Determining Formation Resistivity Anisotropy in the Presence of Invasion

Abstract

Resistivity anisotropy in both laminated shale-sand and clean sand formations is well documented. Tools that are sensitive to formation anisotropy are also well documented, and the leading contender for this type of measurement is the transverse induction array. Such an array, whose transmitter generates formation currents in the plane of the borehole axis, has a good sensitivity to the vertical resistivity of the formation, Rv. Invasion of mud filtrate into permeable formations has long complicated wireline log analysis. Interpretation of anisotropic formations will be no different. In most drilling environments, these formations will be invaded as readily as isotropic formations. Although we expect that invading mud filtrate from water-based mud will reduce the anisotropy, we also expect that invading oil-based mud (OBM) filtrate will increase it. Thus the anisotropic properties of each zone must be determined separately. A single-spacing induction array (of any orientation) cannot, by itself, separate uninvaded zone properties from those of the invaded zone. Multiple-spacing tools have been used for many years to make this separation. A multiarray triaxial induction tool is in field test, and invasion interpretation algorithms are under development. A fast analytic algorithm corrects shoulder effect on all nine triaxial couplings of each array, allowing Rv and the horizontal resistivity Rh to be determined at several radial depths in the formation. Rigorous 2D and 3D inversions are also used to evaluate beds on the order of 1 m thick in both vertical and deviated wells. Examples in both modeled formations and in actual formations demonstrate the methods. Introduction Induction tools (along with laterolog tools) have been the standard resistivity devices for borehole geophysics for about 50 years. The nearly geometric response of the induction array has made it easier to interpret than the non-geometric response of the laterolog tools. Conventional induction tools are built with coils that have their magnetic moments along the tool axis. The resulting sensitivity to the formation is in a direction perpendicular to the wellbore axis. When the beds are dipping, or when the well is deviated, the response is more complicated, but not in a way that allows determination of the dip angle.

Triaxial induction tool with electrode sleeve: FD modeling in 3D geometries

“…The triaxial induction array Barber et al, 2004;Minerbo et al, 2006) was built on a metal mandrel or tube, where the triaxial sensors are around the tube and covered with a fiberglass sleeve to exclude the borehole fluids. It operates at two induction frequencies: 13 and 27 kHz and consists of nine arrays with spacings from 6 in to 72 in.…”

Resolution of reservoir scale electrical anisotropy from marine CSEM data

“…The effect of electrical anisotropy has been the subject of many papers: in deep crustal studies (Everett and Constable, 1999), fracture detection and mapping (Le Masne and Vasseur, 1981), mineral exploration (Mansour al-Garni and Everett, 2003), and in borehole logging (Lu and Alumbaugh, 2001). Barber et al (2004) demonstrate how electrical anisotropy can be determined through borehole logging. Ellis et al (2010) developed an effective medium model for sediment anisotropy arising through preferred grain shape and alignment.…”

Analysis and Correction of Borehole Effect on the Responses of Multicomponent Induction Logging Tools

“…2. Because borehole effect mainly depends on the six parameters [19]: the borehole radius r, the borehole mud conductivity σ m , the offset r e , the offset direction relative to the tool coordinate α, the formation vertical conductivity σ v , the formation horizontal conductivity σ h . The parameters r, σ m are easy to get by measurement, and the direction of the offset with respect to the tool's x-axis can be solved directly from the xz and xy couplings.…”

“…The parameters r, σ m are easy to get by measurement, and the direction of the offset with respect to the tool's x-axis can be solved directly from the xz and xy couplings. The relation is given by the equation [19] …”

“…The borehole correction algorithm consists of building forward model to compute coil responses and using iterative inversion method to solve some of the borehole effect parameters. A table is usually built as a forward model by using three-dimensional numerical methods such as finite difference method [19]. However, building the table with the three-dimensional numerical method is very time-consuming.…”