Cased Hole Formation Resistivity Tool
Alief Mahadika P. R. / 071001600008
Abstract
In the past hydrocarbon saturation have
been monitored behind casing by pulsed
neutron capture (PNC) logs. These tools have
been quite successful in our environment
onshore Abu Dhabi characterized by good
porosity carbonate reservoirs with high salinity
waters.
The ability to measure formation
resistivity directly through casing in monitoring
wells adds a new dimension, by allowing the
measurement of water saturation further away
from the borehole, less affected by the
“damaged zone” invaded by mud filtrate and
drilling fines. Until recently, resistivity logging
in cased hole has been restricted to Induction
logs in fiberglass lined wells. New advances
in digital electronics has made it possible to
produce the sufficiently accurate and stable
downhole sensors required to measure
formation resistivity through steel casing. The
first Middle East trials of a new Cased Hole
Formation Resistivity Tool (CHFR) took place
in 1999/2000 in several ADCO wells.
Monitoring fluid saturation changes and
movement in fluid contacts with time,
including the identification of swept zones,
barriers to flow and bypassed oil are the main
applications for the CHFR. With a greater
dynamic range than PNC-logs, the CHFR will
complement data from sponge cores and
open hole logs in swept zones, leading to
more robust ROS determination.
The CHFR may also be used for
primary evaluation, where no logs could be
acquired in open hole, and allows re-
examination of wells with old resistivity logs.
In low resistivity where the CHFR is
near it’s specified limit of 1 Ohmm, the effects
of resistive cement behind casing become
important and require careful correction. PNC-
logs are favored in this low resistivity range.
Field logs obtained in this trial will be
presented and discussed in the paper.
Introduction
Several of the oil-fields onshore Abu Dhabi
are GIANTS, with producing lives expected to
exceed 100 years. Generally water-injection is
installed to support natural waterflood and
maintain reservoir pressure.
Monitoring focused on water-sweep plays an
important role. Since the potential gain from an
improved recovery mechanism is large, at any
one time other recovery processes are being
tested in pilot form to optimise the next phase of
field development. These pilots also require
monitoring.
Up to now fluid saturation was determined
behind casing by time-lapse pulsed neutron
capture (PNC) logging tools. Although these tools
are shallow reading
- depth of investigation is about 1 foot behind
casing - they provide good quality data in our
fields characterized by good porosity reservoirs
with formation waters and injection waters of high
salinity.
The first Middle East trials of a new Cased
Hole Formation Resistivity Tool (CHFR) were
carried out during 1999 and 2000 in several
ADCO wells. The theory of measuring formation
resistivity through steel casing has been known
for some time, but only recent advances in digital
electronics have made it possible to produce the
sufficiently accurate and stable downhole sensors
required. The main objectives of the trial were to
evaluate the capabilities of the CHFR prototype
tool in typical ADCO wells and conditions.
Successful trial results would impact not only our
cased hole logging programs and monitoring
strategies, but also the design of pilots and
observation wells.
Applications
The main application of the CHFR is
Reservoir Monitoring. During the producing
life of a reservoir, through casing formation
resistivity data may help understand fluid flow
and recovery processes in several ways:
 Evaluation of reservoir fluid saturation
changes with time including the
identification of swept zones, potential flow
barriers and bypassed oil.
 Monitoring movement in oil/water contacts
(OWC).
 Identification of off-take rate induced water
coning, by repeat logging at different off-
take rates, allowing time to re-establish
stable conditions.
 Estimating residual oil saturation (ROS) to
a water flood or a combined water-
alternating-gas (WAG). Open hole logs in
dedicated wells through swept zones and
sponge cores or low invasion cores may
provide important information. PNC logs in
casing may support such data. Measuring
formation resistivity through casing allow
the evaluation of ROS further away from
the borehole, less affected by mud filtrate
or acid effects.
The CHFR tool may also be used for
primary evaluation of reservoirs where no
logs could be acquired in open hole, due to
operational problems where the risks of open
hole logging were too large. Wells with old or
faulty logs may also be re-examined.
Tool Principles
Measurements are taken while the
tool is stationary. The CHFR measures
formation resistivity by injecting current into
the casing through a centralizer at the top of
the tool that returns to surface. Slight
variations in the current loss through the
casing are related to current leaking into the
formation and may be calibrated to formation
resistivity. The voltages investigated by the
tool are in the Nano-Volt range, which
requires exceptionally stable and low noise
electronics down hole. Frequency of
operation is limited to around 1 Hz; to avoid
polarization associated with a DC-
measurement and skin effects caused by a
higher frequency. Casing current loss is measured
through 4 rings of 3 electrodes attached to
caliper-like arms that open up and establish
contact with the steel casing at each station.
Good electrical contact is essential; a problem in
wells with scale or corrosion products on the
inside of the casing. In double casing the CHFR
will only read the resistivity of the cement between
casings.
Downhole tool calibration is achieved by
comparing the cased hole measurements to open
hole logs.
Tool Specifications
Length………………………............................ 43
ft.
Measuring point to bottom:……………………15 ft.
Tool OD...........................……………………3 3/8 in.
Casing range: ……………...........…...4 ½ - 9 5/8 in.
Temperature..........…......……......... 150°C (300°F)
Pressure ...........................…………...... 15,000
psi
Deviation   with extra centralizer)
Bore hole fluid: …………………….Water / oil / gas
Operating frequency:……………………………1Hz
Electrode spacing: ….……………….......……...2 ft.
Vertical Resolution..........…………………. 4 ft.
Depth of investigation: .………………..7 ft to 30 ft.
Equivalent Logging Speed…….......120 ft/ hr (2 ft.
spacing)
Resistivity range ..........…...…....... 1 to 100
Ohmm
Combinability: Bottom only tool; run with Gamma
Ray and CCL above the CHFR tool for depth
control.
Trial Results W-1
The first trial well was chosen because it
has a variable resistivity profile ranging from 0.5
to 100 Ohmm. W-1 was drilled and completed in
July 1996 as an observer with a 5 ½” GRE Liner
in a Gas Injection Pilot pattern.
After the GRE liner developed leaks, it
was worked over in November 1997, sidetracked
and completed with a 7” steel liner. At the time of
drilling, the upper part of the main reservoir
was already partially water flooded as seen
on the open hole LWD logs. LWD resistivity
logs provide an excellent basis for
comparison, since these logs are less
affected by invasion, being recorded very
soon after penetration of the formation by the
drill bit. The well has since been regularly
monitored using PNC logs. The first CHFR log
was run in May 1999; Fig. 1.
Initially, the differences observed
between CHFR and LWD resistivity were
thought to be related to saturation changes
from water- and gas-injection in the Pilot area.
However, detailed comparison with PNC logs
from May 1999, highlights significant
discrepancies between 50 and 100 ft. and
from 145 to 180 ft. Here the PNC logs agree
very well with the original LWD resistivity logs.
A second CHFR run in September 1999 is
virtually identical to the first CHFR; see Fig. 1.
Possible reasons for the discrepancies
between the CHFR and the LWD resistivity
and PNC logs include:
 Different depths of investigation of PNC
and CHFR. The PNC tool measures
approximately 1 ft behind casing, while the
CHFR reaches up to 30 ft. Mud invasion
may impair the near wellbore so that any
oil re-saturation further away from the
borehole is only seen by the CHFR and not
(yet?) by the PNC.
 Open water-filled fractures nearby may
perturb the CHFR measurements by
providing low resistivity current paths away
from the wellbore.
 PNC logs may be more influenced by
variable cement quality and thickness than
the CHFR. On the other hand the CHFR
may also be influenced by cement in ways
we do not yet fully understand.
The effect of resistive cements on Through
Casing Resistivity Tools was first highlighted
by Klein in 1993. Different cement thickness
(1–2 in. thick annuli) and resistivity (1-100
Ohmm) effects on the CHFR have been
modeled and reported by Beguin (2000).
Cement effects may at least partially explain
the observed differences between the CHFR
and LWD. Perhaps the inclusion of a “short-
spacing” measurement on a future CHFR would
allow these corrections to be more accurately
defined.
The impact on the W-1 evaluation is significant.
Using the CHFR data in the petrophysical model
established for this well give much higher oil
saturation across the water-flooded interval in the
upper part of the zone.
This saturation profile is unlikely; from the
several passes of time-lapse data acquired to
date and the open hole logs in the sidetrack there
is no hint of any such re-saturation across this
interval. The specified optimum range of operation
for the CHFR is from 1- 100 Ohmm. In this
example we see the greatest deviation from PNC
results as we approach 1 Ohmm. Given that the
CHFR is operating near its specified limit it would
be prudent to favor the PNC as the preferred
method for analyzing the swept zone.
However the far greater depth of investigation
of CHFR should make it very useful for detecting
early water breakthrough in other intervals before
the flood water enters the zone of investigation of
a PNC tool.
It is also unlikely that the plugged back
original hole 100 feet from the steel cased
sidetrack would affect the CHFR logs with a depth
of investigation limited to 30 ft.
Summary Of Trial Results
The CHFR trial in ADCO is encouraging
and represents a breakthrough in Cased Hole
logging technology.
The data may be used qualitatively to
monitor water front movement. Quantitative
analysis of fluid saturation in low resistivity water
flooded zones requires knowledge of cement
resistive parameters and careful application of the
relevant corrections. The greatest discrepancies
between CHFR and PNC logs occur in swept
zones where CHFR is near the lower limit of its
operating range. Until other deep reading
measurements become available to resolve this
discrepancy, the PNC results are preferred in
swept zones and CHFR should be used for
indications of early water breakthrough where
its far deeper depth of investigation would be
most useful.
 Operationally the CHFR tool worked fine
and repeatability is satisfactory.
 CHFR vertical resolution is almost the
same as the Dual Laterolog.
 In intervals with resistivity less than 2
Ohmm, CHFR generally reads too high Rt.
 Compared with cased hole PNC-logs, oil
saturations derived from the CHFR are
higher, particularly in water swept zones –
in the low resistivity range.
 Different depths of investigation between
PNC- logs and CHFR complicate direct
comparison.
 Adding of a “short spacing” measurement
to the CHFR, may better define the cement
effects.
REFERENCES.
1 Recent Progress on Formation Resistivity
Measurement through Casing. P.Beguin,
D.Benimeli, A.Boyd, I.Dubourg, A.Ferreira,
A.McDougall, G.Rouault, P.van der Wal.
Schlumberger. SPWLA Annual Symposium in
Dallas, USA, June 2000.
 The Petrophysics of Electrically Anisotropic
Reservoirs. J.D.Klein et al. SPWLA 36 th Annual
Symposium, Paris, June 1995.
3 Cement Resistivity and Implications for
Measurement of Formation Resistivity Through
Casing. SPE 26453. J.D. Klein, P.R.Martin and
A.E.Miller 1993.