were oriented relative to the high side of the borehole. The high resolution buttons were sampled in 64 azimuthal sectors which
were also oriented relative to the high side of the borehole.

Figure 5: 4 ¾” AFR equipped with high resolution imaging buttons at the lower and upper button rows, and
standard resolution imaging buttons at the middle button row.

In addition to providing full 360 degree images of the bore hole while rotating, the sensor also provides omni-directional laterolog
type resistivity measurements by summing the responses of each button row for a “virtual ring” response.

By combining the uncompensated virtual ring responses from the upper and lower transmitters and the corresponding button rows,
a naturally compensated (middle button row) medium spacing and depth derived compensated (upper and lower buttons rows)
shallow and deep laterolog type resistivity curves can be produced (figure 2) that will provide symmetric responses as compared to
uncompensated measurements using only the upper transmitter or lower transmitter.
SPE 135319-PP 5

Figure 2: Compensated versus uncompensated virtual ring resistivity measurements. Note the resistivity
measurements responding to the small thin disseminated conductive features at 11700 ft.
6 SPE 135319-PP

In addition to omni-directional resistivity measurements, azimuthal resistivity curves can be produced from the
measurements (See figure 3).
SPE 135319-PP 7

Figure 3: Omni-directional Medium compensated resistivity versus quadrant Medium compensated resistivity.

The AFR tool can also produce an “at bit” measurement by transmitting with the upper transmitter and using the lower
transmitter as a receiver to measure the total current leaking from the BHA below the receiver. Figure 4 shows the “at
bit” measurement (plotted with a sensor depth equal to bit depth – 0.0 ft) for the same interval in figure 1. Shading has
been added to track 1 in the example to illustrate the position of the well bore (TVD Curve) relative to the beds that are
being traverse by the well bore. The well drilling up section relative to the beds until the high gamma ray was seen at
which time the inclination of the well bore was decreased to drill back down section. For this example, the distance
from the bit to the middle button row was approximately 48 feet. Note that when the bit was drilling up section from the
more conductive layer to the more resistive layer the “at bit” measurement lags the change in resistivity as the bit
crosses the boundary. When the bit traversed back down section from the more resistive layer back into the more
conductive layer, the “at bit” measurement reacts fairly quickly to the change in resistivity that is occurring at bit depth.

Figure 4: Comparison of compensated ring resistivity measurements versus the “at bit” resistivity measurement.
8 SPE 135319-PP

Well Completion

The completion of this well, Fig. XX, consisted of 10 ball actuated stimulation sleeve stages and 9 plug and perf
stages. Each frac stage was tagged using chemical tracers and oil soluble tracers to monitor fluid flow back as well as
adding radioactive tracers to the proppant. The LWD characteristics of being in the “sweet spot” zone are Gamma Ray
less than 40 API units and Resistivity over 40 ohms. In this well, the “sweet spot” zone was also heavily fractured with
over 839 individual natural fractures were identified. Figures XX and XX. The natural fracturing was limited to the
“sweet spot” zone. Mud log shows were also present in the 4 of the 5 “sweet spot” zone penetrations.

Figure XX. High resolution AFR Image of sweet spot showing the presence of natural fractures.
SPE 135319-PP 9

Figure XX. Transition form the sweet spot to lower quality intervals showing that the natural fractures do not extend
out of the sweetspot interval.

RA Tracer
AFR Fracture
Imaging
Mud Log and
Staging 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
AFR/ADR
Resistivity

Fig.xx The completion stages, AFR, ADR and RA Tracer results

To test the treatment plan for this well, water soluble chemical tracers were added to each frac stage to test the
difference of the frac flow back between the stimulation sleeve and perf and plug stages. On the plug and perf stages,
the same tracer was used for two frac stages so the total flow back percentage was evenly divided between the two
stages. Unique oil soluble tracers were added to each frac stage to evaluate where the oil was being produced from
this 10.400’ lateral. Radioactive tracer’s iridium, scandium and antimony were alternated between stages shown in Fig
XX as the red, yellow and blue color bars in the Mud Log and Staging track. The stimulation treatment volumes and
fluid systems, Table 1, were roughly the same for both the ball actuated stimulation sleeves and the plug and perf
stages.
10 SPE 135319-PP

Frac Treatment Volumes
Klbs
Stage Fluid ‐ BBL 30/50 proppant 20/40 proppant
Pad WaterFrac G Hybor G 20 Lb Premium White Sand Econoprop Max Prop Con
1 1810 3381 255.7 117 4
2 967 1716 127.6 62.1 4
3 964 1643 126.2 54.1 4
4 972.5 1701.2 128.3 59.8 4
5 917 1701.9 127.9 60 4
6 964 1682.7 126.2 60.3 4
7 968.4 1671.6 125.2 59.1 4
8 967.1 1677.9 124.7 60.6 4
9 946 1694.6 128.3 60.3 4
10 944 1713.1 125.9 62.7 4
11 905 1686.5 128 60 4
12 905 1686.3 129.4 61.9 4
13 905.8 1708.3 128 67 4
14 923 1697.2 128.3 62.8 4.4
15 904.8 1680.7 125.2 63.2 4
16 905.4 1674.9 125.4 62.2 4
17 904.8 1702.4 128.3 60.2 4.1
18 905.8 1701.3 127.8 60.2 4.1
19 952.7 1651.7 126.9 67.5 4.5
Table 1 Stimulation Treatment volume summary

Discussion of Treatment Results

Table 2 shows the results from the stimulation treatments and flow back between the stimulation sleeve stages and the
plug and perf stages and the “sweet spot” zone and non “sweet spot” zone. These results suggest there is very little
difference in the completion practice between stimulation sleeve stages and plug and perf stages concerning the
stimulation treatment ISIP or frac fluid flow back. The oil flow back is better in the stimulation sleeve stages partially
because the majority of these stages were in the fractured “sweet spot” zone. The RA tracer indicates a quite a bit
more smearing of the tracer material in the plug and perf stages than the stimulation sleeve stages possibly an effect
of drilling out the plugs between stages and drilling out the baffles on the stimulation sleeve stages.

Regarding the “sweet spot” zone, this lateral had 2059’ within the “sweet spot” zone or 20%. It is interesting to note
that 4 of the 5 sweet spot intervals had good mud log shows while the other portions of the borehole did not have
much of a mudlog show. The oil flow back was slightly higher, 4% on average, in the sweet spot zone and the water
flow back was slightly lower. The 5 stages where the “sweet spot” zone was encountered accounted for 40% of the
well production based on the day 50 oil tracer analysis and 20% of the frac fluid flow back. The non- sweet spot zone
completions produced most of the frac fluid flow back. On a %/1000 FT basis, the stages in the sweet spot zone
produced at an oil flow back rate of 20%/1000’ of lateral while the non-sweet spot zone produced at an oil flow back
SPE 135319-PP 11

rate of 15%/1000’ of lateral. In this well 40% of the production is coming from 20% of the frac stages. This begs the
question, what would happen if we put the whole lateral in the “sweet spot” zone.

Stage Water Flowback Oil Flowback  ISIP, psi Fractures on Image Average/Stage Average/ Stage

1 3.1 0.1 X Stimsleeves
2 4.9 12 8300 Fractured
3 3.6 14.5 8250 X Water Flowback Water Flowback
4 5.3 20 8100 X 4.66% 3.88%
5 5 8200
6 3.5 2 8600 Oil Flowback Oil Flowback
7 7.6 4 8600 7.10% 8.72%
8 2.6 4 8500
9 2.6 3.5 8500 X ISIP ISIP
10 8.4 4.5 8700 8416 psi 8287 psi
11 8.4 3 8500 Plug and Perf Non‐Fractured
12 8.5 3 8600 Water Flowback
13 8.5 2.5 8200 Water Flowback 5.70%
14 5.9 5.5 8300 5.88%
15 5.9 3 8500 Oil Flowback
16 3.1 4.5 8250 Oil Flowback 4.65%
17 3.1 8 8500 4.33%
18 4.8 4.5 8250 ISIP ISIP
19 4.8 5.5 8300 X 8377 psi 8428 psi

Table 2 Frac Treatment instantaneous shut in pressure and flow back summary

Reservoir Simulation Modeling

A reservoir simulation model was constructed to test this concept. The layer properties are listed in Table 3.

Rock properties by layer

Name Thickness Depth to top Porosity X horizontal Y horizontal Vertical perm. Initial Dew/Bubble Initial SW Initial SG Initial Rock Type
(ft) (ft) () perm. perm. (md) pressure point pressure () () temperature
(md) (md) (psia) (psia) (°F)
1 UpperShale 15.0 10000 0.0100 1.0000E-05 1.0000E-05 1.0000E-05 5000.00 3250.00 0.3000 0.0000 59.000 Rock1
2 Litho4 10.0 10015 0.0600 0.0040 0.0004 0.0004 6500.00 3250.00 0.5000 0.0000 59.000 Rock1
3 Litho3 8.0 10025 0.0800 0.0100 0.0010 0.0010 6500.00 3250.00 0.3000 0.0000 59.000 Rock1
4 Litho3 3.0 10033 0.0800 0.0100 0.0010 0.0010 6500.00 3250.00 0.3000 0.0000 59.000 Rock1
5 Litho3 8.0 10036 0.0800 0.0100 0.0010 0.0010 6500.00 3250.00 0.3000 0.0000 59.000 Rock1
6 Litho2 45.0 10044 0.0600 0.0040 0.0004 0.0004 6500.00 3250.00 0.5000 0.0000 59.000 Rock1
7 Litho1 10.0 10089 0.0500 0.0040 0.0004 0.0004 6500.00 3250.00 0.5000 0.0000 59.000 Rock1
8 LowerShale 15.0 10099 0.0100 1.0000E-05 1.0000E-05 1.0000E-05 6500.00 3250.00 0.3000 0.0000 59.000 Rock1
9 ThreeForks 50.0 10114 0.0800 0.0100 0.0010 0.0010 4500.00 3250.00 0.5000 0.0000 59.000 Rock1

Table 3 Rock Properties by layer for the reservoir simulation

The wellbore for the horizontal was placed in two locations. One simulation was run with the wellbore in the middle of
the “sweet spot” zone and the other was run with the wellbore 10’ below the “sweet spot” zone. The horizontal layer
profile is shown in Fig XX.
12 SPE 135319-PP

“Sweet Spot” Zone

Lower Lateral Location

Fig XX The horizontal model profile showing the location of the later for the sweet spot zone.

The simulator was run for a 10 year time period. The results of this modeling show a difference of 20% increase in the
10 year oil production by placing the lateral in the “sweet spot” zone as opposed to landing the lateral below the “sweet
spot” zone, Fig YY.
SPE 135319-PP 13

Cum Oil Between a Well Drilled in the Sweet layer and Below the 
Sweet Spot Zone
350000

20% Increase in Cum Oil Production based on well placement
Cumulative Production, BBL

300000

250000
}
200000

150000

100000

50000

0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000

Time in Days

Cum Oil BBL Lateral in Sweet Spot Cum Oil BBL Lateral below Sweet Spot

Fig YY Comparison of the modeled production coming from a lateral in the “sweet spot” zone and a lateral
below the “sweet spot” zone.

The simulation grid for these two cases are shown in Fig. AA and Fig. BB. Figure AA depicts the reservoir
where the lateral is landed in the “sweet spot” layer. While the hydraulic fractures extend into the lower Middle
Bakken, the first 5 year time production is dominated by the better permeability in the “sweet spot” zone.

When the lateral is drilled below the “sweet spot” zone, the first 5 year production is dominated by the lower
permeability in the lower Middle Bakken. There is some drainage from the “sweet spot” layer but it is not as
effectivly draining this layer as when there is a lateral well drilled in it.
14 SPE 135319-PP

Figure AA the reservoir simulation results over time of the case where the wellbore is landed in the “sweet
spot” zone. The sweet spot zone is identified by the grey box on the left side of each grid.
SPE 135319-PP 15

Figure BB the reservoir simulation modeling of the case where the lateral is landed below the “sweet spot”
zone. Production in the first 5 years is dominated by the lower permeability in the lower Middle Bakken.

Model Validation with Production

With any reservoir simulation, there are an endless number of knobs that can be turned to produce the results.
A better test of a model’s validity would be to compare the model with actual well production. The two wells highlighted
here are four miles offset. So there is most likely some differences in their production characteristics due to geologic
differences that aren’t taken into account. However it does demonstrate the point that staying in the “sweet spot” zone
does make a difference when it comes to the lower permeability Middle Bakken reservoirs, Fig zz.
16 SPE 135319-PP

Fig ZZ Comparing the actual production of two wells with the modeled production with the lateral placed in
and below the “sweet spot” zone.

Conclusions

This study demonstrated that there is very little differences concerning well completion schemes between the ball
actuated stimulation sleeves and the plug and perf fracture initiation. So the decision to complete the lateral use all
stimulation sleeves or plug and perf or a combination of both would be more of an operational and economic decision.
The authors also investigated the placement of the lateral. The results of this study suggest that there will be a benefit
in well productivity by 20% from geosteering the lateral in the “sweet spot” zone in this particular area. The authors
would also suggest testing this concept and workflow in other portions of the Middle Bakken play. So, for the question
that started this paper, Does the presence of natural fractures have an impact on production? As shown in this study,
placing your well in the most highly fractured interval, the “sweet spot” zone in this case has a 20% increase in
cumulative production.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Anschutz Exploration, RTA and Halliburton for their support in this project and the
willingness to share this information for the benefit of the continued success in producing oil from low permeability
reservoirs. We also extend our thanks for the countless researchers who have written and published their
understanding on the Bakken. We are sure we missed some of your references in this study, so thank you for your
willingness to share your knowledge.

References

1. Meissner, F.F., “Petroleum geology of the Bakken Formation, Williston basin, North Dakota and Montana” in
Williston Basin Symposium, Montana Geological Society, p. 207-227, 1978.
2. LeFever, J.A., Martiniuk, C.D., Dancsok, E.F.R., and Mahnic, P.A. “Petroleum Potential of the Middle
Member, Bakken Formation, Williston Basin,” in Christopher, J.E., and Haidl, F., editors, Proceedings of the 6th
International Williston Basin Symposium, Saskatchewan Geological Society Special Publication No. 11, 76-94,
1991
3. Helms, L.D., and LeFever, J.A. , “Middle Bakken Play: Technical Problems, Questions, and Possible
Solutions” North Dakota Geological Survey Geologic Investigation GI-16, 2005
4. Sonnenberg, S.A., and Pramudito, A. “Petroleum Geology of the Giant Elm Coulee Field, Williston Basin”
AAPG Bulletin, 93(9). 1127-1153. 2009
5. Murray, G.H., Jr. “Quantitative Fracture Study--Sanish Pool, McKenzie County, North Dakota, AAPG Bulletin,
52(1), 57-65, 1968
SPE 135319-PP 17

6. J. Pitcher, N. Clegg, C. Burinda, R. Cook and C. Knutson, M. Scott and T. Løseth. 2010. Advances in
Geosteering Technology: From Simple to Complex Solutions. IADC/SPE 128155 presented at the IADC/SPE
Drilling Conference and Exhibition, 2–4 February, New Orleans, Louisiana, U.S.A.
7. Bittar M., Klein J., Beste R. Hu G., Wu M., Pitcher, J., Golla, C., Althoff, G., Sitka, V. Minosyan, V., and Paulk,
P. 2007. A New Azimuthal Deep-Reading Resistivity Tool for Geosteering and Advanced Formation
Evaluation. Paper SPE 109971 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, 11-14
November, Anaheim, California, U.S.A.
8. Bittar M., Chemali R., Pitcher J., Cook R. and Knutson C. 2010. Real-time Proactive Optimal Well Placement
Using Geosignal and Deep Images. OTC 20894 presented at the Offshore Technology Conference, 3–6 May,
Houston, Texas, U.S.A.

9. Prammer M., Morys M., Knizhnik S., Conrad C., Hendricks W., Bittar M., Hu G., Hveding F., Kenny K., Shokeir
R., Seifert D., Neumann P., and Al-Dossari S. 2007. Filed Testing of an Advanced LWD Imaging/Resistivity
Tool. SPWLA 48th Annual Logging Symposium, Paper AA.