T6146 PDF

USE OF MICROLOGS AND ELECTRICAL BOREHOLE
IMAGES FOR FRACTURE DETECTION,
NATURAL BUTTES FIELD,
UINTA BASIN, UTAH
by
Mahmood Ahmadi
A thesis submitted to the faculty and Board of Trustees of the Colorado School of
Mines in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science
(Petroleum Engineering)
Golden, Colorado
Date ___________
Signed: _____________________
Mahmood Ahmadi
Approved: ___________________
Dr. Erdal Ozkan
Thesis Advisor
Approved: ___________________
Dr. Neil F.Hurley
Thesis Advisor
Golden, Colorado
Date ___________
_______________________
Dr. Craig W.Van Kirk
Professor and Head,
Department of Petroleum Engineering
ii
ABSTRACT
Natural fracture detection is an important goal for geologists, geophysists and petroleum
engineers alike, because open fractures assist flow from reservoir rocks to the wellbore. The
Formation Micro-Imager (FMI) and Electrical MicroImaging (EMI) logs are frequently used to
detect fractures, but they are relatively expensive to run. Moreover, these tools only became
available in the late 1980’s. In the Natural Buttes field, relatively few wells have been logged by
FMI and EMI for fracture detection. On the other hand, several hundred wells in the field have
micrologs or equivalent logs available, but no borehole images.
Water-based saline mud that fills fractures has a much lower resistivity than neighboring
rocks. Therefore, fractured intervals may appear as high conductivity zones on resistivity logs.
This motivated us to find a way to develop a correlation between natural fractures determined by
borehole images and by micro-resistivity logs in the study area.
The micrologs are shallow resistivity devices mainly used to detect mudcake of
permeable zones and the resistivity of the flushed zone. The microlog measures two different
resistivities: deeper-reading micronormal and shallow-reading microinverse. The difference
between these two readings is known as “separation”. This microlog separation can be compared
to fracture indications of the EMI/FMI. Intervals with separations were compared with fractured
zones and other borehole features such as breakouts, washouts, and keyseats in this study.
Statistical analysis showed that borehole elongation (especially borehole breakouts) and induced
fractures have a significant effect on microlog response. Microlog anomalies that correspond to
iii
natural fractures observed in FMI/EMI logs showed a maximum of 30% correlation. The fact that
the microlog is a directional tool, may explain the lack of correlation between natural fractures
and microlog anomalies.
An existing FORTRAN program provided by Baker Atlas was adapted to study the
effect of fractures near the borehole wall on the micro-resistivity tool response. The program is
1-D and therefore limited to fractures that are parallel to the micro-resistivity pad and do not
intersect the borehole. To evaluate the sensitivity of the micro-resistivity tool, we developed
petrophysical models for the fractured intervals. Modeling results show that there are limitations
on fracture identification based upon fracture aperture, mud resistivity, fracture density and
fracture distance from the borehole wall. Results show that the micro-resistivity tool is capable of
detecting a low aperture fracture in low resistivity mud environment in a short distance from the
wellbore. We also used the program to determine the limitations of the tool using actual data from
three wells in the study area. Results show that conductivity anomalies occur in intervals with
natural fractures, breakouts, washouts, and drilling-induced fractures. When breakouts and
washouts are eliminated using caliper logs, the micro-resistivity logs prove to be good fracture
indicators.
Based on full log evaluation, an R xo curve can be calculated in non-breakout and non-
washed out zones. The comparison between the calculated and measured R xo curves can be used
as an indication of fracture volume. To conclude, this procedure is recommended for future work.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Pages
ABSTRACT……………………………………………………………….......................iii
LIST OF FIGURES……………………………………………………………………. viii
LIST OF TABLES……………………………………………………………………... xxi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS…………………………………………………………... xxiii
CHAPTER 1 ....................................................................................................................... 1
INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Introduction........................................................................................... 1
1.2 Purpose of Study ................................................................................... 2
1.3 Research Contributions......................................................................... 3
CHAPTER 2 ....................................................................................................................... 4
GEOLOGICAL SETTING ............................................................................................. 4
2.1 Location of the Study Area ................................................................................... 4
2.2 Stratigraphy........................................................................................................... 4
2.2.1 Regional Stratigraphy ........................................................................ 4
2.2.2 Local Stratigraphy.............................................................................. 8
2.2.2.1 Mesaverde Group (Upper Cretaceous) ........................................... 8
2.2.2.2 Wasatch Formation ...................................................................... 16
2.3 Structure.............................................................................................................. 17
2.3.1 Regional Structure ........................................................................... 17
2.3.2 Local Structure................................................................................. 17
2.4 Production Geology ............................................................................................ 20
CHAPTER 3 ..................................................................................................................... 27
BOREHOLE IMAGE LOGS........................................................................................ 27
3.1 Background ......................................................................................................... 27
3.2 Data Available .................................................................................................... 41
3.3 Borehole Image Log Processing ......................................................................... 41
3.4 Borehole Image Quality...................................................................................... 41
3.5 Methods of Borehole Image Log Interpretation ................................................. 46
v
3.6 Depth Shifting..................................................................................................... 50
3.7 Elongation Definition......................................................................................... 51
3.7.1 Resample.......................................................................................... 57
3.7.2 Tool Rotation ................................................................................... 57
3.7.3 No Elongation .................................................................................. 57
3.7.4 Washouts.......................................................................................... 60
3.7.5 Keyseats ........................................................................................... 60
3.7.6 Borehole Breakout and Elongation Direction.................................. 65
3.8 Microfault Interpretation..................................................................................... 65
3.9 Fracture Analysis ................................................................................................ 68
3.9.1 Vertical Fractures............................................................................. 72
3.9.2 Polygonal Fractures ......................................................................... 72
3.9.3 Mechanically Induced Fractures ...................................................... 72
3.9.4 Fracture Morphology ....................................................................... 76
3.9.5 Halo Effect around Resistive Fractures ........................................... 80
3.10 Results............................................................................................................... 80
3.10.1 Stress Orientation from Borehole Breakout................................... 80
3.10.2 Stress Orientation from Mechanically Induced Fractures ............. 82
3.10.3 Comparison of SHmax and Fracture Orientations......................... 82
3.10.4 Quality-Ranking System for Stress Orientation .......................... 107
3.11 Discussion ....................................................................................................... 107
3.11.1 Comparison of SHmax and Fracture Orientations....................... 112
3.11.2 Comparison of Obtained SHmax with SHmax Map for the ..............
United States ........................................................................................... 112
3.11.3 Elongation .................................................................................... 114
CHAPTER 4 ................................................................................................................... 116
MICRO-RESISTIVITY.............................................................................................. 116
4.1 Microlog............................................................................................................ 116
4.1.1 General Information....................................................................... 116
4.1.2 Equipment Description .................................................................. 116
4.1.3 Principles of Micrologging ............................................................ 118
4.1.4 Microlog Behavior in Different Formations .................................. 119
4.1.5 Microlog Interpretation in Permeable and Impervious Beds......... 121
4.2 Micro Cylindrically Focused Log (MCFL) ...................................................... 124
4.2.1 General Information....................................................................... 124
4.2.2 Equipment Description .................................................................. 124
4.2.3 Fracture Detection by MCFL......................................................... 126
4.3 Results............................................................................................................... 127
4.4 Discussion ......................................................................................................... 135
vi
CHAPTER 5 ................................................................................................................... 140
FRACTURE MODELING ......................................................................................... 140
5.1 Tool Response................................................................................................... 140
5.2 Effect of Natural Fractures on the Tool Response............................................ 142
5.2.1 Results............................................................................................ 142
5.2.2 Discussion ...................................................................................... 143
5.3 Effect of Mud Resistivity and Fracture Aperture on Tool Response................ 143
5.3.1 Results............................................................................................ 143
5.3.2 Discussion ...................................................................................... 151
5.4 Effect of Invasion on Tool Response................................................................ 151
5.4.1 Results............................................................................................ 151
5.4.2 Discussion ...................................................................................... 155
5.5 Effect of Fracture Density on Tool Response................................................... 155
5.5.1 Results............................................................................................ 155
5.5.2 Discussion ...................................................................................... 155
5.6 Effect of the Flushed and Uninvaded Zones Resistivities on Tool Response .. 157
5.6.1 Results............................................................................................ 157
5.6.2 Discussion ...................................................................................... 159
5.7 Application to Borehole.................................................................................... 159
5.8 Effect of Washouts and Breakouts.................................................................... 165
5.9 Model Application ............................................................................................ 165
5.10 Discussion ....................................................................................................... 170
CHAPTER 6 ................................................................................................................... 174

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................... 174
6.1 Conclusions....................................................................................................... 174
6.2 Recommendations............................................................................................. 176
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 176
APPENDIX A................................................................................................................. 181
vii
LIST OF FIGURES
Pages
Figure 2-1. Location of Uinta basin.................................................................................... 5
Figure 2-2. Location of Greater Natural Buttes field ......................................................... 6
Figure 2-3. Location of three study wells in the field......................................................... 7
Figure 2-4. Stratigraphic column for Greater Natural Buttes (GNB) gas field ................. 9
Figure 2-5.Generalized stratigraphic correlation chart . ................................................... 10
Figure 2-6. Generalized west-east cross-section showing Upper Cretaceous and Lower
Tertiary stratigraphic units in Uinta basin. ............................................................... 11
Figure 2-7. West-east chronostratigraphic chart............................................................... 12
Figure 2-8. Gamma ray (GR), micronormal (MNOR), and microinverse (MINV) logs . 13
Figure 2-9. Orientation of maximum horizontal compressive stress................................ 20
Figure 2-10. Generalized stress map of the continental United States. ............................ 21
Figure 2-11. Rose diagram of the 62 vertical extension fractures in the………………

east-central Piceance basin. ...................................................................................... 22
Figure 3-1. The Formation MicroImager (FMI) Tool of Schlumberger .......................... 28
Figure 3-2. Pad and flap assembly and sensor detail from Schlumberger FMI .............. 29
Figure 3-3. Borehole coverage for FMI and FMS tools. .................................................. 30
Figure 3-4. Electrical Micro Imaging tool uses pad-mounted electrodes to make high-
definition resistivity measurement of subsurface formations. .................................. 34
viii
Figure 3-5. Images viewed inside out. .............................................................................. 37
Figure 3-6. Static image and dynamic image ................................................................... 39
Figure 3-7. Static normalization and dynamic normalization........................................... 40
Figure 3-8. DMAX and DMIN show a dramatic decrease and poor quality images........ 45
Figure 3-9. The effective bit size . .................................................................................... 47
Figure 3-10. Debris builds up . ......................................................................................... 48
Figure 3-11. Dip angle and dip azimuth . ......................................................................... 49
Figure 3-12. Depth shifting .............................................................................................. 52
Figure 3-13. Cross sectional view of a borehole breakout ............................................... 53
Figure 3-14. Plot of P1AZ and HAZI vs. depth, Well Glenbench 822-27P. .................... 58
Figure 3-15. Plot of P1AZ and HAZI vs. depth, Well NBU1022-9E............................... 59
Figure 3-16. A washout .................................................................................................... 61
Figure 3-17. Plot of calipers vs. depth, Well Glenbench 822-27P. .................................. 62
Figure 3-18. Key seats . .................................................................................................... 63
Figure 3-19. Plots of calipers, P1AZ and HAZI vs. depth, Well Glenbench 822-27P. .... 64
Figure 3-20. Plot of calipers vs. depth, well Glenbench 822-27P. .................................. 66
Figure 3-21. DMAX shows an increase and DMIN matches bit size. The image log is
dark, which indicates elongation............................................................................... 67
Figure 3-22. Fault identification and difference between faults and fractures. ................ 69
Figure 3-23. Fracture identification. ................................................................................. 70
Figure 3-24. Fault is indicated by the termination of bedding planes on the fault plane,
Well NBU 1022-9E................................................................................................... 71
ix
Figure 3-25. Polygonal fracture in a carbonate reservoir. ................................................ 73
Figure 3-26. Near-vertical induced fracture, Well Glenbench 822-27P........................... 74
Figure 3-27. Relationship between SHmax, water-flooding, and hydraulic fracturing.... 75
Figure 3-28. En-echelon induced fractures in a deviated interval .................................... 77
Figure 3-29. Open natural fracture.................................................................................... 78
Figure 3-30. Healed fracture. ............................................................................................ 79
Figure 3-31. A cemented fracture showing characteristic halo effects due to the
insulating thin sheet formed by the fracture cement................................................. 81
Figure 3-32. Strike azimuth of SHmax obtained from caliper logs, Well………
Glenbench 822-27P................................................................................................... 83
Figure 3-33. Strike azimuth of SHmax obtained from EMI log inspection, Well
Glenbench 822-27P................................................................................................... 84
Figure 3-34. Strike azimuth of SHmax obtained from caliper logs, Well NBU 1022-9E.85
Figure 3-35. Strike azimuth of SHmax obtained from EMI log inspection,
Well NBU 1022-9E................................................................................................... 86
Figure 3-36. Strike azimuth of SHmax obtained from caliper logs, Well NBU 222........ 87
Figure 3-37. Strike azimuth of SHmax obtained from FMI log inspection, Well
NBU 222. .................................................................................................................. 88
Figure 3-38. Dip direction of breakout. ............................................................................ 89
Figure 3-39. Strike azimuth rose diagram for continuous breakout intervals................... 90
Figure 3-40. Frequency histogram of vector means of SHmax from continuous………….

breakout, Well Glenbench 833-27P.......................................................................... 90
Figure 3-41. Strike azimuth rose diagram for continuous breakout from EMI log
inspection, Well Glenbench 822-27P. ...................................................................... 91
x
Figure 3- 42. Frequency histogram of vector means of SHmax from continuous
breakout intervals obtained from EMI log inspection, Well Glenbench 822-27P.... 91
Figure 3-43. Strike azimuth rose diagram for continuous breakout, Well NBU 1022-9E.
................................................................................................................................... 92
Figure 3-44. Frequency histogram of vector means of SHmax from continuous

breakout interpreted by caliper logs, Well NBU 1022-9E....................................... 92
Figure 3-45. Strike azimuth rose diagram for continuous breakout intervals fom
EMI log inspection, Well NBU 1022-9E................................................................. 93

breakout intervals interpreted by EMI log inspection, Well NBU1022-9E.............. 93
Figure 3-47. Strike azimuth rose diagram for continuous breakout from borehole
breakouts obtained from caliper logs, Well NBU 222.............................................. 94

breakout intervals interpreted by caliper logs, Well NBU 222................................. 94
Figure 3-49. Strike azimuth rose diagram for continuous breakout intervals from
borehole breakouts obtained from FMI log inspection, Well NBU 222................... 95

breakout intervals interpreted by FMI log inspection, Well NBU 222..................... 95
Figure 3-51. Strike azimuth of SHmax obtained from induced fractures,

Well Glenbench 822-27P.......................................................................................... 96
Figure 3-52. Strike azimuth rose diagram for continuous induced fractures shows
orientation of maximum horizontal compressive stress (SHmax),
Well Glenbench 822-27P.......................................................................................... 97

intervals of induced fractures, Well Glenbench 822-27P. ........................................ 97

Well NBU 1022-9E................................................................................................... 98
xi
mean orientation of maximum horizontal compressive stress (SHmax),
Well NBU 1022-9E................................................................................................... 99

intervals of induced fractures, Well NBU1022-9E................................................... 99

Well NBU 222 ........................................................................................................ 100
Well NBU 222. ....................................................................................................... 101

intervals of induced fractures, Well NBU 222........................................................ 101
Figure 3-60. Rose frequency histogram for open natural fracture strikes in
Glenbench 822-27P................................................................................................. 102
Figure 3-61. Frequency histogram of vector means for open natural fractures in
Glenbench 822-27P................................................................................................. 102
Figure 3-62. Rose frequency histogram for open natural fracture strikes in
NBU 1022-9E. ........................................................................................................ 103
NBU1022-9E. ......................................................................................................... 103
Figure 3-64. Rose frequency histogram for open natural fracture strikes in NBU 222.. 104
NBU 222. ................................................................................................................ 104
Figure 3-66. Rose frequency histogram for healed fracture strike in the
Gglenbench 822-27P............................................................................................... 105
Figure 3-67. Frequency histogram for resistive fractures in Glenbench 822-27P.......... 105
Figure 3-68. Rose frequency histogram for healed fracture strikes in NBU 1022-9E. .. 106
xii
Figure 3-69. Frequency histogram for resistive fractures in NBU 1022-9E................... 106
Figure 3-70. Diagram showing the three subsurface stress tensors. ............................... 108
Well NBU 222. ....................................................................................................... 110
Figure 3-72. Rose diagram of the 62 vertical extension fractures in the east-central
Piceance basin ....................................................................................................... 113
Figure 3-73. Strike azimuth rose diagram for continuous breakout intervals shows
mean orientation of SHmax from borehole breakouts obtained from caliper logs,
Well NBU 222. ....................................................................................................... 115

breakout intervals interpreted by caliper logs, Well NBU222................................ 115
Figure 4-1. The 2-arm microlog apparatus . ................................................................... 117
Figure 4-2. Response of the microlog in front of permeable, shaly, and tight
formations ............................................................................................................... 120
Figure 4-3. Permeable beds (P) and impervious beds (I) ............................................... 123
Figure 4-4. Portion of MCFL pad showing current patterns and equipotential
surfaces .................................................................................................................. 125
Figure 4-5. Micronormal and microinverse logs vs. depth, Well Glenbench 822-27P .. 128
Figure 4-6. Correlation between borehole features and microlog anomalies, Well
Glenbench 822-27P................................................................................................. 131
Figure 4-7. Correlation between borehole features and microlog anomalies,

Well NBU 1022-9E................................................................................................. 132
Figure 4-8. Correlation between borehole features and microlog anomalies,

Well NBU 222. ....................................................................................................... 134
xiii
Figure 4-9. Percentage of correlation for both natural and induced fractures
combined and different microlog anomalies, Wells Glenbench 822-27P and
NBU 1022-9E. ........................................................................................................ 136
Figure 4-10. Correlation between borehole features and microlog anomalies in three
study wells. It is assumed that the fracture is filled with mud and the fracture
resistivity is the same as the mud resistivity. .......................................................... 137
Figure 4-11. Correlation between different borehole features and microlog fracture
anomalies in Well NBU222 based on the experimental equation defined by
Schlumberger. ......................................................................................................... 138
Figure 5-1. Model of fracture-invasion profile. .............................................................. 141
Figure 5-2. The effect of fracture width on tool response in terms of conductivity. The
resistivity of the invading mud into the fracture is 0.01 Ohmm. Fracture width
ranges from 0.0001 to 0.6 in. .................................................................................. 144
ranges from 0.00254 to 15.24 mm. ......................................................................... 144
ranges from 0.0001 to 0.6 in ................................................................................... 145
ranges from 0.00254 to 15.24 mm. ......................................................................... 145
resistivity of the invading mud into the fracture is 1 Ohmm. Fracture width ranges
from 0.0001 to 0.6 in............................................................................................... 146
from 0.00254 to 15.24 mm ..................................................................................... 146
from 0.0001 to 0.6 in............................................................................................... 147
xiv
from 0.00254 to 15.24 mm ..................................................................................... 147
Figure 5-10. The response of the tool in fractured intervals for different mud resistivities.
A vertical fracture is located 2 in (5.08 cm) away from the wellbore.. .................. 148
Figure 5-11. The response of the tool in fractured intervals for different mud
resistivities. A vertical fracture is located 4 in (10.16 cm) away from the wellbore.
................................................................................................................................. 148
................................................................................................................................. 148
................................................................................................................................. 148
resistivities. A vertical fracture is located 10 in (25.4 cm) away from the wellbore. .
................................................................................................................................. 150
resistivities. A vertical fracture is located 12 in (30.48 cm) away from the wellbore
wall.......................................................................................................................... 150
Figure 5-16. Relationship between fracture width and mud resistivity for a vertical
fracture at different distances from the wellbore. ................................................... 152
fracture at different distances from the wellbore. ................................................... 153
Figure 5-18. The effect of invasion radius on conductivity in a fractured interval. ....... 154
Figure 5-19. The effect of invasion radius on conductivity in a non-fractured zone...... 154
Figure 5-20. The effect of fracture density on conductivity for different fracture spacing.
................................................................................................................................. 156
xv
Figure 5-21. The effect of fracture density on MCFL tool response. ............................. 156
Figure 5-22. Tool response for various values of R xo and R t .. .................................. 158
Figure 5-23. Radius of investigation of different resistivity tools. ................................. 160
Figure 5-24. R xo8 and related sharp peak in the middle of the fracture ....................... 162
Figure 5-25. Natural fractures interval, well NBU 222. The log shows a peak in this
interval whereas the HLLD and HLLS logs show only a small curvature change. 163
Figure 5-26. The R xo8 log shows a sharp peak in a non-fractured tight sandstone,
whereas the HLLD and HLLS logs show small curvature changes in the opposite
direction .................................................................................................................. 164
Figure 5-27. Drilling-induced fracture interval.The R xo8 log shows a peak, whereas
the HLLD and HLLS logs have a small curvature change in the opposite direction
................................................................................................................................. 166
Figure 5-28. Drilling-induced fracture interval.The R xo8 log shows peaks, whereas
the HLLD and HLLS logs appear as constant values, well NBU 222.................... 167
Figure 5-29. The effect of washout on R xo8 , HLLD, and HLLS. ............................... 168
Figure 5-30. The effect of breakout on R xo8 , HLLD, and HLLS................................. 169
Figure 5-31. Different readings in micrologs ( R INV >R NOR ) in sandstone intervals,
well NBU 1022-9E. ................................................................................................ 172
Figure 5-32. The R DFL log shows a higher or equal value than R HDRS , and
R HMRS logs in intervals that have gas................................................................. 173
xvi
LIST OF TABLES
Pages
Table 2-1. Stratigraphic column, geologic history, and petroleum systems in the
Uinta basin. ............................................................................................................... 14
Table 2-2. Total Petroleum System (TPS) and Assessment Units (AU) in Piceance
basin .......................................................................................................................... 26
Table 3-1. FMI specifications . ......................................................................................... 31
Table 3-2. EMI specifications........................................................................................... 35
Table 3-3. FMI applications ............................................................................................. 42
Table 3-4. List of wells in this study with FMI and EMI data ......................................... 44
Table 3-5. Statistical analysis of the tectonic stress from two methods for quality-
ranking system, well Glenbench 822-27P. ............................................................. 109
Table 3-6. Statistical analysis of tectonic stress, Well NBU 1022-9E............................ 109
Table 3-7. Statistical analysis of tectonic stress,Well NBU 222. ................................... 109
Table 3-8. Quality-ranking system for stress orientations. ............................................. 110
Table 3-9. Quality -ranking system for stress orientation in three wells of this study. .. 110
Table 4-1. Microlog interpretation ................................................................................. 122
Table 4-2. A selected interval (6786.3-6788.6 ft) shows an anomaly less than
Minus 5 Ohmm, well NBU 1022-9E. ..................................................................... 129
Table 4-3. Comparison of microlog anomalies to other borehole features,

Well Glenbench 822-27P........................................................................................ 130
xvii
Well NBU 1022-9E................................................................................................. 132

Well NBU 222. ....................................................................................................... 133
Table 4-6. Different anomalies related to natural and induced fractures combined,
wells Glenbench 822-27P and NBU 1022-9E. ....................................................... 136
Table 4-7. Comparison of microlog anomalies to other borehole features in three

study wells. ............................................................................................................. 137
Table 4-8. Comparison of microlog fracture anomalies based on the experimental

equation by Schlumberger and other borehole features, well NBU 222. ............... 138
xviii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Praise and glory be to God, the most gracious, the most merciful. He enabled me
to successfully complete this research.
I would like to express my sincere appreciation to my advisors, Dr. Neil F. Hurley
and Dr. Erdal Ozkan, who encouraged and supported me financially for part of my study.
Again, I greatly appreciate Dr. Neil F. Hurley for proposing this project, his extreme
patient and kind attention, and his technical and emotional help during my study. Special
thanks go to my committee members, Prof. Max Peeters, who helped, encouraged, and
guided me a lot, and Dr. Richard Christiansen, who also provided guidance along the
way. I extend my special thanks to Jerry Cuzella at Kerr McGee Corporation, who helped
to provide required data unsparingly.
I specially thank Dr. Connie Knight, who taught and helped me enormously to
interpret the image logs. I extend my special thanks to Dr. Dick Merkel, who helped and
guided me for log interpretation.
I am grateful to Mrs. Janine Carlson for all of the work she did on the image logs,
and her patient and extreme attention to help me accomplish my project.
I would like to thank Mrs. Charlie Rourke, who always smiles and makes me feel
free of any difficulties. Thank you, Charlie, and I will always remember your help.
I acknowledge the National Iranian Oil Company (N.I.O.C) for financial support
to complete my degree at the Colorado School of Mines for two years, and the Society of
Professional Well Log Analysts (SPWLA) for a student grant in 2005.
Finally, I need to express my special thanks to my family, who endured lots of
difficulties for my whole life. Mom, Dad, Brothers, and Sisters, thanks for the patience,
understanding and for supporting me for being here. I love all of you and without your
enormous support, I could never get to this point in my life.
xix
1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Introduction
Natural fracture detection is one of the most important goals in reservoir
characterization for petroleum engineers, geophysists and geologists alike. To date,
various tools have been used to detect fractures. The Greater Natural Buttes (GNB) gas
field, located in the east-central part of the Uinta basin in northeastern Utah, is the subject
field for fracture detection in this study. Typically, the two target formations in the field
are the Tertiary Wasatch Formation and the Upper Cretaceous Mesavarde Group. Both
formations are low-permeability, layered intervals that contain dry gas. Both formations
have fractured intervals. Three wells, which are the focus of this study (NBU 1022-9E,
Glenbench Federal 822-27P, and NBU 222), have been logged by borehole image and
micro-resistivity logs. Logs from two other wells (Pawwinnee 3-181 and NBU 921-29)
have been examined in the same study area.

2
1.2 Purpose of Study
The main purpose of this study is to look for a correlation between the microlog
response and responses of the Formation MicroImager (FMI) and Electrical
MicroImaging (EMI) logs in naturally fractured intervals. Such a correlation may be used
to find fractured intervals in the field for hundreds of wells that have no FMI/EMI logs.
The specific objectives are:
• Determine the depth of borehole elongations from caliper logs in three
borehole image logs. Micrologs have a very small investigation radius, so
they can be influenced by well elongation. Therefore, the first step of this
project is to find the intervals which show elongation. Elongations can
occur in the form of breakouts, keyseats, and washouts.
• Confirm the depths of elongated intervals from FMI/EMI logs. Borehole
image logs can be used to find fractured intervals, breakouts and other
features.
• Determine the measured depths of natural fractures and drilling-induced
fractures using borehole image logs.
• Determine the fracture height for all fractures using borehole image logs.
• Compare the depths of microlog anomalies to the depths of washouts,
breakouts, and fractures observed in FMI/EMI logs.

3
• Study the effect of fractures near the borehole wall on the micro-resistivity tool
response using a modeling program developed by Baker Atlas.
• Develop petrophysical models for the fractured intervals.
• Determine the limitations of the microlog tool using actual data from three wells
in the study area.
1.3 Research Contributions
The major contributions of this research are:

• The present-day maximum horizontal stress (SHmax) direction, based on two
methods (borehole breakouts and induced fractures) is WNW-ESE in the study
area.
• Natural fracture orientation aligns with SHmax in the Natural Buttes field. This is
very important for reservoir drainage.
• Borehole elongations have a significant effect on micro-resistivity tool response.
• Microlog anomalies that correspond to natural fractures observed in FMI/EMI
logs show a maximum of 30% correlation. Borehole breakouts and induced
fractures have the maximum correlation when compared to other borehole
features. Therefore, there is no consistent rule to detect natural fractures from
micrologs.
• Based on several petrophysical models developed in this study, micro-focused log
tools are capable of detecting fractures under certain conditions. Fracture distance
from the wellbore, fracture aperture, fracture density, mud resistivity, and the
resistivity of the flushed and uninvaded zones play important roles for detection
of fractures by the MCFL.
4
CHAPTER 2
GEOLOGICAL SETTING
2.1 Location of the Study Area
The Uinta basin is a topographic and structural trough that encompasses an area
of more than 9,300 mi 2 (14,900 km 2 ) in northeast Utah (Figure 2-1). The Greater Natural
Buttes (GNB) gas field is located in the east-central part of the Uinta basin (Figure 2-2).
The field is 15 mi (24 km) in length from north to south in T8-12S and 36 mi (58 km) in
length from east to west in R18-24E, Uintah County, Utah. This study focuses on three
wells, Glenbench Federal 822-27P, NBU (Natural Buttes Unit) 1022-9E, and NBU 222 in
the field. Figure 2-3 shows the location of these wells.
2.2 Stratigraphy
2.2.1 Regional Stratigraphy
During the Cenozoic, along the southern flank of the Uinta Mountains, the Uinta
basin subsided. This basin is now the most significant source of gas in the state of Utah.
“The basin is bounded on the north by the Precambrian sandstones and shales of the
Uinta Mountains and on the west by the Charleston overthrust segment of the Cretaceous
Sevier Orogenic Belt. To the southwest, the Cretaceous and Tertiary beds rise onto the
Wasatch Plateau. On the south, outcrops of Upper Cretaceous Mesaverde sandstones,
shales and coals are exposed in the Book Cliffs, which are deflected northward around
the north end of the San Rafael swell west of the Green River, and northward around the
5
Figure 2-1. Location of Uinta basin.(USGS,

htpp://www.cdc.noaa.gov/USclimate/states.fast.html).
6
Figure 2-2. Location of Greater Natural Buttes field in the northeast Uinta basin.
(Longman, 2003).
7
N
R 21 E R 22 E R 23 E
T8S
Glen Bench Federal 822-27P
T9S
NBU 222
T10S
NBU 1022-9E
Figure 2-3. Location of three study wells in the field. (Kerr McGee Company, 2005).
8
northwest plunging end of the Uncompahgre uplift east of the Green River in easternmost
Utah adjacent to Colorado. To the east, the Douglas Creek arch separates the Uinta basin
from the Piceance basin” (Osmond, 2003).
Most non-associated gas accumulated in the eastern part of the basin in the lower-
Eocene North Horn Formation and the Paleocene and Eocene Wasatch, Colton, and
Green River Formations, and in the Cretaceous Mesaverde Group (Fouch et al., 1992).
Gas in the Green River sandstones may be a mixture of gas from two sources: lacustrine
source beds deeper in the basin and Mesaverde carbonaceous beds (Osmond, 1992).
There are three important stratigraphic traps in the field that control gas production:
marginal lacustrine sandstones in the Eocene Green River Formation, fluvial sandstones
enclosed in red beds of the Paleocene and Eocene Wasatch Formation (the main
production), and braid-plain sandstones interbedded with carbonaceous shales and coal in
the Upper Cretaceous Mesaverde Group (Osmond, 1992). The Wasatch Formation and
Mesaverde Group in the Greater Natural Buttes (GNB) area are the two main formations
in this study.
2.2.2 Local Stratigraphy
The stratigraphic and chronostratigraphic diagrams of GNB are shown in Figures

2-4, 2-5, 2-6, and 2-7. Figure 2-8 shows the gamma ray and microresistivity logs and
formation tops in a typical well, Glenbench 822-27P. Sandstones of the Wasatch
Formation and Mesaverde Group are the major producers in the field. Table 2-1 shows
the stratigraphic column, geologic history and petroleum systems in the Uinta basin
(Osmond, 2003).
9
Figure 2-4. Stratigraphic column for Greater Natural Buttes (GNB) gas field showing
formations which produce gas and oil in GNB and nearby fields. (Osmond et al., 1992).
10
Figure 2-5.Generalized stratigraphic correlation chart for the Uinta basin (Shade et al.,
1992).
11
Figure 2- 6. Generalized west-east cross-section showing Upper Cretaceous and lower

Tertiary stratigraphic units in Uinta basin, western Piceance basin, Utah and Colorado.
(Johnson et al.
12
003).
Figure 2- 7. West-east chronostratigraphic chart showing temporal relations of Upper

Cretaceous-lower Tertiary rocks in Uinta basin, Utah. (Johnson et al., 2003)..
GR versus Depth MNOR and MINV versus Depth
MNOR and MINV (ohmm)

GR (GAPI)
0.1 1 10 100
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 7950
7950
Wasatch Formation
8000
8000
DARK CYN Mesaverde
8050
8050
8100
8100
MNOR
GR
8150 8150
MINV
Depth (ft)
Depth (ft)
Mesaverde Unit
8200 8200
8250 8250
8300 8300
Mesaverde Unit
8350 8350
4
Figure 2-8. Gamma ray (GR), micronormal (MNOR), and microinverse (MINV) logs showing tops of the formations,
well Glenbench 822-27P.
13
14
Table 2-1. Stratigraphic column, geologic history and petroleum systems in the Uinta
basin. To follow the chronology, read this table from bottom to top. (Modified after
Osmond, 2003).
PERIOD GEOLOGIC STRATIGRAPHY AND STRUCTURE PETROLEUM

HISTORY THICKNESS SYSTEM
Oligocene- Regional erosion of Duchesnse River Fm. >5,000 ft, Towanta earthquake, Bituminous sand deposits
present < 3,000 ft, southward thinning wedge of redbeds NE strike. on basin margins, set,
Regional uplift of 10,000 ft. with boulders. Maximum basin 12 BBO
Uinta Mtn. Uplift pulses subsidence. NW striking vertical
eroded into Precambrian. Uinta Fm., <5,000 ft, Varicolored Duchesne Fault Zone, gilsonite dikes.
Lake Uinta evaporates and alluvial transition with Green River Fm. East-West strike.
disappears. Continued strong uplift Gas and oil in fluvial sands
of E-W, concave south, in lower Uinta Fm.
Uinta Mtns.
Paleocene- Lake Uinta expands and Green River Fm., 3,800-800 ft, Pulses of uplift in Uinta Oil & gas from lacustrine
Eocene contracts rapidly over long Lacustrine (oil shale) & marginal Mtns. begin. NE shales in “cooking pot” at
distances. lacustrine. faulting during lower ltamont field.
Initial uplift and erosion of Wasatch Fm., 2,000-200 ft, alluvial Green River deposition.
Uinta Mtns. redbeds with channel sands. Flagstaff Rejuvenation of Dry gas from Mesaverde
Lakes SW of basin. lacustrine ls. 0-1,000 ft. Uncompahgre Uplift. coals captured in lenticular
Rise of Douglas Crk. sandstones in Mesaverde
North Horn Fm. Arch and San Rafael Group and Wasatch Fm.
(Cret.-Tert) Swell.
Cretaceous Sea regresses eastward Mesaverde Group, 3,000-2,000 ft. Sevier Orogenic belt to Gassy coal mines.
before alluvial fan/braid Numerous “Regressive sands” in lower west, eastward Indigenous Coalbed
plain/deltas. Kmv, deltaic, pinchout into Kmc overthrusting Methane (CBM).
successively farther east as sea retreated. commences.
Castlegate Ss., 400-0 ft. Gas in fault traps and
Sea transgresses to west. Mancos Shale, 5,000 ft. stratigraphic traps on
Streams flow east. Mancos ”B” silts., 200 ft. Douglas Creek Arch.
Ferron Fm., deltaic sand, shale and coal,
< 800 ft. Drunkard’s Wash and
Dakota/Cedar Mtn./ Buckhorn Ss., Helper CBM.
fluvial, 100-200 ft. Gas on east and south
margins.
Jurassic Alluvial with streams Morrison Fm., 650 ft. Arapien Trough with Gas in E & SE basin
flowing East. Sea from evaporates to west. Oil in NW Colorado.
North. Curtis marine ss, sh and ls, 150 ft. Gas in SE basin.
Eolian desert. Entrada Fm., 160-800 ft.
Twin Crk ls., 100-700 ft. Oil at Blaze Cyn, SE of
Sea from West Eolian Carmel redbeds, 700-1000 ft. basin.
desert Navajo Ss., 700-1000 ft.
Kayenta
Wingate.
15
Table 2-1 (Continued). Stratigraphic column, geologic history and petroleum systems in
the Uinta basin. To follow the chronology, read this table from bottom to top. (Modified
after Osmond, 2003).
PERIOD GEOLOGIC STRATIGRAPHY STRUCTURE PETROLEUM

HISTORY AND THICKNESS SYSTEM
Triassic Sea regressed to West. Chinle Fm.,0-500 ft, Twin Creek-Thaynes Indigenous oil in lower
redbeds Trough to West part of Moenkopi at
Shiarump conglomerate, 50 Grassy Trial, midway
ft. between Price and Green
Moenkopi Fm., 750 ft, River.
redbeds
Sinbad ls mbr, 100 ft
Permian Sea transgressed from Phosphoria/ Kaibab/Park Source of oil produced
Northwest. City ls. and phosphatic from Penn. Sandstones at
shales, 0-600 ft. Ashley Valley and
Rangley and trapped in Tar
Sands Triangle.
Pennsylvanian “Sand Sea,” eolian, desert. Weber/ White Rim eolian Uncompahgre Mtns., part
Uncompahgre Mtns. Ss., 0- 1000 ft, toward Mtns. of Ancestral Rockies
Eroded to Precambrian. grades extend NW under Uinta
Sea regressed to West Into Maroon alluvial redbeds Basin SE comer of basin;
(Oquirrh Basin). and conglomerates near Penn. to Trias. Onlap
ancestral mtns. Mtns.
Morgan marine ls and shale,

500-1,300 ft.
Mississippian Marine invasion. Doughnut/Humbug/Manning Stable Gas @ North Spring, south
Canyon Shales, 700 ft. of Price.
RedwallDesert/ Reservoir for oil and gas
Leadville/Madison ls/dol, from Penn. Black shales in
900 ft. Paradox Basin to south.
Devonian-Cambrian Stable; erosion of Craton Very thin patches or absent. Stable.
with sea in geosyncline to Ord. Basin dikes strike
West. NW in Uinta Mtns.
Proterozoic Rifting at south margin of Uinta Mountain Group, Aulacogen, fault bounded Chuarr Fm source beds in
Wyoming Archean plate. predominantly sandstone, basin subsequently rose to Grand Cyn. Not known in
20,000 ft. form Uinta Mountains. Uinta Basin. Few wells to
Precambrian.
16
2.2.2.1 Mesaverde Group (Upper Cretaceous)
The thickness of the Mesaverde Group is about 2,000 to 3,000 ft (610 to 915 m).
The depositional environment is interpreted as alluvial fan and deltaic sandstones. The
gas found in the Mesaverde Group is contained in structural and stratigraphic traps. The
lowest part of the Mesaverde Group in GNB is the Castlegate Sandstone, 350 ft (107 m)
thick, with upward coarsening from fine to coarse-grained sandstones. This unit overlies
the 5,000 ft (1,525 m) thick Mancos Shale. The Mancos is a dark gray shale. The lower
part of the Mesaverde Group, the Neslen Formation, comprises approximately one-third
of the main body of the Mesaverde Group and contains coal and carbonaceous shale.
Siltstone and shale are interbedded in this formation and quartz-lithic sandstones and very
fine to fine-grained quartzose sandstones were deposited in a deltaic environment
(Osmond et al., 1992). Two formations, the Tuscher and Farrer, in the upper part of the
Mesaverde also represent the change from deltaic to alluvial conditions. Studies have
shown that the most probable source of gas in the Mesaverde Group is the marine
Mancos Shale (Osmond et al., 1992).
2.2.2.2 Wasatch Formation
The thickness of the Wasatch Formation is about 200 to 2,000 ft (61 to 525 m).
The formation is thicker in the western GNB, but thinner in the eastern part. The Wasatch
Formation was deposited when the basin subsided during the late Cretaceous and early
Tertiary. The stratigraphic relationships of the Wasatch Formation with the underlying
and overlying formations are not simple, nor are they consistent over the entire extent of
the basin. The Upper Wasatch Formation contact is complex and is extensively
intertongued with the overlying Green River Formation. In the southern part of the basin,
the Wasatch is transitional with the underlying Paleocene to Eocene Flagstaff Limestone
(Shade et al., 1992). The Wasatch Formation sandstones are generally medium to well-
17
sorted, fine to medium-grained, and subangular to subrounded with calcite, dolomite,

ankerite and silica cement between grains (Brooks, 2002). The source of hydrocarbons in
the Wasatch Formation is from organic-rich siltstones and mudstones, carbonaceous
shales, and coals of the underlying Mesaverde Group (Osmond et al., 1992).
2.3 Structure
2.3.1 Regional Structure
The Uinta basin is parallel to the east-west trending Uinta Mountains. The basin is
an asymmetric syncline, deepest in the north-central area. The north flank dips from 10 to
35 degrees into the basin and is bounded by a large north-dipping basement thrust. The
southern flank dips from 4 to 6 degrees north (Chisdey et al., 1992). The regional dip
across GNB to the northwest is 162 ft/mi (31 m/km) on top of the Green River Formation
and 194 ft/mi (37 m/km) on top of the Wasatch Formation (Osmond, 1992). The
difference between the dips was caused by uplift of the eastern margin of the Uinta basin
(Douglas Creek Arch in western Colorado) during the Eocene and subsidence to the north
of the axis of the Uinta basin during the late Eocene-early Oligocene.
2.3.2 Local Structure
Based on detailed analysis of well logs and seismic data, features such as faults
and fractures are found in the study area.
Faults: During deposition of the lower part of the Green River Formation, normal faults
with throws of up to 170 ft (58 m) occurred (Osmond, 1992). This allowed gas from
Mesaverde Group rocks to migrate upward into the Wasatch Formation and possibly into
the Green River Formation. Because of the discontinuous nature of the beds in the
18
Wasatch and Mesaverde units, these faults are not easily recognized. The faulting
occurred during deposition of the Douglas Creek member of the Green River Formation.
The main northwest-trending faults probably controlled deposition of sandstones in the
lower Green River Formation, as proposed by Osmond (1992). In the River Junction-
Duck Creek field in central T9S-R20E, normal faults occur as north-west to west-
trending sets in the west-central and south-central parts of the basin.
Fractures: Regional fracture systems in the Uinta basin are near-parallel and are possibly
genetically related to major structural features that border the basin. Fractures in the
Uinta basin began to develop during the burial of the Wasatch and Green River
Formations. Hydrocarbon generation, with resultant overpressuring, may have caused
fractures to form in the deeper parts of the basin. Fractures also developed as the result of
tectonic stress in the region. Subsequent uplift of the Tertiary section expanded these
existing fracture networks and possibly created additional fracture systems. Locally, the
abundance and orientation of fractures are controlled by folds. Fracture distribution and
abundance are strongly controlled by lithology and bedding characteristics (Chidsey et
al., 1992).
Present-day Stress: According to Zoback and Zoback (1989), four major plate-tectonic
provinces generally coincide with stress provinces in the United States: San Andreas
transform, Rocky Mountain/ Intermountain Intraplate, Cascade convergent, and midplate
central and eastern United States. The Rocky Mountain plate-tectonic province includes
three distinct stress provinces: Cordillera extensional, Colorado Plateau interior, and the
southern Great Plains. This plate-tectonic province includes areas of the classic “basin
and range” structures in Nevada and parts of Utah, Oregon, Arizona, New Mexico,
Colorado, Idaho, and Wyoming (Zoback and Zoback, 1989).
Zoback and Zoback (1989) applied a variety of indicators, including earthquake focal
mechanisms, borehole breakouts, hydraulic fracturing, and young fault slip and volcanic
19
alignment, to map the maximum horizontal stress in the United States. Figure 2-9 shows
the orientation of maximum compressive in-situ stress in the study area. These
orientations were obtained by at least one of the stress indicators. Figure 2-10
summarizes the stress orientations for each area in the United States. Zoback and Zoback
(1989) presented the E-W oriented extensional stress for the study area. According to
Lorenz (2003), the strike of natural fractures, which is parallel to compressive in-situ
stress, is dominantly WNW-ESE in the Piceance basin (Figure 2-11).
2.4 Production Geology
Because this study focuses on the Greater Natural Buttes (GNB) area, two target
formations in this field, the Wasatch Formation and Mesaverde Group will be discussed
in this section. According to Nuccio et al. (1992), most gas-bearing reservoirs are
lenticular fluvial sandstones within two major sedimentary systems. They are:
• Upper Cretaceous, impermeable, fluvial rock. Reservoirs are within the Price
River, Castlegate, Sego, Blackhawk, Neslen, Tuscher, and Farrer Formations,
which are assigned to the Mesaverde Group.
• Lower Eocene North Horn Formation and Paleocene and Eocene Wasatch and
Colton Formations.
Wasatch Formation: The gas-bearing sandstones in the Wasatch and Mesaverde were
classified as “tight reservoirs” by the Utah Board of Oil, Gas and Mining in 1981 and
accepted as such by the U.S. Internal Revenue Service. The in-situ permeability in these
reservoirs is less than 0.10 md, exclusive of fracture permeability (Osmond, 1992; and
Nuccio et al., 1992). Wasatch sandstones have the following characteristics (Osmond,
1992):
Study Area
Figure 2-9. Orientation of maximum horizontal compressive stress. (World Stress Map.com, 2005).
20
21
Study Area
0 500
KM
Figure 2-10. Generalized stress map of the continental United States. Outward-pointing
arrows show areas characterized by extensional deformation. Inward-pointing arrows
show areas characterized by compressional tectonism. CC = Cascade convergent
province; PNW = Pacific Northwest; SA = san Andreas province; CP = Colorado Plateau
interior; and SGP = southern Great Plains (Zoback and Zoback, 1989).
22
Figure 2-11. Rose diagram of 62 vertical extension fractures in the east-central Piceance
basin, Colorado. The dominant strike is WNW-ESE (Lorenz, 2003).
23
• The reservoir thickness of individual sandstones is up to 40 ft (12 m).

• Productive sandstones are laterally discontinuous, and generally correlate for less
than 0.5 mi (0.8 km).
• Three to nine sandstones are perforated per well, with an average of 5.5.
• Net perforated intervals range in thickness from 30 to 140 ft (9 to 42 m) per well,
with an average of 67 ft (20 m).
• Gross perforated intervals are up to 2,000 ft (600 m) in thickness, with an average
of 965 ft (289 m).
• Depth ranges from 2,800 ft (840 m) in the southeast corner to 8,100 ft (2,430 m)
in the northwest part of the field.
• Porosity is as high as 18% on the basis of density and neutron porosity logs.
• Average porosity for producing sandstones ranges from 10-14%; commonly the
higher values occur in the lower parts of the sandstones.
• Initial production rates from the Wasatch range from a few hundred MCFD of gas
to 6,000 MCFD of gas, and average about 1,600 Mcfgpd.
• Uncorrected pressures from 35 DSTs show the Wasatch reservoir has a normal
pressure gradient. However, some information suggests that the Wasatch
Formation, along with the lowermost Green River Formation, is overpressured
(fluid-pressure gradients > 0.5 psi/ft) (Chidsey et al., 1992).
The amount of sulphur in Wasatch gas is very low. Gas-oil ratio (GOR) is 136,000:1,
or about 1 barrel of condensate per 136 MCF of gas. One barrel of water per 300 MCF of
gas is the general rate of water production in Wasatch wells. CO2 content in the
Wasatch is less than 0.5%.
Mesaverde Group: Mesaverde Group Sandstones have the following characteristics

(Osmond, 1992):
24
• The reservoir thickness of individual sandstones is up to 70 ft (21 m).

• The Mesaverde reservoirs are the tightest reservoirs in the field.
• Porosity is as high as 18% on the basis of porosity logs and core analysis.
• Average porosity for producing sandstones ranges from 8-12%.
• Permeability in normally pressured formations is less than 1 md.
• Production usually declines more rapidly than other formations in the field.
• Wells in this formation may produce water to the extent that it becomes a
problem.
• Initial production rate ranges from a few hundred MCFD of gas to 4,000 MCFD
of gas, and averages about 1,100 MCFD of gas.
• The Mesaverde sandstones are typically slightly overpressured.
• The depth of production in the Mesaverde sandstones ranges from 4,500 ft (1,372
m) in the southeastern GNB to 8,600 ft (2,623 m) in the northwestern part of the
field.
CO2 content in the Mesaverde is less than 2%, which is greater than that of Wasatch
gas.
Source Rocks: The main source rocks in the Mesaverde are carbonaceous shales and
coals. Two reasons, higher geothermal gradient and slight overpressuring may reflect
present-day generation of gas in the Mesaverde (Nuccio et al., 1992). The geothermal
gradient in the Mesaverde is 1 Fo / 49 ft (1 Co /27 m) at a depth of 7,000-10,000 ft (2,135-
3,050 m), which varies from the 1 Fo /44 ft (1 Co /24 m) gradient at a depth of 3,500-7,000
ft (1,076-2,135 m) in the Wasatch wells. Wasatch rocks are immature for the generation
of gas at GNB. Some of this generated gas in the Mesaverde was trapped in the
Mesaverde and some migrated along faults and natural fractures to Wasatch sandstones.
25
During this migration, some of the CO

2 content in the gas combined with water in the
strata through which it passed. By these chemical reactions, some minerals may be
formed which yield porosity reduction in the sandstones very close to faults and natural
fractures (Osmond, 1992). The Green River lacustrine beds are also immature for
hydrocarbon generation in the GNB area.
Petroleum System: The USGS assessment for undiscovered (some of non-associated and
associated) conventional oil and gas and continuous (unconventional) oil and gas,
including coal-bed gas is listed in the Table 2.2 (USGS, 2005).
26
Table 2-2. Total Petroleum System (TPS) and Assessment Units (AU) in Piceance basin
(USGS, 2003).
27
CHAPTER 3
BOREHOLE IMAGE LOGS
3.1 Background
Borehole images are logs that provide an electronic map of the borehole wall
obtained by measuring the electrical resistivity or ultrasonic properties of the rocks and
fluids. The focus of this study is on resistivity logs. The borehole image logs used in this
study are Schlumberger’s FMI (Formation MicroImager) and Haliburton’s EMI
(Electrical MicroImaging).
The FMI is an openhole microresistivity imaging tool with a maximum
temperature and pressure of 350o F (175o C) and 20,000 psi (1.39 Kpa) (Schlumberger,
2004). The FMI tool has four arms and four hinged flapper pads. This allows a large
borehole coverage. There are 24 buttons on each pad, for a total of 192 image buttons.
Figures 3-1 and 3-2 show the FMI tool configuration. The FMI tool has a high vertical
resolution of about 0.2 in (5.1 mm) and its coverage is approximately 80% in an 8 in
(20.3 cm) borehole (Hurley, 2004; Grace et al., 1998; and Schlumberger, 2004). Figure 3-
3 shows the coverage of the FMI tool for different diameters of the borehole. In this
figure, FMS is the Formation MicroScanner tool, another tool designed by Schlumberger.
The maximum recording speed is 1,800 ft/hr (545 m/hr) for image acquisition.
For dipmeter acquisition, the maximum speed is 3,200 ft/hr (970 m/hr) (Grace et al.,
1998; Hurley, 2004). Other FMI specifications are shown in Table 3-1.
The FMI tool includes a general purpose inclinometry cartridge, which provides
accelerometer and magnetometer data. The triaxial accelerometer gives speed
28
Digital Telemetry
Cartridge
Digital Telemetry
Adapter
Tool for Depth

Correlation
Controller
Cartridge
Upper Electrode
Flex Joint
Current
Inclinometer
Acquisition
Cartridge
Pad Flap
Insulating Sub
Four-Arm
Sonde
Figure 3-1. The Formation MicroImager (FMI) Tool of Schlumberger. (Modified after
Schlumberger, 2004).
29
Pad and flap assembly Sensor Array
0.2” 0.1”
Pad
2*12
Buttons 5.7”
0.1”
Sensor Button
Hinged
flap Insulation
2*12
Buttons
Electrode
button
Hinge 0.16”
0.24”
8”
Borehole view of 8 pad tool
Figure 3-2. Pad and flap assembly and sensor detail from Schlumberger FMI logging
tool. (Modified after Schlumberger, 2004).
30
Borehole
Coverage
(%)
Borehole Diameter (in)
Figure 3-3. Borehole coverage for FMI and FMS tools. For example, the coverage of an 8
in (20.3 cm) borehole is 80% for the FMI tool (Grace et al., 1998).
31
Table 3-1. FMI specifications (Schlumberger, 2004).
1- Application: structural geology, stratigraphy, reservoir

analysis, heterogeneity, fine-scale
features, real-time answers
2- Vertical resolution: 0.2 in (0.5 cm), with 50-micron features
visible
3- Azimuthal resolution: 0.2 in (0.5 cm), with 50-micron features
visible
4- Measuring electrodes: 192
5- Pads and flaps: 8
6- Coverage: 80% in 8-in (20.3 cm) borehole
(fullbore image mode)
7- Max pressure: 20,000 psi
8- Max Temperature: 350o F(175o C)
9- Borehole diameter:
• Minimum: 5.875 in (14.92 cm)
• Maximum: 21 in (53.34 cm)
10- Maximum hole deviation: 90o
11- Logging speed
• Fullbore image mode: 1,800 ft/hr (540 m/hr) with real-time
processed image
• Four-pad mode: 3,600 ft/hr (970 m/hr) with real-time
processed image
• Dipmeter mode: 5,400 ft/hr (1,640 m/hr) with real-time dip
processing
• Inclinometer mode: 10,000 ft/hr (3,040 m/hr)
32
12- Maximum mud resistivity: 50 Ohmm

13- FMI tool:
• Maximum diameter: 5 in (12.7 cm)
• Makeup length: 24.4 ft (7.43 m)
• Makeup length with flex joint: 26.4 ft (8 m)
• Weight in air: 433.7 lbm (196.7 kg)
• Compressional strength: 12,000 lbf (safety factor of 2)
14- Maximum pad pressure: 44 lbf (19.95 kgf)
15- Combinability: Top combinable with openhole wireline
tools
33
determination and allows recomputation of the exact position of the tool. The
magnetometers determine tool orientation (Grace et al., 1998).
The Electrical Micro Imaging Tool (EMI) configuration is shown in Figure 3-4.
Although the general features of the two tools (FMI and EMI) are the same, there are
some differences between them. The EMI tool, designed by Halliburton, consists of six
spring-loaded pads with 25 electrodes on each pad for a total of 150 electrodes (Figure 3-
4). The maximum and minimum applicable hole diameters of the EMI tool are 20 in
(50.8 cm) and 6.25 in (15.9 cm), respectively (Fam, 1995).
The EMI tool is an electrical device that needs conductive drilling mud. The
electrical radius of investigation is small, generally less than 1 in (2.5 cm) beyond the pad
face (Hurley, 2004). Image quality is a function of the uniformity and quality of the pad
contact with the borehole wall. To reach this aim, the mechanical linkages of all arms to
the body are independent of each other. Also, each pad is mounted on a vertical swivel,
allowing data acquisition even if the tool body is off-center or the borehole cross-section
is not round (Seiler et al., 1994).
Logging speed varies in the range of 1,600 to 1,800 ft/hr (500 to 550 m/hr). High
vertical resolution, rapid sampling, normally 120 samples/ft, and high pad coverage (60
percent azimuthal coverage in an 8 inch borehole) are advantages of the tool.
Additionally, azimuthal orientation of the image makes dip measurements possible. Other
EMI specifications are shown in Table 3-2 (Thompson, 2000).
As the tool (EMI/FMI) is pulled up, the pads and flaps are pressed against the
borehole wall and each microelectrode emits a focused alternating current (AC) into the
formation. As the current interacts with the rock, the data are recorded by remote sensors.
The current emitted from a button is initially focused on a small volume of the formation
directly facing the button. Then, the current expands and covers a large volume of the
formation between the lower and upper electrodes (Luthi, 2000). According to Fam
(1995), “In addition to the simple variation of the survey current from the individual
34
Figure 3-4. Electrical Micro Imaging tool uses pad-mounted electrodes to make high-
definition resistivity measurement of subsurface formations. Each of the six pads features
25 electrodes. Button number 13 is the central button that measures the absolute emitted
current on each pad (Thompson, 2000).
35
Table 3-2. EMI specifications (Thompson, 2000).
1- Maximum Temperature 350oF ( 175oC )

2- Maximum Pressure 20,000 psi (1,400 bars)
3- Length 39.5 ft (12 m)
4- Weight 500 lbs (227 kg)
5- Logging Speed
• Imaging 1,800 ft/hr (550 m/hr)
• Dipmeter 3,600 ft/hr (1,100 m/hr)
6- Outside Diameter 5.0 in (12.7 cm)
7- Maximum Hole Size 21 in (51 cm)
8- Minimum Hole Size 6.25 in (16 cm)
9- Operating Conditions
• Water Base-Mud
• Can be run in horizontal wells.
• Can be run in oil-based mud in dipmeter mode using scratcher electrodes.
36
sensing buttons, the EMI tool can also accurately measure the absolute current emitted
by the central button (button number 13) on each pad. This additional capability yields
six high-definition, quantitative resistivity measurements that are well focused.”
The emitted current from each electrode is a function of the formation resistivity
in front of it and is continually measured. Two components of the emitted current are:
• Low-resolution signal covers the zone between the lower and upper electrodes
and provides petrophysical and lithological information (Schlumberger, 2004).
• High-resolution signal is modulated by the resistivity variations in the formation
that face the button directly. This signal is used for imaging and dip interpretation
and is presented as 8 strips for the FMI and 6 strips for the EMI. Button current-
intensity measurements, which reflect micro-resistivity variations, are converted
to variable-intensity gray or color images. The strips are presented as a two-
dimensional unrolled cylinder, split along true North. In other words, the
FMI/EMI resistivity “map” is a 360o image of the borehole wall and is presented
as a flat picture on a computer monitor (Figure 3-5) (Doupe, 2005).
The observation and analysis of the images provide information related to

changes in rock composition and texture, structure, or fluid content. Other measurements
of the tool are azimuth, inclination, caliper readings, accelerometer and magnetometer
readings and depth.
According to Grace et al. (1998), images provided by microelectrodes have some
special features. They are:
• Very large dynamic range- from less than 0.1 Ohmm to more than 10,000 Ohmm.
• High sensitivity, allowing detection of very thin events (fractures) that have an
aperture on the order of a few microns or tens of microns, or with low contrast in
resistivity.
37
E S W
S
E W
N N
A. Borehole B. Inner surface of borehole
N E S W N
0 90 180 270 360 Dip
0 60
Dipping bed
Dip azimuth = low point
Tangent = dip angle

Horizontal bed
C. Borehole image unrolled D. Dipmeter
Figure 3-5. Images viewed inside out. (A) 3-D borehole images, (B) unrolled cylinder to
show inner surface of borehole, (C) two-dimensional surface of borehole on the computer
monitor. Borehole image is presented as eight strips in FMI format and six strips in EMI
format. Dipping surfaces are represented as sinusoids. (D) Dip and azimuth are shown on
a dipmeter tadpole plot (Modified after Rider, 1996).
38
• High sampling rate, one sample each 0.1 in (2.5 mm), in vertical and lateral
offset.
• Low sensitivity to heavy mud, borehole ovalization, and rugosity.
The FMI/EMI tools have an additional advantage in that they are combinable with
other logging tools. Therefore, fewer trips in the borehole are needed to run all logs. The
tool can be run in “Pads Only” and “Dipmeter Only” modes. If time is more critical than
increased hole coverage, the dipmeter can be run (Grace et al., 1998).
Because the tool emits current into the formation, it theoretically works only in
water-based mud. Different types of electrical borehole-imaging tools are commercially
available for oil-based mud. Currently, there is no cased-hole application. To get high
image quality, mud resistivity should not exceed 50 Ohmm; however, the mud must not
be too conductive. For good image quality, the ratio of formation resistivity to the mud
should be below 1,000 for the FMI tool (Grace et al., 1998). In the case of conductive
mud, the current tends to flow into the borehole. Reduced sharpness of the images is the
result of this phenomenon. Another impact on image quality is borehole deviation. With
borehole deviation less than 10o , the centralized tool minimizes poor pad contact caused
by oblique positioning of the tool relative to the borehole axis (Grace et al., 1998).
Blurred images can be the result of imperfect pad contact. This phenomenon occurs due
to the resistivity contrast between rock and mud which has filled the rugose or elongated
intervals.
The image display consists of two main types: static and dynamic. The static
images assign a color scale to resistivity values throughout the entire well, whereas the
dynamic images assign a color scale to resistivity values over short intervals to enhance
the contrast (Figure 3-6). Dynamic normalization enhances the contrast and reveals subtle
features. Figure 3-7 shows the process of static and dynamic normalization. By
convention, dark colors in the image logs indicate low-resistivity rocks and fluids,
39
Static Image Dynamic Image
Figure 3-6. Static image (left side) and dynamic image (right side), NBU1022-9E well.
Note the enhanced contrast in the dynamic image. Depth scale is in ft. GR is gamma ray;
DMAX is maximum borehole diameter; DMIN is minimum borehole diameter; and
TENS is tension.
40
Static Normalization
Entire well
Frequency
Resistivity
Pixel color scale
Dynamic Normalization
Sample population
Frequency
Resistivity
Pixel color scale
Figure 3-7. Static normalization compares image data and assigns a color scale over the
entire logged interval. Dynamic normalization is a moving contrast adjustment through a
portion of the well, assigning a color scale to a sample population of the data values
(Modified after Rider, 1996).
41
whereas light colors represent high-resistivity materials. In general, the light colors
correspond to sandstones or carbonates and the dark colors to shales. Features such as
bed boundaries, faults, breakouts and fractures can be interpreted from image logs. Table
3-3 lists applications of the FMI tool.
3.2 Data Available
Three borehole image logs are available for this study. Two images are EMI logs
and another is an FMI log. The locations of these three wells were shown in Figure 2-3.
Table 3-4 shows the available data for these three wells.
3.3 Borehole Image Log Processing
The software used for interpretation of EMI logs was Baker Atlas
Review/ RecallTM at the Colorado School of Mines. The FMI log for NBU 222 was
interpreted using Geoframe software (Schlumberger) by Mirna Slim (M.S. thesis in
progress). For this study, I used her interpretation. EMI logs were processed by Janine
Carlson. Connie Knight did the initial interpretation of bed boundaries and fractures for
the EMI logs.
The borehole diameter for both Glenbench 822-27P and NBU 1022-9E is 7.875
in (20 cm), and for NBU 222 is 6.25 in (15.8 cm). Static and dynamic images are
available.
3.4 Borehole Image Quality
In general, image quality is very good for all 3 wells. The Glenbench 822-27P
well has a sudden decrease in caliper readings at a depth of 8420 to 8440 ft (Figure 3-8).
This may be due to either closed pads, which means insufficient pad pressure, or a
42
Table 3-3. FMI applications (Schlumberger, 2004).
1- Structural geology
• Structural dip, even in fractured and conglomeratic formations
• Faults
2- Sedimentary features
• Sedimentary dip
• Paleocurrent direction
• Sedimentary bodies and their boundaries
• Anisotropy, permeability barriers and paths
• Thin-bedded reservoirs
3- Rock Texture
• Qualitative vertical grain size profile
• Carbonate texture
• Secondary porosity
• Fracture systems
4- Complement to whole core, sidewall core and formation tester programs
• Depth matching and orientation for whole cores
• Reservoir description of intervals not cored
• Depth matching for sidewall core samples and MDT (Modular Formation
Dynamics Tester probe settings)
5- Geomechanical analysis
• Drilling-induced features
• Calibration for Mechanical Earth Modeling
• Mud weight selection
6- Geology and Geophysics workflow
• Deterministic reservoir modeling
43
Table 3-4 (continued). FMI applications (Schlumberger, 2004).
• Distribution guidance for stochastic modeling

• Realistic petrophysical parameters
44
Table 3-5. List of wells in this study with FMI and EMI data and the intervals recorded.
Top of FMI/EMI Bottom of FMI/EMI

Well Name FMI EMI Interval Interval Totals
(ft) (ft) (ft)
Glenbench 822-27P * 7545 8493 948
NBU 1022-9E * 6489 8865 2376
NBU 222 * 6852 9606 2754

45
Poor Quality Interval
Figure 3-8. DMAX and DMIN show a dramatic decrease from 8,420 to 8,440 ft. Poor
quality images occur in that interval, Glenbench 822-27P well. Depth scale is in ft. GR is
gamma ray; DMAX is maximum borehole diameter; DMIN is minimum borehole
diameter and TENS is tension.
46
technical problem during the logging run in this particular interval. Another factor that
can affect the quality of the image is borehole size. In this case, imperfect contact
between pads and wall will occur. Figure 3-9 shows an interval with irregular borehole
size. This can happen because of rock spalling. To interpret this elongated interval, the
term “effective bit size” was defined. In fact, an 8 in (20.3 cm) borehole diameter for the
depth of 6,489 to 6,756 ft and 8.6 in (21.8 cm) borehole diameter for the depth of 6,757
to 7,620 ft was considered as effective bit size. This criterion is based on elongation
definition. Because this will be discussed later in this chapter, any type of borehole
elongation interpreted as a change in effective bit size has to show a sudden sharp
change, not a gradual change. Another factor that can impact image quality is tool
sticking during logging. Streaked images indicate that the tool stuck and then released.
Streaked images occur when either the tool is traveling too fast, or mud or debris builds
up on the pads. The fast traveling happens when the high tension releases the tool on the
wireline (Minton, 2000). Figure 3-10 shows an example of debris build up.
3.5 Methods of Borehole Image Log Interpretation
The EMI log interpretation for two wells (Glenbench 822-27P and NBU 1022-9E)
was done at the Colorado School of Mines using Baker Atlas RECALL/REVIEW
software and the third well (NBU 222) was interpreted using Geoframe software. EMI
logs were displayed in two dimensions on the computer monitor, with both static and
dynamic images adjacent to each other. Sine waves fit to planar features provide the
following measurements:
• Dip magnitude is the angle between a horizontal plane and a dipping plane. Dip
magnitude is proportional to amplitude of the sine wave in a vertical well (Figure
3-11). It should be noted, when we calculate dips directly from images, apparent
dips would result. Apparent dip is the dip in relation to the borehole. In a
47
DMax and DMin vs Depth
Hole Diamater (in)

5 10 15 20 25
6470.00
6670.00
6870.00
7070.00 DMax
Depth (ft)
DMin
7270.00
Bit Size
7470.00
7670.00
7870.00
Figure 3-9. Two intervals (arrows) show a gradual increase in diameter going up the hole.
For identified intervals the effective bit size has been defined, NBU1022-9E well.
DMAX is maximum borehole diameter; and DMIN is minimum borehole diameter.
48
Figure 3-10. Debris build up in pad 2 as shown by arrow, NBU 1022-9E well. Pad 4 has
poor image quality. Depth scale is in ft. GR is gamma ray; DMAX is maximum borehole
diameter; DMIN is minimum borehole diameter; and TENS is tension.
49
A
A
Depth
B
Dip Azimuth
W N E S W
Figure 3-11. Dip angle and dip Aazimuth (Modified after Grace et al., 1998).
A+B
Average Depth =
2
 A-B 
Apparent Dip Angle, α = tan -1  
 Borehole Diameter (in) 
Strike = Dip Azimuth at X + 90o

-
50
completely vertical well, both apparent and true dip are the same. However,
where the well is deviated, the true dip has to be computed by the software. To
calculate dip on images, it is necessary to pick at least three points on each sine
wave. If more than three points are selected, a least-squares fit is calculated,
taking all points into consideration. It is a good practice to pick at least one point
on each pad (Grace et al., 1998).
• Dip azimuth is the compass direction of the maximum dip. In the two dimensional
image, the lowest point of the sine wave is the location of the dip azimuth in a
vertical well (Figure 3-11).
It is useful to compare image logs to other openhole logs, such as gamma ray,
calipers, spontaneous potential, and resistivity logs. From image logs, some features such
as natural fractures (open and resistive), drilling induced fractures, borehole breakouts,
and microfaults are recognized. The procedure of interpretation for each feature will be
discussed in this chapter.
3.6 Depth Shifting
As logging tools are run, because of borehole wall rugosity, accelerations, and
different logging runs, the tools can become depth shifted with respect to each other. This
phenomenon causes a small change in the result curves for two separate tools in the same
well.
Because FMI/EMI logs are accelerometer corrected, these tools have more
accurate depths than tools such as conventional porosity and resistivity tools. Therefore,
depth shifting should be the first step of any log interpretation. In this study, we shifted
all curves to match the gamma ray log from the FMI/EMI. In the first step, the gamma
ray curve measured by conventional tools is shifted to the reference gamma ray
(FMI/EMI). In the second step, all other conventional curves are shifted based on the new
51
gamma ray. In this case study, the amount of shifting was not constant and varied at
different depths. The maximum amount of depth shift was about 2 ft (0.6 m). All depth-
shifting was done using Recall/Review software. The processing method was to select a
similar interval from two different gamma rays and match them. The rest of the curve
shifts automatically adjusting itselves with the selected interval. This job was done for
three wells in Natural Buttes field. As an example, Figure 3-12 shows the gamma ray
curves for both FMI and conventional logs before and after depth shifting in well
NBU 222.
3.7 Elongation Definition
When a well is drilled, borehole elongation can occur. Borehole elongation can
appear in the following different shapes.
• Rugosity: Wells are known to corkscrew due to torque on the bottom hole assembly,
and this process produces a tendency for the drill string to work against the borehole
wall unevenly. This phenomenon causes an elliptical shape in the wellbore, and the
degree of this ellipticity is known as the hole ”rugosity.” Rugosity arising from
corkscrewing appears on caliper logs as an elongation that spirals with depth
(Bosworth, 1989).
• Breakout: As boreholes are drilled deeper in the search for new hydrocarbon reserves,
failures known as “breakouts” are increasingly common due to high stresses at depth.
Borehole breakouts are elongations caused by unequal stress concentrations around a
borehole. This results in shear failure of the borehole wall and creates hole elongation
in a direction parallel to minimum horizontal in-situ stress (Figure 3-13). In other
words, breakouts that define relatively broad and flat curvilinear spalling surfaces of
the borehole wall are mostly like to occur along the azimuth of minimum horizontal
stress where the tangential stress is the highest (Zoback et al., 1985).
52
GR vs. Depth
GR, GAPI
0 50 100 150 200
7250.00
7255.00
7260.00
7265.00
GR_ before
Shifting
7270.00
Depth (ft)
GR_FMI
7275.00
GR_after
Shifting
7280.00
7285.00
7290.00
7295.00
7300.00
Figure 3-12. The green line is the reference GR (FMI) and the dashed line is the GR for
the conventional log before shifting. The red line shows the conventional GR after
shifting, well NBU 222. The arrows show the depth shifts applied.
53
Figure 3-13. Cross sectional view of a borehole breakout (Zheng et al., 1989). SHmax is
the maximum in-situ stress and SHmin is the minimum in-situ stress.
54
Borehole elongations are actually created by compressive failure when the

tangential stress exceeds the unconfined compressive strength of the rock. Borehole
breakout can also be explained by a fracture-intersection mechanism. In this mechanism,
borehole elongation is aligned with the strike of steeply dipping natural fractures (Plumb
et al., 1985). Evidence for breakouts is based on correlation with stress directions inferred
from earthquakes or a nearby stress measurement (Plumb et al., 1985).
Analyses and observations of borehole breakouts raise some important questions.
These questions can include: How are the shape and size of the breakouts related to
magnitudes of the stresses in the rock? What is the effect of the mud overbalance
pressure on breakout? Zheng et al. (1989), Zoback et al. (1985), and Bosworth (1989)
discussed these questions. Assume the uniform fluid pressure p has filled the wellbore
and σ 1 and σ 3 (with σ 1 > σ 3 ) are the maximum and minimum in-situ stresses of the field.
If this is the case, then the tangential or “hoop” stress around the hole is 3σ 3 − σ 1 − p on
the face perpendicular to σ 1 , and 3σ 1 − σ 3 − p on the face parallel to σ 1 as presented by
Bosworth (1989). If p > 3σ 3 − σ 1 then tensile stresses will exist on the face perpendicular
to σ 1 . According to Bosworth (1989), if these local stresses exceed the fracture strength
of the rock, then failure will occur. This will take the form of shear fractures and
subsequent spalling of the face normal to σ 3 , and/or hydrofractures parallel to σ 1 . Mud
weights are generally kept low enough during drilling to avoid induced hydrofracturing.
Theory then predicts that the hole will become elongated parallel to the least principal
far-field stress (Bosworth, 1989; Zoback et al., 1985).
According to Zoback et al. (1985), the edges of the breakouts steepen as the stress
σ1
ratio ( ) increases. Evidence is based on some assumptions. The hole is assumed to be
σ3
cylindrical in a thick, homogeneous, isotropic elastic plate subjected to effective
minimum and maximum stresses. Irregular deep breakouts may have continued to grow
55
after their initial formation. The strong influence of ∆p (the difference between the fluid
pressure in the borehole and that in the formation) on the size and shape of breakouts is
due to the change in normal stress on potential failure planes near the wellbore. Positive
∆p (excess pressure in the borehole) increases normal stress on those planes and inhibits
failure, whereas negative ∆p lowers normal stresses and promotes failure. Also, for a
given stress ratio and cohesive strength, much smaller breakouts result for larger values
of µ (friction coefficient), especially for larger stress ratios as presented by Zoback et al.
(1985). To analyze borehole breakouts accurately, some factors must be considered.
According to Zheng et al. (1989), these factors are:
• Inclined borehole: “there is some evidence to suggest that borehole breakout is
more severe in inclined boreholes than it is in vertical boreholes.”
• Non-axisymmetric rock stress: it is important to analyze experimentally the
effects of differential rock stresses on borehole breakouts.
• Pore fluid flow: “the flow of pore fluids into a borehole (or the flow of mud into
the formation) changes the value of the effective stress in the rock.” Because of
that, it has to be examined.
• Physicochemical effects of drilling fluids: “physicochemical effects are known to
be very important in fracture mechanics, especially in subcritical crack growth.
The extensile cracks that produce borehole breakouts almost certainly propagate
by subcritical crack growth.”
• Fracture gradients measurement.
• Type of rocks, especially shales.
• Size effect (stresses will increase as borehole diameter decreases).
• Anisotropic rock strength.
• Temperature: temperature of rock and fluid produce thermal strains that affect the
values of the stresses around the borehole.
• Time dependence.
56
Based on the above discussion, the importance of borehole elongation is now

clear. To interpret borehole breakouts accurately and see the shape and size of elongation,
the best tool is the borehole televiewer. The borehole televiewer is an ultrasonic logging
tool that provides high-resolution information about borehole elongation and the
distribution of natural fractures (Plumb et al., 1985). Dipmeters or borehole images are
the common tools used to interpret borehole elongation. In the dipmeter, the pads are
pressed against the borehole wall. The reference pad, pad 1, is magnetically oriented and
independent calipers measure the borehole diameter. In this study, to interpret breakouts,
I used caliper curves obtained by EMI/FMI. The EMI has six calipers that measure the
diameter of the hole in three different directions. These calipers are pads 1-4, 2-5, and
3-6. The FMI tool has 4 calipers that measure the borehole diameter in two directions of
pads 1-3 and pads 2-4.
According to Plumb et al. (1985), detection of breakouts from dipmeters or
borehole images depends on three factors. Calipers record borehole elongation if: (1) the
breakout width is greater than pad width, (2) the length of breakout is greater than the
length of the pad, and (3) the depth of the breakout is sufficient to interrupt the normal
tool rotation (clockwise as viewed from above due to cable torque) as it is pulled out of
the hole.
Depth intervals for borehole breakouts were selected from Uinta basin caliper
logs using the following workflow:
• Resample the logs to a chosen depth interval.
• Detect intervals where the logging tool rotated.
• Identify intervals of no elongation.
• Identify washout zones.
• Identify keyseats.
• Determine elongation direction.
• Determine maximum horizontal stress orientation.
57
3.7.1 Resample
Digital open-hole logs were resampled at a 0.1 ft (3 cm) depth interval for two
wells, NBU 1022-9E, and Glenbench 822-27P. Data were sampled at 0.5 ft (15.4 cm) for
well NBU 222. For the 6-arm EMI tool, curves needed are GR (gamma ray), C14
(caliper, pads 1-4), C25 (caliper, pads 2-5), C36 (caliper, pads 3-6), DEVI (hole
deviation), HAZI (hole azimuth), and P1AZ (pad 1 azimuth). For the 4-arm FMI tool, the
calipers are C13 (caliper, pads 1-3) and C24 (caliper, pads 2-4).
3.7.2 Tool Rotation
Intervals where the logging tool was freely rotating were removed from the data
set. This was determined from plots of the P1AZ curve, where the curve was changing
and not stabilized. If the tool was not rotating freely, the tool was locked in the borehole,
which is a good indication of borehole elongation. As an approximate criterion, the data
which showed one degree change per each foot of measured depth were eliminated from
the data set. Figures 3-14 and 3-15 depict intervals in which the tool was rotating freely,
and was locked in the wellbore, respectively.
3.7.3 No Elongation
No elongation occurs in intervals where the hole diameter does not show
elongation in any direction. For the 6-arm dipmeter, intervals where (C14+C25+C36)/3 is
within 0.25 in (0.6 cm) of bit size have been eliminated from the data set. This number is
an arbitrary value, but it assumes that elongations smaller than 0.25 in (0.6 cm) are not
breakouts. Typically, even where the hole is essentially round, one electrode pair shows
slightly wider separation. The effect is probably due to tool calibration errors and slight
hole irregularities (Babcock, 1978). In the 4-arm tool, intervals where the maximum
58
Azimuth (Degree)
0 90 180 270 360
8000.00
8050.00
8100.00
8150.00
P1AZ
Depth (ft)
8200.00
HAZI
8250.00
8300.00
8350.00
8400.00
Figure 3-14. Plot of P1AZ and HAZI vs. depth. Arrows show intervals in which the tool
has was rotated rotating freely, well Glenbench 822-27P.
59
Azimuth (Degree)
0 90 180 270 360

7000.00
7020.00
7040.00
7060.00
7080.00
Depth (ft)
7100.00 P1AZ
7120.00 HAZI
7140.00
7160.00
7180.00
7200.00
Figure 3-15. Plot of P1AZ and HAZI vs. depth. Arrows show intervals in which the tool
is locked. This can be a good indication of borehole elongation, well NBU1022-9E.
60
caliper diameter (C13 or C24) is within 0.25 in (0.6 cm) of bit size have been eliminated
from the data set.
3.7.4 Washouts
The hole may be washed out due to erosion of poorly consolidated materials
(Figure 3-16). This happens mostly in shaly intervals. By convention, a washout is a zone
for which the smallest caliper is 1 in (2.5 cm) or larger than the bit size (Figure 3-17).
This was determined from comparison of the C14, C25, and C36 to the bit size in the 6-
arm dipmeter, and C13 and C24 in the 4-arm dipmeter.
3.7.5 Keyseats
When a drill string rubs against the borehole wall, its point of contact is of a
smaller diameter than the bit itself. This can result in a hole that is somewhat pear-shaped
in cross section (hence the term keyseat). This wear may cause borehole elongation in
deviated parts of the well when the azimuth of borehole deviation (HAZI) coincides with
the azimuth of borehole elongation. In fact, in a keyseat, off-centering of the sonde can
result in one caliper reading undergauge (Figures 3-18 and 3-19). In a 6-arm dipmeter, to
determine the keayseats, P1AZ is compared with HAZI, HAZI+ 60° , HAZI+ 120° ,
HAZI+ 180° , HAZI+ 240° , and HAZI+ 300° . This is done because any one of the 6 pads
can be aligned with the keyseat and pad 1 is the only oriented pad. Intervals where P1AZ
is within plus or minus 10° of any of these six values were eliminated from the data set.
The same method is applied for the 4-arm dipmeter to determine keyseats. The only
difference is the angle compared to P1AZ. In this case, P1AZ is compared with HAZI,
HAZI+ 90o , HAZI+ 180o , and HAZI+ 270o .
61
in
0 2 4
Figure 3-16. A washout with elongation in the direction of pads 1, 2, 3 and 4.

62
Calipers and Bit Size vs. Depth

4 6 8 10 12 14 16
7500.00
Bit Size
7550.00
7600.00
Caliper 1-4
Washout
Wash Out
Depth (ft)
Caliper 2-5
7650.00
Caliper 3-6
Bit Size
7700.00
7750.00
7800.00
Figure 3-17. Plot of calipers vs. depth. Arrows show intervals that are washouts, well
Glenbench 822-27P.
63
4 1
3
in
0 2 4
Figure 3-18. Key seats occur where the sonde is not centered in the borehole. This may
result in one caliper reading being less than bit size (in this case, caliper 1-3).
P1AZ and HAZI vs. Depth Calipers and Bit Size vs. Depth
Azimuth (Degree)
0 120 240 360 Borehole Diameter (in)
8100.00 6 8 10 12 14
8100.00
HAZI+180
8110.00
8110.00
Caliper 1-4
8120.00
8120.00
Caliper 2-5
P1AZ
HAZI+120
Caliper 3-6
HAZI
Depth (ft)
Depth (ft)
8130.00 Bit Size
8130.00
8140.00 8140.00
8150.00 8150.00
Figure 3-19. Plots of calipers, P1AZ, and HAZI vs. depth. Arrows show the intervals eliminated as keyseats,
well Glenbench 822-27P.
64
65
3.7.6 Borehole Breakout and Elongation Direction
After intervals of rotation, no elongation, washout, and keyseat are eliminated

from the data set, the remaining intervals are candidates for breakouts. If breakout
elongation occurs in the wellbore, it will appear as an increase in one set of calipers,
whereas the other calipers closely match the size of the bit (Figures 3-20 and 3-21).
Elongation direction for the 6-arm dipmeter is determined as follows:
• If elongation occurs in the caliper 1-4 direction, SHmax will be P1AZ- 90o or
P1AZ+ 90o .
• If elongation occurs in the caliper 2-5 direction, SHmax will be P1AZ- 30o or
P1AZ+ 150o .
• If elongation occurs in the caliper 3-6 direction, SHmax will be P1AZ+ 30o or
P1AZ- 150o .
For the 4-arm dipmeter, the elongation direction is determined as follows:
• If elongation occurs in the caliper 1-3 direction, SHmax will be P1AZ+ 90o or
P1AZ- 90o .
• If elongation occurs in the caliper 2-4 direction, SHmax will be P1AZ or
P1AZ- 180o .
Elongation direction is reported as a number between 0 and 180o .
3.8 Microfault Interpretation
Microfaults, which are defined as cm-scale offsets of rock layers, can be

recognized from borehole images. Faults occur when external forces displace rock
masses along a plane of breakage. In general, there are three types of faults: normal,
reverse, and strike-slip. According to Grace et al. (1998), parameters which can be
determined for faults are:
66
Calipers and Bit Size vs. Depth

6 8 10 12 14
7780.00
Caliper 1-4
Breakout
Caliper 2-5
Depth (ft)
7790.00 Caliper 3-6
Bit Size
7800.00
Figure 3-19. Plot of calipers vs. depth. Arrows show intervals that are breakouts, well
Glenbench 822-27P.
67
Breakout Interval
Breakout Interval
Figure 3-20. DMAX shows an increase at the depth of 7784 to 7792 ft. DMIN matches
bit size. The image log is dark, which indicates elongation at this particular depth, well
Glenbench 822-27P. Depth scale is in ft. GR is gamma ray; DMAX is maximum
borehole diameter; DMIN is minimum borehole diameter; and TENS is tension.
68
• Depth of fault is defined as the midpoint of the sine wave.

• Strike of fault is perpendicular to the dip azimuth.
• Dip magnitude of the fault is the angle between horizontal and the fault plane.
• Sealing of fault is defined on the basis of conductivity of fill material along the
fault plane.
Faults and microfaults in borehole images show termination of bedding planes on

the fault plane (Luthi, 2000). Figures 3-22, 3-23, and 3-24 show fracture planes and fault
planes in the images.
3.9 Fracture Analysis
Image logs are one of the best tools used to detect fractures. Resistivity contrast
between the fracture and host rock is the reason why fractures appear on electrical
images. This difference is readily apparent in open fractures because the drilling fluid in
the open fracture aperture is less resistive than the host rock. In the case of resistive
fractures, cement materials fill the fracture space, and these have high resistivity.
Electrical images are influenced by three factors (Grace et al., 1998; and Luthi, 2000):
• Rm , resistivity of the mud at formation temperature.
• Rxo , resistivity of the flushed zone.
• Fracture Geometry (aperture and length).

According to Grace et al. (1998), characterization of fractures includes
identification, definition, and orientation. Fracture identification includes fracture type
such as vertical, polygonal and mechanically induced. Fracture definition includes open,
mineral-filled or vuggy. Orientation is the dip/strike.
69
Depth
Fracture Plane
N S N
Depth
Fault Plane
N S N
Figure 3-21. Fault identification and difference between faults and fractures.
70
Figure 3-22. Fracture identification. A sine wave is fitted to each open natural fracture,
well NBU 1022-9E. Depth scale is in ft. GR is gamma ray; DMAX is maximum borehole
71
Figure 3-23. Fault is indicated by the termination of bedding planes on the fault plane,
well NBU 1022-9E. Depth scale is in ft. GR is gamma ray; DMAX is maximum borehole
72
3.9.1 Vertical Fractures
A vertical or steeply dipping fracture has a dip magnitude higher than 75o (Grace
et al., 1998). A vertical fracture can be open or mineral filled.
3.9.2 Polygonal Fractures
Polygonal fractures create a highly irregular fracture network on electrical

images. Systematic orientation can be defined for these fracture networks. Normally, they
occur during deposition, as collapse breccias during karstification, as chemical or
mechanical dewatering features, or during tectonic movement in fault zones (Luthi, 2000;
and Grace et al., 1998). Figure 3-25 shows an example of this type of fracture.
3.9.3 Mechanically Induced Fractures
Typically, the drilling process causes stress concentration around the wellbore.
The tensile failure of the wall of the wellbore is the result of this stress concentration.
These fractures are called “tensile wall fractures” because they develop only in the
wellbore wall (Barton et al., 2002). Because induced fractures are created at the time of
drilling or hydraulic fracturing, they are always open (Figure 3-26). The strike orientation
of induced fractures and maximum in-situ stress orientation are parallel. According to
Luthi (2000), “the strike of induced fractures is important to know as it will be the same
for large-scale hydraulic fracturing, and it will therefore dictate the drainage direction
within the reservoir.” As a matter of fact, the induced fracture will occur along the strike
of the maximum stress direction (Figure 3-27).
Because of the importance of this type of fracture, some criteria will be discussed
to differentiate them from natural fractures on electrical images (Barton et al., 2002;
Grace et al., 1998; and Luthi, 2000).
73
Figure 3-24. Polygonal fracture in a carbonate reservoir (Grace et al., 1998).

74
Figure 3-25. Near-vertical induced fracture, well Glenbench 822-27P. Depth scale is in ft.
GR is gamma ray; DMAX is maximum borehole diameter; DMIN is minimum borehole
diameter; and TENS is tension.
75
BAD WELL ARRAY

BREAKOUT AZIMUTH
SHmax
Reservoir
edge
Producing well
Water-injection well
Vertical fracture
induced buy water
GOOD WELL ARRAY
injection
Oil swept towards a

producing well by
water flood
Figure 3-26. Relationship between SHmax, water-flooding, and hydraulic fracturing.

Strike of induced fractures is parallel to SHmax, which sweeps the oil in the SHmin
direction (modified after Bell et al., 1986). In the “bad array,” induced fractures connect
the water-injection wells with production wells, and cause less recovery of oil than the
“good array,” which distributes the water and drives oil towards production wells.
76
• Drilling-induced fractures do not cross the borehole, i.e., they do not make a sine
wave. Because the drilling-induced tensile-wall fractures are discontinuous
around the wellbore (they can propagate only in the tensile region of the
borehole), they cannot be fitted with a sinusoidal shape.
• They often have curvature at termination.
• They are always open-not vuggy or mineral filled.
• They cannot be micro-faulted.
• They are usually near-vertical.
• They are oriented parallel to maximum horizontal stress, and their orientations are
very consistent.
• They often cut across bed boundaries.
In deviated wells (Figure 3-28), drilling-induced fractures form as en-echelon

features. This is because of the sensitivity of the drilling-induced tensile–wall fractures to
in-situ stress (Barton et al., 2002). Figure 3-28 shows en-echelon induced fractures.
3.9.4 Fracture Morphology
In another category, fractures can be grouped as open, mineral-filled, or vuggy. In

the open fractures, the mud invades the fracture and creates a conductive layer inside of
the fracture. As mentioned before, this conductivity depends on the resistivity of the mud,
flushed zone, and the fracture geometry. The appearance of fractures on the images will
be enhanced in a salt mud system, whereas a fresh mud will decrease the contrast. The
fractures appear as highly conductive (dark) traces on the FMI/EMI log. Mineral-filled
fractures can be fully or partially mineral filled. Such fractures are less conductive than
open fractures. Figure 3-29 shows an open natural fracture and Figure 3-30 shows a
healed fracture. Vuggy fractures can have irregular enlargements along the fracture plane,
77
Figure 3-27. En-echelon induced fractures in a deviated interval, well NBU 1022-9E.
Depth scale is in ft. GR is gamma ray; DMAX is maximum borehole diameter; DMIN is
minimum borehole diameter; and TENS is tension.
78
Figure 3-28. Open natural fracture, well NBU 1022-9E. Depth scale is in ft. GR is
gamma ray; DMAX is maximum borehole diameter; DMIN is minimum borehole
diameter; and TENS is tension.
79
Figure 3-29. Healed fracture, well NBU 1022-9E. Depth scale is in ft. GR is gamma ray;
DMAX is maximum borehole diameter; DMIN is minimum borehole diameter; and
TENS is tension.
80
especially in carbonate reservoirs. In this study, four categories of natural fractures were
identified: 1- open fractures imaged on only 2 pads; 2- open fractures imaged on 3 or
more tool pads; 3- lithologically bound fractures; and 4- healed or resistive fractures.
Orientations of open fractures imaged on more than two pads are generally more reliable
than those imaged on a fewer number of tool pads. Lithologically bound fractures are
those fractures that terminate at bed boundaries (Knight, 2004).
3.9.5 Halo Effect around Resistive Fractures
As an image tool is pulled up during logging, buttons are variably positioned

relative to the fractures. Depending on the resistivity contrast between cement in the
fracture aperture and the host rock, a halo effect can appear. For a mineral-filled fracture,
when the tool gets very close to the fracture, the current lines are squeezed, giving rise
to an artificial high resistivity. On the other hand, when the tool passes the fracture, the
current lines start to diverge and the apparent resistivity is lower than it should be. This
change of resistivity from one side of the fracture to the other creates a halo effect on the
images (Luthi, 2000). This phenomenon is shown in Figure 3-31.
3.10 Results
This section summarizes the results obtained from borehole image logs in 3 wells
in GNB field.
3.10.1 Stress Orientation from Borehole Breakout
Borehole breakouts are analyzed to determine the orientation of maximum

horizontal in-situ stress (SHmax).
81
Figure 3-30. A cemented fracture at the top, showing characteristic halo effects due to the
insulating thin sheet formed by the fracture cement. The lower feature shows the same
halo effect (Luthi, 2000). Depth scale is in m.
82
We used two types of data to plot SHmax direction from borehole breakouts. The
first is caliper logs, as discussed in this chapter. The second is the actual borehole images.
Continuous breakouts identified from caliper logs resulted in 90, 131, and 25 separate
intervals for Glenbench 822-27P, NBU 1022-9E, and NBU 222, respectively. After that,
we computed the SHmax vector mean for each of these intervals. Details are included in
the attached CD Rom. Figures 3-32 through 3-37 show the strike azimuth of SHmax
obtained from both caliper logs and borehole-image inspection in three wells. Figure 3-38
shows an example of breakouts identified from actual images.
Strike azimuth, rose diagrams, and frequency histograms were used to evaluate
the orientation of SHmax in the study area. Figures 3-39 to 3-50 show orientation
diagrams for borehole breakouts in three wells.
The dominant SHmax strike azimuth is generally E-W in both the NBU 222 and
Glenbench 822-9E well. In contrast, the result in NBU 222 well is significantly different,
especially in the case of SHmax interpreted from caliper logs. This difference will be
discussed in this chapter in the Discussion section.
3.10.2 Stress Orientation from Mechanically Induced Fractures
Another way to determine the direction of SHmax is to use induced fracture

orientations. Continuous induced fractured intervals have been recognized from image
logs. Figures 3-51 through 3-59 show SHmax azimuth vs. depth cross plots, strike
azimuth rose diagrams, and frequency histograms for three wells, Glenbench 822-27P,
NBU1022-9E, and NBU 222.
3.10.3 Comparison of SHmax and Fracture Orientations
Figures 3-60 through 3-69 show the behavior of natural and healed fractures strike
orientation in the three wells. Natural fractures in the field are closely parallel to SHmax
83
Strike Azimuth Cross Plot

Strike azimuth of SHmax (Degree)
10 30 50 70 90 110 130 150 170
7500.00
7600.00
7700.00
7800.00
7900.00
Shmax related
Depth (ft)
to caliper
breakout
8000.00
8100.00
8200.00
8300.00
8400.00
8500.00
Figure 3-31. Strike azimuth of SHmax obtained from caliper logs, well Glenbench 822-
27P.
84

Strike Azimuth of SHmax (Degree)
10 30 50 70 90 110 130 150 170
7500.00
7600.00
7700.00
7800.00
7900.00
Depth (ft)
SHmax related to
EMI breakout
8000.00
8100.00
8200.00
8300.00
8400.00
8500.00
Figure 3-32. Strike azimuth of SHmax obtained from EMI log inspection, well
Glenbench 822-27P.
85

10 30 50 70 90 110 130 150 170
6400.00
6600.00
6800.00
7000.00
7200.00
7400.00
SHmax
Depth (ft)
related to
7600.00 caliper
breakout
7800.00
8000.00
8200.00
8400.00
8600.00
8800.00
Figure 3-33. Strike azimuth of SHmax obtained from caliper logs, well NBU 1022-9E.
86

10 30 50 70 90 110 130 150 170
6400.00
6600.00
6800.00
7000.00
7200.00
7400.00
Depth (ft)
7600.00
SHmax
7800.00
related to
EMI
breakout
8000.00
8200.00
8400.00
8600.00
8800.00
Figure 3-34. Strike azimuth of SHmax obtained from EMI log inspection, well NBU
1022-9E.
87

10 30 50 70 90 110 130 150 170
6850.00
7050.00
7250.00
7450.00
7650.00
7850.00
SHmax
8050.00
related to
Depth (ft)
caliper
breakout
8250.00
8450.00
8650.00
8850.00
9050.00
9250.00
9450.00
9650.00
Figure 3-35. Strike azimuth of SHmax obtained from caliper logs, well NBU 222.
88

10 30 50 70 90 110 130 150 170
6850
7050
7250
7450
7650
7850
8050
Depth (ft)
SHmax
related to
8250 FMI
breakout
8450
8650
8850
9050
9250
9450
9650
Figure 3-36. Strike azimuth of SHmax obtained from FMI log inspection, well NBU 222.
89
Breakout
Figure 3-37. DMAX shows an increase at the depth of 7722 to 7724 ft. DMIN matches
bit size. The image log is dark, which indicates elongation at this particular depth, well
Glenbench 822-27P. Dip direction of identified breakout is 110 degree, which is parallel
to SHmax. Depth scale is in ft. GR is gamma ray; DMAX is maximum borehole
90
Mean Vector Orientation = 103
Figure 3-38. Strike azimuth rose diagram for continuous breakout intervals shows mean
orientation of SHmax from borehole breakouts obtained from caliper logs, well
Glenbench 822-27P.
50
C a lip er SH M ax Freq ue ncy
40
Frequency
30
20
10
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
SH Max
Figure 3-39. Frequency histogram of vector means of SHmax from continuous breakout
intervals interpreted by caliper logs, well Glenbench 833-27P.
91
Mean Vector Orientation = 103.6
orientation of SHmax from borehole breakouts obtained from EMI log inspection, well
Glenbench 822-27P.
70 E M I S H Ma x F req ue nc y
60
50
Frequency
40
30
20
10
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
SH Max
intervals interpreted by EMI log inspection, well Glenbench 822-27P.
92
orientation of SHmax from borehole breakouts obtained from caliper logs, well NBU
1022-9E.
25
C a lip e r S H M a x F r e q u e n c y
20
Frequency
15
10
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
SHMax
intervals interpreted by caliper logs, well NBU 1022-9E.
93
orientation of SHmax from EMI log inspection, well NBU 1022-9E.
E M I S H M a x F re q u e n c y
50
40
Frequency
30
20
10
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
SHM ax
intervals interpreted by EMI log inspection, well NBU1022-9E.
94
Mean Vector Orientation =30.2
orientation of SHmax from borehole breakouts obtained from caliper logs, well
NBU 222.
10
E M I S H m a x F req u e nc y
8
Frequency
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
SH M ax
intervals interpreted by caliper logs, well NBU 222.
95
orientation of SHmax from borehole breakouts obtained from FMI log inspection, well
NBU 222.
35
F M I S H M a x F req u e nc y
30
25
Frequency
20
15
10
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
SH M ax
intervals interpreted by FMI log inspection, well NBU 222.
96
Strike Azimuth SHmax (Degree)

10 30 50 70 90 110 130 150 170
7500.00
7600.00
7700.00
7800.00
7900.00 SHmax
related to
Depth (ft)
Induced
Fracture
8000.00
8100.00
8200.00
8300.00
8400.00
8500.00
Figure 3-50. Strike azimuth of SHmax obtained from induced fractures, well
Glenbench 822-27P. Mean vector orientation is 91.4o.
97
orientation of maximum horizontal compressive stress (SHmax), well Glenbench
822-27P.
7
In d u c e d F ra c tu r e S H m a x
5
Frequency
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
SHM ax
Figure 3-52. Frequency histogram of vector means of SHmax from continuous intervals
of induced fractures, well Glenbench 822-27P.
98

10 30 50 70 90 110 130 150 170
6400.00
6600.00
6800.00
7000.00
7200.00
7400.00
Depth (ft)
Shmax
related to
7600.00 Induced
Fracture
7800.00
8000.00
8200.00
8400.00
8600.00
8800.00
Figure 3-53. Strike azimuth of SHmax obtained from induced fractures, well NBU 1022-
9E. Mean vector orientation is 114.8o.
99
Figure 3-54. Strike azimuth rose diagram for continuous induced fractures shows mean
orientation of maximum horizontal compressive stress (SHmax), well NBU 1022-9E.
40
In d u c e d fr a c tu re S H m a x
35
30
25
Frequency
20
15
10
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
SH M ax
of induced fractures, well NBU1022-9E.
100
Strike Azimuth SHmax (Degree)

10 30 50 70 90 110 130 150 170
6850.00
7050.00
7250.00
7450.00
7650.00
7850.00
8050.00
SHMax
Depth (ft)
related to
Induced
8250.00 Fractures
8450.00
8650.00
8850.00
9050.00
9250.00
9450.00
9650.00
Figure 3-56. Strike azimuth of SHmax obtained from induced fractures, well NBU 222.
Mean vector orientation is 106.4o.
101
orientation of maximum horizontal compressive stress (SHmax), well NBU 222.
80
Ind uc ed F rac ture 's S H Ma x
70
60
Frequency
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
S trike Azim u th (D eg ree)
of induced fractures, well NBU 222.
102
Figure 3-59. Rose frequency histogram for open natural fracture strikes in Glenbench
822-27P. The dominant orientation is essentially E-W.
15
N a tu r a l F r a c t u r e S tr i k e A z i m u th
10
Frequency
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
S tr ik e A z im u th (D e g r e e )
Glenbench 822-27P. The dominant frequency is between 90 and 100 degrees.
103
Figure 3-61. Rose frequency histogram for open natural fracture strikes in NBU 1022-9E.
The dominant orientation is essentially E-W.
40
O p e n F r a c tu r e s S tri k e
35
30
Frequency
25
20
15
10
5
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
S t r ik e A z i m u t h (D e g r e e )
NBU1022-9E. The dominant frequency is between 100 and 110 degrees.
104
Figure 3-63. Rose frequency histogram for open natural fracture strikes in NBU 222.
14
O p e n F ra c tu re 's S trik e
12
10
Frequency
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
S tr ik e A z im u t h (D e g r e e )
NBU 222.
105
Figure 3-65. Rose frequency histogram for healed fracture strike in the Gglenbench 822-
27P. N-S is the dominant orientation.
3 .5
H e a ld F ra ctu re S trike s A zim u th
2 .5
Frequency
1 .5
0 .5
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
S trik e A zim u th (D e g re e )
Figure 3-66. Frequency histogram for resistive fractures in Glenbench 822-27P.

106
Figure 3-67. Rose frequency histogram for healed fracture strikes in NBU 1022-9E.
7
H e a led F rac ture S t rik e A z im u th
5
Frequency
0
0 20 4 0 6 0 8 0 10 0 1 2 0 1 4 0 1 6 0 1 80
S trik e A zim u th (D e g re e )
Figure 3-68. Frequency histogram for resistive fractures in NBU 1022-9E.

107
and healed fractures are parallel to SHmin (Figure 3-70).
3.10.4 Quality-Ranking System for Stress Orientation
There is a quality-ranking system defined by Zoback and Zoback (1989) that is

used to characterize how accurately a breakout interpretation records the tectonic stress.
This quality ranking is defined based on a statistical analysis of the accuracy of the data.
According to Zoback and Zoback (1989), there are four ranks, A through D, with the
highest quality for A and the lowest quality for D. Strike azimuth of SHmax ranges from
10o to 15o for A, 20o to 25o for B, plus or minus 25o for C, and more than 25o for D.
Tables 3-5 through 3-7 show the ranking analysis for three wells in the GNB field. Table
3-8 shows the quality-ranking system presented by Zoback and Zoback (1989). For
wellbore breakouts, the quality is ultimately linked to the standard deviation (S.D).
Additionally, a certain number and a certain length of breakouts must be achieved. On the
basis of the analysis, breakouts interpreted from EMI/FMI images have a ranking-quality
of A, for three study wells. On the other hand, the ranking-quality for breakouts related to
caliper SHmax varies from B for Glenbench 822-27P to D for wells NBU 1022-9E and
NBU 222. The result is shown in Table 3-9.
Well Glenbench 822-27P shows very close quality rank for two different methods
to determine SHmax, whereas wells NBU 1022-9E and NBU 222 show significant
variability.
3.11 Discussion
This section discusses the results obtained from borehole image logs in 3 wells in
GNB field.
108
Vertical Stress Closed

Fracture
Max
Horiz.
Stress;
sHmax;
Insitu Stress
Min. Open
Horiz. Fracture
Stress
Figure 3-69. Diagram showing the three subsurface stress tensors (Knight, 2004).
109
Table 3-6. Statistical analysis of the tectonic stress from two methods for quality- ranking
system, well Glenbench 822-27P.
EMI SHmax Frequency Caliper SHmax Frequency
Minimum 85 Minimum 43.49
Maximum 126 Maximum 160.42
Std Deviation 6.89 Std Deviation 17.4
Points 123 Points 90
Total Breakout Length
Total Breakout Length (m) 63.2 (m) 62.8
Total No. of
Total No. of Breakouts 123 Breakouts 90
system, well NBU 1022-9E.
EMI SHmax Frequency Caliper SHmax Frequency
Points 91 Points 131
Total Breakout Length
Total Breakout Length (m) 172 (m) 101
Total No. of
system, well NBU 222.
FMI SHmax Frequency Caliper SHmax Frequency
Points 55 Points 8
Total Breakout
Total Breakout Length (m) 85 Length (m) 4.87
Total No. of
110
Table 3-9. Quality-ranking system for stress orientations. Modified after Zoback and
Zoback (1989).
A B C D
Average P-axis or formal Well-constrained single- Single-event solution Single composite

inversion of four or more event solution (M>= 4.5) (constrained by first solution
single-event solutions in or average of two well- motions only, often based
close geographic constrained single-event on author’s quality Poorly constrained
Mechanism proximity (at least one solutions (M>= 3.5) assignment)(M>= 2.5) single event
(FM)
event determined from first solution
M>= 4.0. motions and other Average of several well-
methods (e.g., moment constrained composites Single event
tensor wave-form solution for M<2.5
modeling, or inversion) event
Ten or more distinct At least six distinct At least four distinct Less than four
breakout zones in a single breakout zones in a single breakout with consistently oriented
well with S.D ≤ 12o well with S.D ≤ 20o S.D< 25o and/or breakouts o r <30 m
and/or combined length> combined length in a
Wellbore and/or combined length> combined length>30 m
300m single well
Breakout 100m
(IS-BO) Average of breakouts in
two or more wells in Breakouts in a single well
close geographic with S.D ≥ 25o
proximity with combined
length> 300m and
S.D ≤ 12o
Four or more hydrofrac Three or more hydrofrac Hydrofrac orientations in Single hydrofrac
orientations in single well orientations in a single a single well with measurement at< 100 m
with S.D ≤ 12o , well with S.D ≤ 20o 20o <S.D<25o . Distinct depth
Hydraulic
depth>300 m hydrofrac orientation
Fracture Hydrofrac orientations in change with depth,
(IS-HF) Average of hydrofrac a single well with deepest measurements
orientations for two or assumed valid
20o <S.D<25o
more wells in close One or two hydrofrac
geographic proximity, orientations in a single
S.D ≤ 12o well
Petal Mean orientation of

Centerline
Fracture fractures in a single well
(IS-PO) with S.D < 20o
Average of multiple All near-surface

Average of consistent Multiple consistent measurements with S.D>
measurements made near
o
(S.D ≤ 12o ) (S.D < 20 ) surface (depth> 5- 10 m) 15o , depth < 15 m
measurements in two or measurements in one or at two or more localities
more boreholes extending more boreholes extending in close proximity with All single measurements
more than two excavation more than two excavation S.D ≤ 25o
Overcore at depth
(IS-OC) radii from the excavation radii from excavation
wall, and far from any Multiple measurements at
well, depth > 100 m Multiple measurements at
known local disturbances, depth > 100 m with
depth > 300 m o
20 <S.D<25 o depth with S.D > 25o
S.D is standard deviation

111
Table 3-10. Quality -ranking system for stress orientation in three wells of this study.
Quality Ranking / Well Name Glenbench 822-27P NBU 1022-9E NBU 222
EMI/FMI SHmax Quality
Ranking A A A
Caliper SHmax Quality Ranking B D D

112
3.11.1 Comparison of SHmax and Fracture Orientations
There are three principal stress axes defined in the subsurface (Figure 3-70). One
is vertical and two are horizontal (SHmax and SHmin). Vertical stress is a result of
overburden pressure and usually exceeds the two horizontal components.
Drilling-induced fractures tend to form parallel to the direction of SHmax. Natural
fractures may or may not align with SHmax. This is very important in terms of reservoir
drainage. When SHmax and natural fractures are parallel, the fractures are commonly
propped open by differential stress (Knight, 2004). On the other hand, natural fractures
perpendicular to SHmax or parallel to SHmin are commonly closed (Figure 3-70). As a
result, the vector mean of strike orientation for 26, 128, and 49 open natural fractures for
Glenbench 822-27P, NBU 1022-9E, and NBU 222 are 91.8o , 98.8o , and 110o ,
respectively, which is close to the SHmax direction in these three wells. On the other
hand, the strike direction of the resistive fractures is 6o in Glenbench 822-27P, which is
close enough to be parallel to SHmin. The strike direction of resistive fractures in NBU
1022-9E is scattered. In well NBU 222, the number of resistive fractures was just two.
Because of that, it is not plotted here. In summary, there exists a relationship between
natural fractures and SHmax that is optimal for reservoir drainage.
3.11.2 Comparison of Obtained SHmax with SHmax Map for the United
States
The SHmax orientation from two applied methods (borehole breakout and
induced fracture) shows the WNW-ESE orientation. Zoback and Zoback (1989) and
Lorenz (2003) found a similar orientation for the compressive in-situ stress and natural
fracture strike. Therefore, there exists a good match and reliable value for the SHmax in
the field area. Figures 3-71 and 3-72 show an example of SHmax direction from this
study and Lorenz’s (2003) results.
113
orientation of maximum horizontal compressive stress (SHmax), well NBU 222. The
dominant strike is WNW-ESE.
Figure 3-71. Rose diagram of the 62 vertical extension fractures in the east-central
Piceance basin, Colorado. The dominant strike is WNW-ESE (Lorenz, 2003).
114
3.11.3 Elongation
The orientation of SHmax can be determined from borehole breakouts and

induced fracture orientations. In this study, there is a difference between the SHmax
directions obtained from these methods. Possible explanations are:
• Breakouts from borehole image inspection may be more accurate than breakouts
recognized from caliper logs. Some of the criteria used to analyze the data from
caliper logs were arbitrary. By changing values, different breakout intervals will
result. Additionally, very small breakouts can be seen in borehole images, whereas
these intervals may be eliminated from caliper logs because of tool rotation. In fact,
the tool cannot be stuck in small elongated intervals. The pads of the borehole image
tools might be too “clumsy.”
• Using arbitrary values to analyze the caliper logs to determine borehole breakouts
yields some short intervals. Some identified breakouts are just a point (0.1 ft) (3 cm).
For example in NBU 222, 25 breakouts were detected, although 17 of them have a
height less than 0.3 ft (9 cm). As a suggestion, we should count breakouts, for
example, which have a length greater than the tool-pad length. Figures 3-73 and 3-74
show 8 continuous breakout intervals for well NBU 222, after eliminating the short
intervals.
As a summary, for being more accurate and getting a better perception for
borehole elongation intervals, a combination of methods has to be applied. For example,
the result of recognized SHmax for NBU 222 determined from breakouts related to
caliper logs is not reliable.
115
orientation of SHmax from borehole breakouts obtained from caliper logs, well NBU
222. Breakouts intervals bigger than pad length are used.
5
C a l ip e r S H M a x F r e q u e n c y
4
Frequency
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
SHM ax
intervals interpreted by caliper logs, well NBU222. Breakout intervals bigger than pad
length are used.
116
CHAPTER 4
MICRO-RESISTIVITY
4.1 Microlog
4.1.1 General Information
The microlog is a pad-type resistivity device that primarily detects mudcake

(Hilchie, 2003). The microlog evolved into a tool used to detect permeable zones in
those areas where the SP log cannot give a satisfactory answer (Schlumberger, 1958;
Doll, 1950). Where the formations are much more resistive than mud (for example, in
limestone fields), the SP log may detect the presence of permeable zones, but does not
detect bed boundaries accurately. The microlog is more accurate in that case and also
when the beds are thin (Schlumberger, 1958).
4.1.2 Equipment Description
The microlog device has two insulating rubber pads with three electrodes
mounted on each, one inch apart in a vertical line (Figure 4-1). These electrodes are
placed in the middle of the pad. The modern hydraulic pad is filled with oil and pressed
against the borehole wall to contact the formation perfectly (Hilchie, 2003). Therefore, it
is electrically shielded from the short-circuiting action of the mud (Schlumberger, 1958).
The two rubber pads are mounted on separate arms of a spring guide. The applied
pressure to open the arms is independent of the diameter of the hole. This diameter ranges
117
Figure 4-1. The 2-arm microlog apparatus consists of a rubber pad, which is pressed
against the wall of the drill hole (Schlumberger, 1958).
118
from 4 1 " to 16" for the standard spring guides presently in use. Under these
2
circumstances, the system measures the average resistivity of the small volume of the
material directly in front of the pad.
4.1.3 Principles of Micrologging
The microlog measures two different resistivities; micronormal ( R 2" ) and
microinverse ( R1"*1" ). In a 2 in normal, the lower electrode (electrode A) acts as the
current electrode and the upper electrode (electrode M2 ) is a potential measurement
electrode. In 1 in by 1 in ( 1"*1" or 1.5" ) model, the lower electrode (electrode A) is the

current electrode and the two upper electrodes (electrodes M1 and M2 ) are the
differential potential measurements (Figure 4-1) (Hilchie, 2003). Based on these

electrode arrangements, the depth of investigation for the micronormal tool will be
different from the microinverse tool. They are 4 in and 1.5 in, respectively.
In a permeable formation, because of mud filtrate, mudcake can build up.
Therefore, detection of mudcake by the microlog is a good indication of invasion and
permeable formations. In front of permeable zones, the micronormal log shows a higher
value than the microinverse log. This occurs because part of the matrix resistivity is
included in the micronormal measurements, whereas the microinverse tool measures the
mudcake resistivity and some resistivity of the flushed zone. This is due to the
investigation radius difference between the normal and inverse logs. The difference
between these two values is known as “separation.” Positive separation is defined when
the micronormal trace shows higher values than the microinverse trace.
Based on the above discussion, positive separation appears in front of permeable
zones. Positive separation can also be created in a rugose borehole wall because the pad
is not being firmly pressed against the formation. In a highly resistive formation
(impervious or tight section), positive separation may also occur. On the other hand,
119
insufficient invasion may cause a negative separation opposite a permeable zone.

Negative separation can also be created in water-bearing zones. Positive separation
cannot be seen when saltwater muds or gypsum-based muds are used (Schlumberger,
1958). According to Asquith et al. (1982), the reason is that mudcake may not be strong
enough to keep the pad away from the formation. Where the pad is in contact with the
formation, negative separation occurs (Asquith et al., 1982).
4.1.4 Microlog Behavior in Different Formations
Delineation of different formations by the microlog are summarized below

(Schlumberger, 1958):
• Porous and permeable beds: both micronormal and microinverse logs show low
resistivities (Figure 4-2); generally, not more than 20 times the mud resistivity.
Positive separation occurs when the mudcake is not very thin, mud is not very
saline or invasion is not very shallow and the formation is not salt-water bearing.
Normally the mudcake effect levels out the resistivity readings, therefore, there is
no sharp variation opposite a permeable bed.
• Tight sections: in this case, a thin mud film separates the electrodes from the
formation. The thickness of this mud film can be 1 " or less. This will result in
16
high resistivity readings. Both micronormal and microinverse logs show at least
20 times the mud resistivity (Figure 4-2). Based on the pad distance from the
borehole wall, due to mud film thickness and irregularity of the borehole wall, the
emitted current from the electrode can escape towards the mud column. Thus, the
separation may be positive or negative, accordingly.
• Shales: similar to tight formations, a thin mud film may build up on the borehole
wall to separate the pads from the formation. If there is no caving in the shales,
120
BIT SIZE: 8 5/8” Permeable Mostly Hard with

R m of BHT: 0.5 Ohmm and porous Shale shale streaks
Figure 4-2. Response of the microlog in front of permeable, shaly, and tight formations
(Schlumberger, 1958). Permeable zones show positive separation and low resistivity.
121
the resistivity reading is equal to or less than the shale resistivity (Schlumberger,
1958). As a result, the separation may be negative, zero, or positive (Figure 4-2).
Based on experiments presented by Schlumberger (1958), the negative separation
in shale may be due to the anisotropy of shale. However, to get a better perception
for shale interpretation, use of other curves such as the SP log or GR log is
recommended.
• Caved hole: Caved hole may occur opposite shales or other type of formations.
The two readings (micronormal and microinverse) in a deep cave show equal
readings as the mud resistivity (Schlumberger, 1958). This is because the pad
does not firmly contact the borehole wall.
• Fractures: Similar to a caved hole, opposite of fractured intervals, both
resistivities may show equal values as the mud resistivity.
4.1.5 Microlog Interpretation in Permeable and Impervious Beds
Doll (1950) summarized microlog interpretation for permeable and impervious

formations in five different categories. They are:
• Category I1 : the two microresistivities (normal and reverse) are higher than
R lim ( 20 to 30 times the mud resistivity).
• Category I2 : the separation is negative.
If the microinverse reading is less than R lim , the SP log has to be applied.
• Category I3 : no separation or very small and the SP log trend is positive.
• Category P1 : no separation or very small and the SP log trend is negative.

122
• Category P2 : large positive separation (more than 20 percent).
In all of the above, “I” and “P” are the abbreviations for “Impervious” and
“Permeable,” respectively. Figure 4-3 shows an example for impervious and permeable
zones. This discussion has been summarized in Table 4-1.
Table 4-1. Microlog interpretation (Modified after Doll, 1950).

Impervious
R1"*1" > Rlim Zone Category I1
R2" < R1"*1" Impervious
(Large negative separation) Zone Category I2
Positive Impervious
SP trend Zone
Category I3
R2" ; R1"*1" Negative Permeable

(separation nil or small) SP trend Zone Category P1
R2">R1"*1" Permeable
R1"*1" < Rlim (Large positive separation) Zone Category P2
Where R lim is about:
• (10-15)* R m for fresh mud.

• (20-30)* R m for average mud.
• (40-50)* R m for very salty mud.
123
Figure 4-3. Permeable beds (P) and impervious beds (I) (Doll, 1950).
124
4.2 Micro Cylindrically Focused Log (MCFL)
4.2.1 General Information
The Micro Cylindrically Focused Log (MCFL) is a relatively new device designed
by Schlumberger. Because most microdevices (Microlog, Microlaterolog, and Proximity
log) are sensitive to the mudcake thickness ( h mc ) and mudcake resistivity ( R mc ), they
cannot give a reliable answer for R xo measurements. However, the new tool is designed
to render a much more accurate value for R xo . The three parameters R xo , R mc , and
h mc are also estimated in real time (Eisenmann et al., 1994). The tool has a vertical
resolution of less than 1 in, which is used to detect very thin beds.
The MCFL tool responds to the following focusing challenges, as presented by
Eisenmann et al. (1994). They are:
• “Radial divergence of the current beam before the limit of the flushed zone.”
• “Strong vertical constraint of the current beam.”
• “Azimuthal insensitivity to the environment of the borehole wall.”
The tool should be insensitive to a wide range of mudcake thickness. In this case,
the tool is independent of mudcake thickness up to 0.4 in (Eisenmann et al., 1994).
4.2.2 Equipment Description
The pad surface of the MCFL device is shown in Figure 4-4. Because of pad
symmetry, only the left upper quarter is shown. Three small measurement buttons, B0 ,
B1 , and B2 are placed within the larger A0 electrode (Eisenmann et al., 1994). The
emitted current from B0 flows horizontally and diverges azimuthally to the correct depth
125
Figure 4-4. Portion of MCFL pad showing current patterns and equipotential surfaces
(Eisenmann et al., 1994).
126
of investigation. Electrodes B1 and B2 , which are located at the edge of the pad, have a
shallower depth of investigation. In fact, the tool provides three different resistivity
measurements at three different depths of investigation, as presented by Eisenmann et al.
(1994). The equipotential surfaces have a cylindrical shape close to the center of the pad.
This is originated at the central button to focus the current into the formation perfectly
before escaping towards the mud (Eisenmann et al., 1994).
4.2.3 Fracture Detection by MCFL
Schlumberger (2005) introduced an experimental equation based on the acquired

data from the MCFL tool to detect fractures (Richards, S. pers. commun., 2005). The
equation is as follows:
X8 =ABS ( HCAL[-1]-HCAL[1]+HCAL[-9]-HCAL[3])
X9 = AIT 90
R xo8
Data.Fracture_Flag = if {(X8 <0.05) and (X9 >2.0) and (AIT90>25)}
Fracture = Data.Fracture_Flag*5
Where:
HCAL = Hole diameter.
HCAL [-1] = Hole diameter for one sample before the picked sample.
HCAL [1] = Hole diameter for one sample after the picked sample.
HCAL [-9] = Hole diameter for 9 samples before the picked sample.
HCAL [3] = Hole diameter for 3 samples after the picked sample.
AIT 90 = measured resistivity 90 in behind the borehole wall or deep resistivity.
R xo8 = measured resistivity 8 in behind the wellbore.
127
4.3 Results
This study is focused on fracture detection by microresistivity logs. Therefore,

interpretations of other possibilities, such as permeable zones, impervious beds, and shale
intervals were not considered. The obtained results for natural fractures and other
borehole features are discussed in the next section.
4.3.1 Fracture Analysis by Microdevices (Microlog and MCFL)
Microlog anomalies are defined based on arbitrary values of the separation

between the micronormal and microinverse curves. They are termed Plus 5/10 Ohmm
and Minus 5/10 Ohmm of separation. Any continuous intervals with separation values
more than Plus 5/10 Ohmm or less than Minus 5/10 Ohmm are counted as an anomaly.
Each continuous interval is counted as one separate interval for statistical analysis. Figure
4-5 shows an example of an anomaly Plus 10 Ohmm. Table 4-2 shows a continuous
interval for the amount of separation less than Minus 5 Ohmm. Anomalous intervals are
compared with fractured zones and other borehole features such as borehole breakouts, as
interpreted from borehole images. For example, Table 4-2 demonstrates that the anomaly
is related to natural fractures and borehole breakouts. Number 1 means that the related
feature has occurred in that interval and number 0 means that the related feature has not
occurred in that interval. Tables 4-3, 4-4, and 4-5 and Figures 4-6, 4-7, and 4-8 show the
results for the three study wells. Details are included in the attached CD Rom. The
maximum 14% correlation between natural fractures and microlog anomalies in well
Glenbench 822-27P occurs with anomalies more than Plus 10 Ohmm. The maximum
correlation of 33% in well NBU 1022-9E for natural fractures also occurs with more
than Plus 10 Ohmm of microlog separation. On the other hand, no fracture observed in
well NBU 222 corresponds to any microlog anomaly. No anomaly is observed related to
any other type of features. This means that the microlog curves have little or no
128
MNOR and MINV versus Depth
MNOR and MINV (ohmm)
0 20 40 60 80 100
7985
7987
7989
7991
Depth (ft)
Positive Separation MNOR

(Anomaly Plus 10 Ohmm)
MINV
7993
7995
7997
7999
Figure 4-5. Micronormal and microinverse logs vs. depth, well Glenbench 822-27P.
Interval 7791-7794 shows anomaly Plus 10 Ohmm. Micronormal shows a higher value
than microinverse (positive separation).
129
Table 4-2. A selected interval (6786.3-6788.6 ft) shows an anomaly less than Minus 5
Ohmm, well NBU 1022-9E.
Separati
#DEPTH Anomaly Natural Induced Resistive Micro- EMI Caliper Tool No Wash- Key-
on Fracture Fracture Fracture Faults Breakout Breakout Rotation Elongation out Seat
(ft) Number
(Ohmm)
Minus
6786.30 -5.21 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
42
Minus
6786.40 -5.61 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
42
Minus
6786.50 -6.03 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
42
Minus
6786.60 -6.61 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
42
Minus
6786.70 -7.19 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
42
Minus
6786.80 -7.77 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
42
Minus
6786.90 -8.35 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
42
Minus
6787.00 -8.94 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
42
Minus
6787.10 -8.62 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
42
Minus
6787.20 -8.31 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
42
Minus
6787.30 -8 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
42
Minus
6787.40 -7.69 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
42
Minus
6787.50 -7.38 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
42
Minus
6787.60 -7.45 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
42
Minus
6787.70 -7.53 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
42
Minus
6787.80 -7.61 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
42
Minus
6787.90 -7.68 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
42
Minus
6788.00 -7.75 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
42
Minus
6788.10 -7.71 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
42
Minus
6788.20 -7.67 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
42
Minus
6788.30 -7.63 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
42
Minus
6788.40 -7.59 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
42
Minus
6788.50 -7.55 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
42
130
Table 4-3. Comparison of microlog anomalies to other borehole features, well Glenbench
822-27P.
Natural Induced Resistive EMI Caliper Tool No Key
Anomaly Plus 10 (Glenbench 822-27P) Fracture Fracture Fracture Fault BreakOut BreakOut Rotation Elongation WashedOut Seats
Number of anomaly related to the feature 2 4 0 0 4 3 12 2 2 0
PERCENTAGE 14.29% 28.57% 0.00% 0.00% 28.57% 21.43% 85.71% 14.29% 14.29% 0.00%
Total Anomaly Number 14
Anomaly Minus 10 (Glenbench 822- Natural Induced Resistive EMI Caliper Tool No Key
27P) Fracture Fracture Fracture Fault BreakOut BreakOut Rotation Elongation WashedOut Seats
PERCENTAGE 5.56% 15.28% 1.39% 0.00% 43.06% 48.61% 59.72% 19.44% 4.17% 4.17%

Anomaly Plus 5 (Glenbench 822-27P) Fracture Fracture Fracture Fault BreakOut BreakOut Rotation Elongation WashedOut Seats
PERCENTAGE 13.43% 14.93% 1.49% 0.00% 14.93% 19.40% 71.64% 20.90% 4.48% 1.49%

Anomaly Minus 5 (Glenbench 822-27P) Fracture Fracture Fracture Fault BreakOut BreakOut Rotation Elongation WashedOut Seats
PERCENTAGE 13.21% 10.38% 1.89% 0.94% 38.68% 42.45% 66.04% 24.53% 4.72% 2.83%

131
Microlog Anomaly, Percentage of Correlations, Vs. Borehole Features, Well Glenbench 822-
27P
100.0%
90.0%
Anomaly Percentage of correlation, %
80.0%
70.0%
60.0% Anomaly Plus 10 ohmm
50.0% Anomaly Minus 10 ohmm
Anomaly Plus 5 ohmm

40.0%
Anomaly Minus 5 ohmm
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
re
re
re
ut
n
ut
ts
ut
t
ul
tio
io
kO
tu
O
tu
tu
ea
dO
Fa
at
ac
ak
ga
ac
ac
S
ea
ot
he
Fr
re
on
Fr
Fr
y
R
Br
as
Ke
IB
e
El
d
al
ol
W
tiv
er
ce
ur
To
o
ip
is
du
N
E
at
al
es
N
In
C
R
Borehole Feature
Figure 4-6. Correlation between borehole features and microlog anomalies, well
Glenbench 822-27P.
132
Table 4-4. Comparison of microlog anomalies to other borehole features, well NBU
1022-9E.
Anomaly Plus 10 (NBU 1022-9E) Fracture Fracture Fracture Fault BreakOut BreakOut Rotation Elongation WashedOut Seats
Number of anomaly related to the
feature 2 3 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0
PERCENTAGE 33.33% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
Anomaly Miuus 10 (NBU 1022- Natural Induced Resistive EMI Caliper Tool No Key
9E) Fracture Fracture Fracture Fault BreakOut BreakOut Rotation Elongation WashedOut Seats
feature 59 17 7 2 12 78 134 5 0 38
PERCENTGE 27.70% 7.98% 3.29% 0.94% 5.63% 36.62% 62.91% 2.35% 0.00% 17.84%

Anomaly Plus 5 (NBU 1022-9E) Fracture Fracture Fracture Fault BreakOut BreakOut Rotation Elongation WashedOut Seats
feature 5 1 0 0 10 8 25 0 0 0
PERCENTAGE 16.13% 3.23% 0.00% 0.00% 32.26% 25.81% 80.65% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
Anomaly Minus 5 (NBU 1022- Natural Induced Resistive EMI Caliper Tool No Key
9E) Fracture Fracture Fracture Fault BreakOut BreakOut Rotation Elongation WashedOut Seats
feature 82 34 12 3 25 114 193 6 5 48
PERCENTAGE 28.08% 11.64% 4.11% 1.03% 8.56% 39.04% 66.10% 2.05% 1.71% 16.44%
100.0%
90.0%
Anomaly Percentage of Correlation, %
80.0%
70.0%
60.0%
Anomaly Plus 10 ohmm
50.0%
Anomaly Plus 5 ohmm
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
re
re
re
ut
n
ut
ts
ut
t
io
io
ul
O
tu
tu
tu
ea
dO
Fa
at
at
ak
ac
ak
ac
ac
S
ng
ot
he
re
Fr
re
Fr
Fr
ey
R
lo
as
B
IB
e
d
al
K
E
ol
W
tiv
er
ce
ur
To
o
ip
is
N
du
E
at
al
es
N
In
C
R
Borehole Features
Figure 4-7. Correlation between borehole features and microlog anomalies, well NBU
1022-9E.
133
Table 4-5. Comparison of microlog anomalies to other borehole features, well NBU 222.
Natural Induced Resistive EMI Caliper No Washed- Key-

Anomaly Plus 10 (NBU 222) Fracture Fracture Fracture Fault BreakOut BreakOut Tool Rotation Elongation Out Seats
PERCENTAGE 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
Natural Induced Resistive EMI Caliper No Key

Anomaly Minus 10 (NBU 222) Fracture Fracture Fracture Fault BreakOut BreakOut Tool Rotation Elongation WashedOut Seats
PERCENTGE 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Anomaly Plus 5 (NBU 222) Fracture Fracture Fracture Fault BreakOut BreakOut Tool Rotation Elongation WashedOut Seats
PERCENTAGE 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Anomaly Minus 5 (NBU 222) Fracture Fracture Fracture Fault BreakOut BreakOut Tool Rotation Elongation WashedOut Seats
PERCENTAGE 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

134
Microlog Anomaly, Percentage of Correlations, vs. Borehole Features, Well NBU 222
100.0%
90.0%
Anomaly Percentage of Correlation, %
80.0%
70.0%
60.0% Anomaly Plus 10 ohmm

50.0%
Anomaly Plus 5 ohmm
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
re
re
re
ut
n
ut
ts
ut
t
ul
tio
io
kO
tu
O
tu
tu
ea
dO
Fa
at
ga
ac
ak
ac
ac
S
ea
ot
he
Fr
re
on
Fr
Fr
ey
R
Br
as
IB
e
El
d
al
K
ol
W
er
tiv
ce
ur
To
o
ip
is
N
du
E
at
al
es
N
In
C
R
Borehole Features
Figure 4-8. Correlation between borehole features and microlog anomalies, well NBU
222. No microlog anomalies are present in this well.
135
separation. All anomalies were also compared with both natural and induced fractures
together in another view. The result is shown in Table 4-6 and Figure 4-9. Generally,
borehole breakouts have the highest correlation with microlog anomalies among all
borehole features.
As discussed earlier, in fractured zones, the microlog should show the same value
as mud resistivity. Based on this assumption, three study wells (Glenbench 822-27P,
NBU 1022-9E, and NBU 222) were analyzed and the results are shown in Table 4-7 and
Figure 4-10. In this case, the difference between mud resistivity and microlog resistivities
is calculated as ( ABS (R 2"- R m ) and ABS (R1"*1"- R m ) ) . ABS (R 2"- R m ) is the
absolute difference between micronormal resistivity reading and mud resistivity and
ABS (R1"*1"- R m ) is the absolute difference between microinverse reading and mud
resistivity. The sensitivity value is assumed as 1 Ohmm. In other words, where

(R 2" - R m )<1 and (R1"*1" - R m )<1 , it is assumed that the microlog shows the same
value as mud resistivity. According to this assumption, the data analyzed and the results
are listed in the Table 4-7. In two study wells (Glenbench 822-27P, and NBU 1022-9E),
the maximum correlation is assigned to borehole breakouts, which is around 55%. In well
NBU 222, induced fractures had the maximum correlation of 74%. Borehole breakouts in
this case have a maximum 40% correlation.
Well NBU 222 was also analyzed according to Schlumberger’s experimental
equation, to detect fractures. This well is the only well, among the three study wells, that
was measured by the MCFL. Table 4-8 and Figure 4-11 show the obtained results. The
maximum correlation of 81% for the induced fractures is the result of this analysis.
Natural fractures had only 13% correlation with found anomalies.
4.4 Discussion
The continuous intervals which showed anomalies were compared with different
136
Table 4-6. Different anomalies related to natural and induced fractures combined, wells
Glenbench 822-27P and NBU 1022-9E.
Anomaly Plus 10 (Glenbench 822-27P) Anomaly Plus 10 (NBU 1022-9E)
Number of anomalies related to Natural and Induced Fractures 6 Number of anomalies related to Natural and Induced Fractures 5
Percentage 42.86% Percentage 83.33%
Total Anomaly Number 14 Total Anomaly Number 6
Anomaly Minus 10 (Glenbench 822-27P) Anomaly Minus 10 (NBU 1022-9E)
Anomaly Plus 5 (Glenbench 822-27P) Anomaly Plus 5 (NBU 1022-9E)

Anomaly Minus 5 (Glenbench 822-27P) Anomaly Minus 5 (NBU 1022-9E)
Number of anomalies related to Natural and Induced Fractures 23 Number of anomalies related to Natural and Induced Fracturs 106
100.0%
90.0%
80.0%
70.0%
CorrelationPercentage, %
60.0%
Well Glenbench 822-27P

50.0%
Well NBU 1022-9E
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
Anomaly Plus 10 Anomaly Minus 10 Anomaly Plus 5 Anomaly Minus 5
Different Anomalies
Figure 4-9. Percentage of correlation for both natural and induced fractures combined and
different microlog anomalies, wells Glenbench 822-27P and NBU 1022-9E.
137
Table 4-7. Comparison of microlog anomalies to other borehole features in three study
wells. It is assumed that the fracture has filled with mud and the fracture resistivity is the
same as the mud resistivity.
Well Glenbench-27P Fracture Fracture Fracture Fault BreakOut BreakOut Rotation Elongation WashedOut Seats
Number of anomalies related to the
feature 0 0 0 0 27 21 28 2 10 2
Percentage 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 56.25% 43.75% 58.33% 4.17% 20.83% 4.17%

Well NBU 1022-9E Fracture Fracture Fracture Fault BreakOut BreakOut Rotation Elongation WashedOut Seats
feature 2 0 1 0 27 18 29 0 3 2
Percentage 4.08% 0.00% 2.04% 0.00% 55.10% 36.73% 59.18% 0.00% 6.12% 4.08%
Natural Induced Resistive FMI Caliper Tool No Key

Well NBU 222 Fracture Fracture Fracture Fault BreakOut BreakOut Rotation Elongation WashedOut Seats
feature 6 68 0 0 37 0 67 3 17 0
Percentage 6.95% 74.73% 0.00% 0.00% 40.66% 0.00% 73.63% 3.30% 18.68% 0.00%
Microlog Anomaly, Percentage of Correlation, vs. Borehole Features
80.0%
70.0%
Percentage of Correlation, %
60.0%
50.0%
Glenbench 822-27P
40.0% NBU 1022-9E
NBU 222
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
re
ut
re
re
n
ut
ts
ut
t
tio
ul
io
O
tu
O
tu
tu
ea
dO
Fa
at
ak
ga
ac
ak
ac
ac
S
ot
he
re
Fr
re
Fr
on
Fr
ey
R
as
B
IB
El
e
d
al
K
ol
tiv
W
er
ce
EM
ur
To
o
ip
is
N
du
at
al
es
N
In
C
R
Borehole Features
Figure 4-10. Correlation between borehole features and microlog anomalies in three
study wells. It is assumed that the fracture is filled with mud and the fracture resistivity is
the same as the mud resistivity.
138
Table 4-8. Comparison of microlog fracture anomalies based on the experimental

equation by Schlumberger and other borehole features, well NBU 222.
Natural Induced Resistive FMI Caliper Tool No Key

Well NBU 222 Fracture Fracture Fracture Fault Breakout BreakOut Rotation Elongation WashedOut Seats
Number of anomalies
related to the feature 13 79 0 0 14 0 72 4 25 0
PERCENTAGE 13.40% 81.44% 0.00% 0.00% 14.43% 0.00% 74.23% 4.12% 25.77% 0.00%
Microlog Anomaly, Percentage of Correlation, vs. Borehole Feature, Well NBU 222
100.0%
90.0%
80.0%
Percentage of Correlation, %
70.0%
60.0%
50.0% NBU 222
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
re
re
re
ut
n
t
s
ut
t
ou
ul
tio
at
io
kO
tu
tu
tu
dO
Fa
at
Se
ak
ga
ac
ac
ac
ea
ot
he
re
Fr
on
Fr
Fr
y
R
Br
IB
as
Ke
El
e
d
al
ol
W
er
tiv
ce
FM
ur
To
o
ip
is
N
du
at
al
es
N
In
C
R
Borehole Features
Figure 4-11. Correlation between different borehole features and microlog fracture
anomalies, well NBU222. In this case, the experimental equation defined by
Schlumberger is used.
139
borehole features that occur in the wellbores. The goal of this study is to find a
correlation between microlog anomalies and natural fractures. However, the maximum
obtained correlation was related to borehole breakouts and induced fractures. For the
same borehole features, anomaly Plus/Minus 10 Ohmm had a larger percentage range of
correlation than Plus/Minus 5 Ohmm. Therefore, no rule exists to make a correlation
between natural fractures and microlog anomalies. On the other hand, the result for NBU
222, based on the experimental equation by Schlumberger, suggests that the equation is a
good indicator of induced fractures, not natural fractures.
In summary, results suggest that it is not possible to consistently find natural
fractures using microlog signatures in Natural Buttes field. Because, the microlog is a
directional tool, which may explain the lack of correlation between natural fractures and
microlog anomalies.
140
CHAPTER 5
FRACTURE MODELING
Statistical analyses applied to micro-resistivity logs in fractured intervals did not

show a satisfactory correlation. This motivated us to evaluate the tool sensitivity and
limitations in fractured and non-fractured intervals. The logging tool used for the study is
the Micro Cylindrically Focused Log (MCFL). There is existing FORTRAN software
(XLOG and NSLV), provided by Baker Atlas for the Micro Spherically Focused Log
(MSFL), which we adopted for use in the correlation. Because, the geometry of the
MSFL and the MCFL tools are similar.
5.1 Tool Response
The input file is included in the XLOG program. The input file contains
information such as tool diameter, electrode configuration, and number of zones
(Briceno, 2003). This program calculates the resistivity of the formation in only one
direction (Figure 5-1). Depending on the assumptions made, the number of zones (n) can
change. For example, in Figure 5-1, there are five different zones. They are; 1- the
borehole, 2- invaded zone before the natural fracture, 3- the natural fracture, 4- invaded
zone behind the fracture, and 5- uninvaded zone. The program uses the inside of the
borehole as the first zone. The diameter of each zone varies in different models. For each
model, the input data includes the number of zones and the resistivity value for each
zone. The resistivity immediately behind the wellbore is the resistivity of the flushed
zone ( R xo ) and the resistivity of the last zone is equal to the resistivity of the uninvaded
zone or true resistivity ( R t ). The output file of the XLOG program is the input file for
141
Impermeable Bed Mud-cake
Invaded
Permeable Zone Undisturbed
Bed Zone Measurement
Rxo
Direction
Rt
di
Impermeable Bed
Natural Fracture
Figure 5-1. Model of fracture-invasion profile. In this model, there are five different
zones; 1- the wellbore, 2-invaded zone before the natural fracture, 3 the natural fracture,
4-invaded zone behind the fracture, and 5- undisturbed zone (Briceno, 2003).
142
the NSLV program. The procedure is to make a copy from the XLOG output and paste as
the NSLV input. According to the input data, NSLV gives a measured resistivity that is
obtained by the log using the specific tool and formation property entered in the model
(Briceno, 2003). According to Briceno (2003), the measured resistivity ( R meas ) is
different from the apparent resistivity ( R a ). This equation shows the relationship
between apparent and measured resistivities.
R a[Ω.m]= R meas .1[m]

Rh
where R h is a normalization factor. The value of R h is 6.914, which is the tool response
for a homogenous formation with resistivities for all zones equal to 1 Ohmm (Briceno,
2003). Appendix A shows an example of input and output files for the XLOG and NSLV
programs.
5.2 Effect of Natural Fractures on the Tool Response
5.2.1 Results
In the programs XLOG and NSLV, we put a single vertical fracture parallel to the
pad surface of the MSFL/MCFL, at different distances away from the wellbore. The
resistivity of the flushed zone ( R xo ) and uninvaded zone ( R t ) were kept constant in all
cases, and are 15 Ohmm and 30 Ohmm, respectively. Based on actual logs, these
resistivity numbers are typical for the study area.
In the program, a vertical natural fracture was introduced at different locations
from 2 to 14 in (5.08 to 35.56 cm) away from the wellbore, and the fracture width ranged
from 0.0001 in (0.0025 mm) to 0.6 in (15.24 mm). This is done for 4 different mud
resistivities (0.01, 0.10, 1.0, and 5.0 Ohmm). It is also assumed that mud invades the
143
fractures, not mud filtrate, and that all formation fluids would be displaced by the
invading mud. Water-based mud that fills fractures has less resistivity than neighboring
rocks. Therefore, fractured intervals may appear as high-conductivity zones in the
resistivity logs. To simplify, all results are presented in terms of conductivity for two
different units for fracture width (inch and millimeter), as illustrated in Figures 5-2
through 5-9.
5.2.2 Discussion
The models show that fracture distance from the wellbore has a significant effect
on the tool response. Mud resistivity is also important. In a very salty mud (0.01 Ohmm,
Figure 5-2), the model demonstrates that the tool is unable to detect any fracture more
than 12 in (30.48 cm) away from the wellbore. This decreases to around 8 in (20.32 cm)
for mud resistivity of 5.0 Ohmm (Figure 5-8). Therefore, fractures with large apertures at
distances greater than 12 in (30.48 cm) do not show any significant effect on the tool
response. Two general results can obtained from these modeling results: 1- fracture
distance away from the wellbore is an important factor on the tool response, 2- fracture
aperture plays a role for certain fracture distances away from the wellbore (a large effect
for shorter distances and less effect for longer distances).
5.3 Effect of Mud Resistivity and Fracture Aperture on Tool Response
5.3.1 Results
The previous model was run for different mud resistivity values, ranging from
0.01 Ohmm to 5.0 Ohmm. A vertical natural fracture was introduced at different
locations from 2 to 12 in (5.08 to 30.48 cm) away from the wellbore, and the fracture
width ranged from 0.0001 in (0.0025 mm) to 0.6 in (15.24 mm), as illustrated in Figures
5-10 through 5-15.
144
250
Conductivity, mmho/m
200 Fracture at 2 in
Fracture at 4 in
Fracture at 8 in
Fracture at 12 in
0
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1
Fracture width, in
fracture is located at different distances from 2 to 14 in (5.08 to 35.56 cm) away from the
wellbore. The resistivity of the invading mud into the fracture is 0.01 Ohmm. Fracture
width ranges from 0.0001 to 0.6 in. R xo and R t are 15 and 30 Ohmm, respectively.
250
Fracture at 2 in
Fracture at 6 in
150
Fracture at 8 in
Fracture at 12 in
0
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Fracture width, mm
width ranges from 0.00254 to 15.24 mm. R xo and R t are 15 and 30 Ohmm,
respectively.
145
250
Conductivity, mmho/m Fracture at 2 in
Fracture at 6 in
150
Fracture at 8 in
Fracture at 12 in
50
Fracture at 14 in
0
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1
Fracture width, in
width ranges from 0.0001 to 0.6 in. R xo and R t are 15 and 30 Ohmm, respectively.
250
Fracture at 2 in
Fracture at 6 in
150
Fracture at 8 in
Fracture at 12 in
0
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Fracture width, mm
respectively.
146
250
Fracture at 8 in
Fracture at 12 in
50
Fracture at 14 in
0
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1
Fracture width, in
wellbore. The resistivity of the invading mud into the fracture is 1 Ohmm. Fracture width
ranges from 0.0001 to 0.6 in. R xo and R t are 15 and 30 Ohmm, respectively.
250
Fracture at 2 in
Fracture at 6 in
150
Fracture at 8 in
Fracture at 12 in
50
Fracture at 14 in
0
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Fracture Width,mm
ranges from 0.00254 to 15.24 mm. RXO and Rt are 15 and 30 Ohmm, respectively.
147
250
200
Fracture at 4 in
Fracture at 6 in
150
Fracture at 8 in
Fracture at 12 in
0
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1
Fracture width, in
ranges from 0.0001 to 0.6 in. R xo and R t are 15 and 30 Ohmm, respectively.
250
Fracture at 2 in
Fracture at 6 in
150
Fracture at 8 in
Fracture at 12 in
0
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Fracture Width, mm
fracture is located at different distances from 2 in to 14 in (5.08 to 35.56 cm) away from
the wellbore. The resistivity of the invading mud into the fracture is 5 Ohmm. Fracture
respectively.
148
Conductivity,mmho/m 240
Rm=0.01 ohmm
Rm=0.05 ohmm
180 Rm=0.1 ohmm
Rm=0.3 ohmm
120 Rm=0.5 ohmm
Rm=0.8 ohmm
Rm=1 ohmm
60 Rm=3 ohmm
Rm=5 ohmm
0
0.0001 0.0010 0.0100 0.1000 1.0000
Fracture Width, in
Figure 5-10. The response of the tool in fractured intervals for different mud resistivities
(0.01 Ohmm to 5.0 Ohmm). A vertical fracture is located 2 in (5.08 cm) away from the
wellbore. R xo and R t are 15 and 30 Ohmm, respectively. Fracture width is in the range
of 0.0001 in (0.00254 mm) to 0.6 in (15.24 mm). The invasion radius was assumed to be
12 in (30.48 cm).
240
Rm =0.01 ohmm
Rm=0.05 ohmm
180 Rm=0.1 ohmm
Rm=0.3 ohmm
120 Rm=0.5 ohmm
Rm=0.8 ohmm
Rm=1 ohmm
60
Rm=3 ohmm
Rm=5 ohmm
0
0.0001 0.0010 0.0100 0.1000 1.0000
Fracture Width, in
12 in (30.48 cm).
149
240
Conductivity, mmho/m Rm=0.01 ohmm
Rm=0.05 ohmm
180 Rm=0.1 ohmm
Rm=0.3 ohmm
Rm=0.5 ohmm
120
Rm=0.8 ohmm
Rm=1 ohmm
60 Rm=3 ohmm
Rm=5 ohmm
0
0.0001 0.0010 0.0100 0.1000 1.0000
Fracture Width, in
12 in (30.48 cm).
240
Rm=0.01 ohmm
Rm=0.05 ohmm
180 Rm=0.1 ohmm
Rm=0.3 ohmm
120 Rm=0.5 ohmm
Rm=0.8 ohmm
Rm=1 ohmm
60 Rm=3 ohmm
Rm=5 ohmm
0
0.0001 0.0010 0.0100 0.1000 1.0000
Fracture Width, in
12 in (30.48 cm).
150
240
Rm=0.01 ohmm
Rm=0.05 ohmm
180 Rm=0.1 ohmm
Rm=0.3 ohmm
120 Rm=0.5 ohmm
Rm=0.8 ohmm
Rm=1 ohmm
60
Rm=3 ohmm
Rm=5 ohmm
0
0.0001 0.0010 0.0100 0.1000 1.0000
Fracture Width, in
wellbore. R xo and R t are 15 and 30 Ohmm, respectively. Fracture width is in the
range of 0.0001 in (0.00254 mm) to 0.6 in (15.24 mm). The invasion radius was assumed
to be 12 in (30.48 cm).
240
Rm=0.01 ohmm
Rm=0.05 ohmm
180 Rm=0.1 ohmm
Rm=0.3 ohmm
120 Rm=0.5 ohmm
Rm=0.8 ohmm
Rm=1 ohmm
60 Rm=3 ohmm
Rm=5 ohmm
0
0.0001 0.0010 0.0100 0.1000 1.0000
Fracture width, in
wellbore wall. R xo and R t are 15 and 30 Ohmm, respectively. Fracture width is in the
range of 0.0001 in (0.00254 mm) to 0.6 in (15.24 mm). The invasion radius was assumed
to be 12 in (30.48 cm).
151
5.3.2 Discussion
A relation exists between mud resistivity and fracture aperture for each fracture
location behind the wellbore (Figures 5-16). Figure 5-17 is a portion of Figure 5-16 at a
different scale. This is done to expand the data, because most of the data are in this range.
Therefore, it may show more data scattering than Figure 5-16. Each line indicates the
maximum mud resisitivity to detect fractures for a certain fracture aperture. For example,
in Figure 5-17, if there is a vertical fracture 2 in (5.08 cm) away from the wellbore, any
mud resistivity less than 0.76 Ohmm is appropriate to detect the fracture with the
minimum aperture of 0.03 in (0.76 mm). The maximum mud resistivity of 0.57 Ohmm
and 0.4 Ohmm similarly applies to vertical fractures at 4 in (10.16 cm) and 8 in (20.32
cm) away, respectively. In another words, for detecting a fracture with a certain aperture,
lower mud resistivity is needed at greater distances away from the wellbore.
5.4 Effect of Invasion on Tool Response
5.4.1 Results
The program was also run to evaluate invasion effects for fractured and non-
fractured zones. R xo and R t were kept constant at 15 and 30 Ohmm, respectively. In
the first model (fractured zone), fracture aperture was assumed to be 0.2 in (5.08 mm),
and the mud resistivity as 0.1 Ohmm. A vertical fracture is located 2, 4, and 6 in (5.08,
10.16, and 15.24 cm) away from the wellbore wall. The invasion radius ranged from 2 to
30 in (5.08 to 76.2 cm). The result is shown in Figure 5-18.
In the second model (non-fractured zone), the only variable was the radius of
invasion, which influenced the radius of the invaded zone ( R xo ) in the model. Other
parameters stayed the same as in the first model. Figure 5-19 shows the result.
152
4.5
3.5
Fracture at 2 in
Rm, ohmm
3 Fracture at 4 in
Fracture at 6 in
2.5
Fracture at 8 in
2 Fracture at 10 in
1.5 Fracture at 12 in
Linear (Fracture at
1 8 in)
Linear (Fracture at
6 in)
0.5 Linear (Fracture at
4 in)
Linear (Fracture at
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Fracture Width, in
fracture at different distances from the wellbore. Fracture width ranges from 0.0001 in
(0.00254 mm) to 0.6 in (15.24 mm) and mud resistivity ranges from 0.01 Ohmm to 5.0
Ohmm. R xo and R t are 15 and 30 Ohmm, respectively. The invasion radius was
assumed to be 12 in (30.48 cm).
153
1.6
1.4
Maximum Mud
1.2 Resistivity to
Detect Fractures
at Different Fracture at 2 in
1
Rm, ohmm
Fracture at 4 in
Fracture at 6 in
0.8
Fracture at 8 in
0.6 Fracture at 10 in
Fracture at 12 in
0.4 Linear (Fracture at
8 in)
Linear (Fracture at
0.2 6 in)
Linear (Fracture at
4 in)
Linear (Fracture at
0
0 0.03 0.06 0.09 0.12 0.15
Fracture Width, in
fracture at different distances from the wellbore. Fracture width ranges from 0.0001 in
(0.00254 mm) to 0.10 in (2.54 mm) and mud resistivity ranges from 0.01 Ohmm to 1.6
Ohmm. R xo and R t were 15 and 30 Ohmm, respectively. The invasion radius was
assumed to be 12 in (30.48 cm). Arrows show the maximum mud resistivity to detect a
fracture with the aperture of 0.03 in at different distances from the wellbore wall.
154
140
120
80 Fracture at 4 in
60
Fracture at 6 in
40
20
0
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32
Invasion Radius, in
Figure 5-18. The effect of invasion radius on conductivity in a fractured interval.

Invasion radius ranges from 2 to 30 in (5.08 to 76.2 cm). Fracture location varies from 2
to 6 in (5.08 to 15.25 cm) away from the wellbore. Fracture width assumed was 0.2 in
(5.08 mm) and the resistivity of the mud invading the fracture was 0.10 Ohmm.
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Invasion Radius, in
Figure 5-19. The effect of invasion radius on conductivity in a non-fractured zone.

Invasion radius ranges from 2 to 30 in (5.08 to 76.2 cm). R xo and R t are 15 and 30
Ohmm.
155
5.4.2 Discussion
Figure 5-18 indicates that the effect of invasion is negligible in the fractured
intervals. Figure 5-19 demonstrates that the effect of invasion faded for distances longer
than 12 in (30.48 cm) away from the wellbore. In another words, the effect of R t is
negligible for an invasion radius larger than 12 in (30.48 cm). This confirms that the tool
is unable to detect any type of anomaly beyond 12 in (30.48 cm) from the wellbore wall.
5.5 Effect of Fracture Density on Tool Response
5.5.1 Results
Fracture density (number of fractures) is a factor that may influence the MCFL
tool response. To evaluate, we developed two different models. Fracture density, fracture
aperture, and fracture spacing are the variable parameters in these models. In the first
model, the fracture widths were kept constant as 0.2 in (5.08 mm), whereas fracture
spacing changes from 1 to 5 in (2.54 to 12.7 cm). Fracture density ranges from 1 to 10.
The result is shown in Figure 5-20. The first fracture is assumed to be 2 in (5.08 cm)
away from the wellbore wall.
In the second model, fracture spacing was kept constant 2 in (5.08 cm). Fracture
aperture ranges from 0.0001 in (0.00254 mm) to 0.6 in (15.24 mm) and mud resistivity
was assumed to be 0.10 Ohmm. The model was run for different fracture density from 1
to 6. The result is shown in Figure 5-21.
5.5.2 Discussion
According to Figure 5-20, for fracture density more than 2, the tool does not show
156
Conductivity, mmho/m 160
155
Fracture spacing=1 in
150 Fracture spacing=2 in
145
140 Fracture spacing=5 in
135
130
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Fracture Density
Figure 5-20. The effect of fracture density on conductivity for different fracture spacing.
R xo and R t are 15 and 30 Ohmm. Fracture width assumed was 0.2 in (5.08 mm) and the
resistivity of the mud invading the fracture was 0.10 Ohmm. The invasion radius was
assumed to be 12 in (30.48 cm).
200
Number of Fract ures=1

150

100 Number of Fract ures=4

50
0
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1
fracture aperture, in
Figure 5-21. The effect of fracture density on MCFL tool response. R xo and R t are 15
and 30 Ohmm. Fracture width ranges from 0.0001 in (0.00254 mm) to 0.6 in (15.24 mm)
and the resistivity of the mud invading the fracture was 0.10 Ohmm. The invasion radius
was assumed to be 12 in (30.48 cm).
157
a significant effect. This is correct for fracture spacing more than 2 in (5.08 cm).
Although, for fracture spacing of 1 in (2.54 cm), fracture density more than 2 does not
show a significant difference in the conductivity, but for fracture density more than 5 and
6 the conductivity becomes constant. According to Figure 5-21, the effect of fracture
density is negligible for any fracture aperture less than 0.002 in (0.05 mm). It also
demonstrates that, for a certain fracture aperture, fracture density more than 2 does not
affect the tool response significantly. For a certain fracture aperture, there is also no
significant difference on conductivity between fracture density of 1 and 2. A possible
explanation is that part of the induced current in the formation prefers to go through the
first fracture behind the wellbore. This occurs because of low mud resistivity inside of the
fracture. The rest of the current that has less intensity than the initial current. Therefore,
the effect of fractures located further away from the wellbore will be negligible on the
tool response. This is because induced current will diminish due to fractures close to the
wellbore.
5.6 Effect of the Flushed and Uninvaded Zones Resistivities on Tool Response
5.6.1 Results
The resistivity of the flushed zone and uninvaded zone are two input parameters
for the input file. Several assumed values for R xo (10 to 70 Ohmm) and R t (10 to 150
Ohmm) were applied to the model. The range of 10 to 70 for R xo and 10 to 150 for
R t were considered, only to cover possible values in the study area. In this model, a
vertical fracture was assumed at 4 in (10.16 cm) away from the wellbore with a 0.2 in
(5.08 mm) aperture, filled by mud with resistivity of 0.10 Ohmm. The result is presented
in Figure 5-22.
158
200
180 Rxo=10 ohmm
160
Rxo=20 ohmm
140
Rxo=30 ohmm
120
100 Rxo=40 ohmm
80 Rxo=50 ohmm
60 Rxo=60 ohmm
40
Rxo=70 ohmm
20
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Rt, ohmm
Figure 5-22. Tool response for various values of R xo and R t . Invasion radius was
assumed to be 5 in (12.7 cm). A vertical fracture with an aperture of 0.2 in is located 4 in
(10.16 cm) away from the wellbore. The resistivity of the invading mud that fills the
fracture is 0.10 Ohmm.
159
5.6.2 Discussion
According to Figure 5-22, for R xo less than 30 Ohmm and R t less than 50
Ohmm, the tool shows small response. In another words, for R xo less than 30 Ohmm, the
effect of R t more than 50 Ohmm is negligible. On the other hand, an increase in R xo up
to 70 Ohmm does not show any influence from R t on the tool measurement. Therefore,
using this tool for high values of R xo and R t is not recommended.
5.7 Application to Borehole
Based on the above evaluation, the MCFL tool is capable of detecting natural
fractures under certain conditions. Accordingly, we plotted resistivity log data from a
selected well (NBU 222) measured by MCFL versus depth. Then, we compared the
resistivity logs with image logs. Three different resistivity logs were utilized to find
a correlation for natural fracture zones determined by image logs. They are: 1- the
resistivity of the flushed zone ( R xo8 ), 2- deep laterolog resistivity (HLLD), and 3-
shallow laterolog resistivity (HLLS). We assume that if an open natural fracture exists
close to the wellbore, R xo8 (log related to MCFL tool) may detect it, when mud is
appropriately salty and fracture aperture is high enough. Based on the radius of
investigation for different logs (HLLD and HLLS higher than Rxo8, Figure 5-23), HLLD
and HLLS can be influenced by fracture conductivity zones.
Mud resistivity at each depth was calculated based on the mud resistivity of the
measured sample at the surface temperature. They were 0.02, 0.70, and 0.50 Ohmm, for
NBU 222, NBU 921-29N, and Pawwinnee 3-181, respectively. According to the
correlation between fracture aperture and mud resistivity in Figures 5-16 and 5-17,
natural fractures with a minimum aperture of 0.005 in (0.12 mm), 0.03 in (0.7 mm), and
160
Laterologs (shallow/ deep)
Micro-resistivity
Figure 5-23. Radius of investigation of different resistivity tools. Laterologs

(shallow/deep) cover more rock volume in their measurements than micro-resistivity logs
(Peeters, 2004).
161
0.02 in (0.5 mm) can be detected in wells NBU 222, NBU 921-29N, and Pawwinnee
3-181, respectively. The mentioned resistivity logs were plotted versus depth in terms of
conductivity. Then, they were compared to the detected fractures from image logs.
Comparison of resistivity and image logs indicates a correlation with a sharp peak in the
R xo8 log at fracture locations. The HLLD (deep laterolog) and HLLS (shallow
laterolog), however, show only small curvatures at fracture locations, as illustrated in

Figures 5-24 and 5-25.
Note that the drilling-induced shallow fractures did not show these effects. The
possible explanation can be based on radius of investigation. In other words, the HLLD
and HLLS consider greater volume of material in their measurements than the R xo8 log.
In fact, the effect of R t on the HLLD and HLLS logs is higher than the effect of shallow
drilling-induced fractures on these logs. On the other hand, the R xo8 log measures the
resistivity of the volume of material close to the wellbore. Therefore, it can be affected by
the presence of induced fracture near the wellbore. Non-fractured intervals did not also
show any effect on the HLLD and HLLS. Figure 5-26 shows a non-fractured interval.
The R xo8 log shows a sharp peak, while the HLLD and HLLS logs show small
curvatures in the reverse direction. Comparing this type of feature to the image and GR
logs, sandstone beds have been confirmed. The probable explanation is that mud has
infiltrated into the tight sandstones, while the invasion is not deep enough to influence the
HLLD and HLLS logs. Therefore, based on the investigation radius, the R xo8 log is
influenced by fractures more than the other resistivity logs (HLLD and HLLS logs).
Drilling-induced fractures did not show consistent behavior on the resistivity logs. In
fact, the R xo8 log shows a peak, but the HLLD and HLLS logs appear in variable trends.
I looked at all induced fracture intervals for three wells in the study area (NBU 222,
162
Rxo8
HHLD
HLLS
180
160
C o n d u c tiv ity , m m h o /m
140
120
100
80
60
40
20 Natural Fracture
0
9490 9492 9494 9496 9498 9500 9502 9504 9506 9508 9510
Depth, ft
Figure 5-24. A natural fracture in the interval 9496-9502 ft, well NBU 222. R xo shows a
sharp peak in the middle of the fracture (at 9499.5 ft), whereas HLLD and HLLS show
only a small curvature change. The estimated mud resistivity at formation condition is
0.02 Ohmm.
163
Rxo8
HHLD
HLLS
100
90 `
80
70
60
50
40
30
20 Natural Fractures
10
0
7490 7492 7494 7496 7498 7500 7502 7504 7506 7508 7510
Depth, ft
Figure 5-25. Two natural fractures in the interval 7497-7503 ft, well NBU 222. The
R xo8 log shows a peak in this interval whereas the HLLD and HLLS logs show only a
small curvature change. The estimated mud resistivity at formation condition is 0.02
Ohmm.
164
Rxo8
HHLD
HLLS
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
8320 8321 8322 8323 8324 8325 8326 8327 8328
Depth, ft
Figure 5-26. The R xo8 log shows a sharp peak in a non-fractured tight sandstone,
whereas the HLLD and HLLS logs show small curvature changes in the opposite
direction in the interval 8322.5-8324.5 ft, well NBU 222. The image log shows a highly
resistive sandstone (light color) and the GR log confirms a sandstone interval.
165
Pawwinnee 3-181, and NBU 921-29N) but no consistent results were observed. Figures
5-27 and 5-28 present two different appearances for induced fractures on the resistivity
logs.
5.8 Effect of Washouts and Breakouts
Intervals with breakouts and washouts show significant effects on the response of
resistivity logs. In the elongated intervals, the tool cannot be pressed against the wellbore
wall. This creates a distance between the measuring buttons and the wellbore wall. This
standoff is filled by mud. Because mud has low resistivity, in the case of large
washouts/breakouts, the tool measurement partially includes the mud resistivity. Figures
5-29 and 5-30 show washout and breakout effects on the resistivity logs.
5.9 Model Application
We applied the results of this investigation to two other wells (Pawwinnee 3-181
and NBU 921-29N) to detect natural fractures. The mud resistivity for Pawwinnee 3-181
Well is 1.225 Ohmm at the surface temperature, which is 0.5 Ohmm at formation
conditions. Before looking at image logs, we reviewed the resistivity log results to see
any “peaks.” Then, we looked at the caliper logs to see if any peaks could be related to
washout or breakouts. This indicated that 98 percent of the peaks were in
washout/breakout intervals. Furthermore, the image logs confirmed the breakout sections.
When breakouts and washouts are removed with caliper logs, the micro-resistivity logs
proved to be good fracture indicators in this well.
Well NBU 921-29N has a mud resistivity of 1.71 Ohmm at the surface
temperature and a calculated value of 0.7 Ohmm at formation conditions. According to
Figures 5-16 and 5-17, with optimal conditions of a fracture being 2 in (5.08 cm) behind
166
Rxo8
HHLD
HLLS
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
8330 8331 8332 8333 8334 8335
Depth, ft
Figure 5-27. The R xo8 log shows a peak, whereas the HLLD and HLLS logs have a
small curvature change in the opposite direction in the interval 8331.5-8333.5 ft, well
NBU 222. The image log shows a drilling-induced fracture in this interval.
167
Rxo8
HHLD
HLLS
200
180 `
160
140
120
100 Induced Fracture
80
60
40
20
0
7610 7615 7620 7625 7630 7635 7640
Depth, ft
Figure 5-28. The R xo8 log shows peaks, whereas the HLLD and HLLS logs appear as
constant values in the interval 7619-7629 ft, well NBU 222. The image log shows a
drilling-induced fracture in this interval.
168
Borehole Diameter, in
6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5
8520
8530
8540
D e pth, ft Bit Size

8550
Caliper 1-3
Caliper 2-4
Washout
8560
8570
8580
Rxo8
HHLD
HLLS
250
200
150
100
50
0
8520 8530 8540 8550 8560 8570 8580
Depth, ft
Figure 5-29. The effect of washout on R xo8 , HLLD, and HLLS. Calipers show a
borehole washout from 8540 ft to 8570 ft, well NBU 222.
169
9624 9619
900
800
700
600
500
Rxo8
HHLD
400 AT90-CON
300
200 Breakout
100
0
9615 9620 9625 9630
Depth, ft
Figure 5-30. The effect of breakout on R xo8 , HLLD, and HLLS. The image log shows a
borehole breakout from 9619 ft to 9627 ft, well Pawwinnee 3-181.
170
the wellbore for detecting natural fractures with this mud resistivity, a minimum fracture
aperture of 0.03 in (0.76 mm) is needed. Thus, we could not detect fractures accurately.
Based on logs interpreted by Schlumberger, image logs show a maximum fracture width
of 0.01 in (0.254 mm) in only a few intervals. Thus, the majority of fractures are smaller
than 0.01 in (0.254 mm). Therefore, one should not expect to detect fractures with micro-
resistivity logs. The same is true for the Pawwinnee 3-181 well.
5.10 Discussion
In Chapter 4, several approaches were applied to find a correlation between

natural fractures determined by image logs and micro-resistivity logs. Inconsistent results
motivated us to use existing FORTRAN software provided by Baker Atlas to evaluate the
sensitivity and limitation of the tool in fractured intervals. In fact, here we wanted to
prove that the MCFL tool is capable of detecting natural fractures under certain
conditions. As discussed earlier, this program calculates resistivity in one direction. We
put a single vertical fracture at different distances from the wellbore. We also assumed
that there is no intersection between fractures and wellbore. Of course, these assumptions
do not satisfy the real cases. In reality, we may have a fracture network in which no
fracture is vertical. In the applied model, if we use two or more vertical fractures, it
would be difficult to analyze. This is because the distance between the fractures and
fracture aperture for each single fracture comes into the assumptions. Of course, this is
done for two simple models in the section on fracture density. Resistivity of the flushed
zone and uninvaded zone is assumed as a constant for all applied models. During
invasion, we also assumed that mud has swept the formation hydrocarbons or formation
water. But in reality, we have irreducible water or hydrocarbon in the formation, which
affects the resistivity measurement. In addition, the resistivity of the mud can increase by
mixing with formation material during the drilling process. This increase also causes an
additional problem in mud resistivity for detecting fractures. This can be totally different
171
from the calculated resistivity value at formation temperature. Based on drilling records,
brine pills are the most common additive materials to mud in GNB to kill wells prior to
logging. According to the available information, these additive brine pills have not been
circulated in the borehole. If this is true, not only the resistivity of mud changes due to
the field temperature gradient, but also it appears as totally different resistivities at
different depths. This causes different readings in micrologs ( R INV >R NOR ), which is
opposite from what is expected. This magnifies, especially in the sandstone intervals that
have gas, where density-neutron logs show crossover. Normally, R INV should be very
low in intervals with shallow invasion. But this is not true in the sandstone intervals
containing gas in the study area. In the same intervals, other resistivity logs showed the
same problem. R DFL , which is the RXO focused-log reading, shows higher value than
deep ( R HDRS ) and medium ( R HMRS ) resistivities while the deeper logs ( R HDRS )
and ( R HMRS ) should have higher resistivities than R DFL . This is disturbing in the
sandstone intervals that have gas, where density-neutron logs show crossover. All of
these problems are seen in wells NBU 1022-9E and Glenbench 822-27P. The problem
was discussed with a log analyst (Dr. Dick Merkel) and he believed that the resistivity
logs obtained from well Glenbench 822-27P are not correct. According to Dick Merkel
(pers.commun., 2005) the resistivity logs obtained from NBU 1022-9E are also not
reliable. Examples are shown in Figures 5-31 and 5-32.
172
GR
Micronormal
Sandstone
Interval
Microinverse
Figure 5-31. Different readings in micrologs ( R INV >R NOR ) in sandstone intervals,
well NBU 1022-9E.
173
HDRS (Red Line)
DFL (Black Line)
Density-neutron
cross-over
Figure 5-32. The R DFL log shows a higher or equal value than R HDRS , and R HMRS
logs in intervals that have gas. Density-neutron logs show crossover in gas intervals (well
NBU 1022-9E).
174
CHAPTER 6
CONCLUSIONS
AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 Conclusions
The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between natural
fractures detected by image logs and micro-resistivity logs. The major conclusions and
significant outcomes for this research are:
• Various approaches based on microlog separation were used to find a correlation

between natural fractures detected from image logs and microlog anomalies. They
did not show consistent results. Induced fracture detection from image logs (not
natural fractures) and borehole breakouts showed maximum correlation.
However, in one case (well NBU 222), no microlog anomalies were observed at
all.
• Several petrophysical models showed that the MCFL tool is capable of detecting
natural fractures parallel to the measuring pad but with restrictions on several
parameters. They are:
o Fracture distance from the wellbore wall: the models showed that the
MCFL tool cannot detect any fracture located further than 12 in (30.48
175
cm) for low mud resitivity (0.01 Ohmm) and 8 in (20.32 cm) away from
the wellbore wall for high mud resistivity (5.0 Ohmm).
o Fracture aperture and mud resistivity: study results showed that the MCFL
tool is capable of detecting a low aperture fracture in low resistivity mud
environment at a short distance from the wellbore.
o Fracture density: number of fractures (fracture density) more than 2 did
not show a significant effect on the MCFL tool response. However, the
response of the MCFL tool showed a small effect of fracture density when
the number of fractures increased from 1 to 2.
o Flushed zone and uninvaded zone resistivities: the model showed that low
resistivity for the flushed zone and uninvaded zone are recommended to
use the MCFL tool as a fracture detector.
• Based on the study wells, conductivity anomalies occur in intervals with natural
fractures, breakouts, washouts, and drilling induced fractures. When breakouts
and washouts are removed with caliper logs, the micro-resistivity logs proved to
be good fracture indicators (refer to attached CD Rom).
• Intervals of borehole elongation influence shallow resistivity tools response.
Therefore, to use micro-resistivity tools as a fracture indicator, the borehole
elongation must be identified independently.
• Two applied methods (borehole breakout and induced fracture) show the WNW-
ESE orientation for the SHmax direction in the study area.
• Study results in Natural Buttes field show that natural fracture orientation aligns
with maximum horizontal stress (SHmax) in the study area. This is very important
in terms of reservoir drainage.
176
6.2 Recommendations
Based on porosity and deep resistivity logs, an R xo curve can be calculated. In a

borehole interval where the micro-resistivity is not affected by washouts and breakouts,
the difference between the calculated flushed zone resistivity and the measured micro-
resistivity could be a good fracture indicator. Documentation and verification of this
procedure is recommended for future work.
177
REFERENCES
Asquith, G., and Gibson, C., 1982, Basic well log analysis for geologists: AAPG
Methods in Exploration Series, No. 3, p. 43-44.
Babcock, E.A., 1978, Measurement of subsurface fractures from dipmeter logs: AAPG
Bulletin, v. 62, p. 1111-1126.
Barton, C.A., Moos, D., Peska, P., and Zoback, M.D., 1997, Utilizing wellbore image
data to determine the complete stress tensor: Application to Permeability
Anisotropy and Wellbore Stability: The Log Analyst, v. 38, No. 6, p. 21-33.
Bell, J.S., and Gough, D.I., 1986, Northeast-southwest compressive stress in Alberta:
Evidence from oil wells: Earth and Planetary Science Letters, v. 45, p. 475-482.
Bosworth, W.P., 1989, Use of borehole breakout studies in marathon production and
Exploration: Unpublished report, Marathon Oil Company, p. 21-33.
Briceno, M.G., 2003, Invasion profiles derived from shallow wireline logs:
Upublished thesis, Colorado School of Mines, Golden, CO, 230 p.
Brooks, M., 2002, Hydraulic fracture optimization on the Wasatch and Mesaverde
Formations of the Uinta Basin, Utah, USA: Unpublished paper, Schlumberger
Company.
178
Chidsey, C.T., Michael, D.L., and Jr., 1992, The fractured Green River and
Wasatch Formation of the Uinta Basin, Utah: Targets for horizontal
drilling, in Fouch, T.D., Nuccio, V.F., and Chidsey, T.C., Jr., eds.,
Hydrocarbon and mineral resources of the Uinta Basin, Utah and Colorado:
Utah Geological Association Guidebook 20, p. 123-126.
Climate diagnostics center, 2005, http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/USclimate/states.fast.html.
Doll, H.G., 1950, The Microlog- A new electrical logging method for detailed
determination of permeable beds: T. P. 2880, in Transactions of the AIME:
American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical and Petroleum Engineers, v. 189, p.
155-164.
Doupe, K.H., 2005, Structural compartmentalization at Cave Gulch field, Wind

River Basin, Wyoming: Unpublished thesis, Colorado School
of Mines, Golden, Co, 243 p.
Eisenmann, P., Gounot, M.T., Juchereah, B., Trouiller, J.C., and Whittaker, S.J., 1994,
Improved R xo measurements trough semi-active focusing: Paper SPE-28437
in SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition Proceedings, New Orleans,
LA, U.S.A, p. 781-794.
Fam, M.Y., Chemali, R., Seiler, D., Haugland, M., Stewart, W.F., 1995, Applying
electrical micro-imaging logs to reservoir characterization: Paper SPE-30608 in
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dalas, Texas.
Fouch, T.D., Nuccio, V.F., Osmond, J.C., Logan, M., William, B.C., and Wandrey,
C.J., 1992, Oil and gas in uppermost Cretaceous and Tertiary rock, Uinta
Basin, Utah, in Fouch, T.D., Nuccio, V.F., and Chidsey, T.C., Jr., eds.,
Grace, M., Newberry, B., and Koepsell, R., 1998, Geologic application of dipmeter and
borehole electrical images: Unpublished text book, Schlumberger Oilfield
Services, Marathon, Houston, Texas.
179
Hilchie, D.W., 2003, Old electrical log interpretation: AAPG Methods in

Exploration Series No.15, p. 61-70.
Hurley, N., Asquith, G., Krygowski, D., Henderson, S., 2004, Basic well log
analysis: AAPG Methods in Exploration Series, No.16, p. 151-163.
Johnson, R.C., Roberts, S.B., 2003, The Mesaverde total, petroleum system, Uinta-
Piceance province, Utah and Colorado in Petroleum systems and geologic
assessment of oil and gas in the Uinta-Piceance province, Utah and Colorado:
USGS, Uinta-Piceance Assessment Team, Chapter 7, p. 7-8.
Knight C.D., 2004, Borehole image analysis: Unpublished report, Kerr Mc Gee
Company.
Longman, M., Basse, R., and Pope, J., 2003, Characteristics of the Glenbench
Sandstone reservoir, Eocene Green River Formation, Glenbench Field,
Uintah County, Utah: The Mountain Geologist, v. 40, No. 4, p. 129-141.
Lorenz, J.C., 2003, Fracture system in the Piceance Basin: Overview and comparison
with fractures in the San Juan and Green River Basins in Peterson, K.M., Olson,
T.M., Anderson, D.N., Piceance Basin 2003 Guidebook: The Rocky Mountain
Association of Geologists, p.75-94.
Luthi, S.M., 2000, Geological well logs, their use in reservoir modeling, Springer- Verlag
Berlin- Heidelberg, Germany, P. 74-118.
Minton, G.E., 2000, Subsurface study of the Lewis Shale in the southern
Washakie and Sand Wash Basins using borehole images, core, well log,
and seismic data: Unpublished thesis, Colorado School of Mines, Golden,
Co, 220 p.
180
Nuccio,V.F., Schmoker. J.W., and Fouch, T.D., 1992, Thermal maturity, porosity,
and lithofacies relationships applied to gas generation and production in
Cretaceous and Tertiary low-permeability (tight) sandstones, Uinta Basin,
Utah, in Fouch, T.D., Nuccio, V.F., and Chidsey, T.C., and Jr., eds.,
Osmond, J.C., 2003, History of oil and gas exploration in the Uinta Basin, Utah:
The Mountain Geologist, v. 40, No. 4, p. 101-110.
Osmond, J.C., 1992, Greater Natural Buttes gas field, Uintah County, Utah, in
Fouch, T.D., Nuccio, V.F., Chidsey, T.C., and Jr., eds., Hydrocarbon and mineral
resources of the Uinta Basin, Utah and Colorado: Utah Geological Association
Guidebook 20, p. 143-159.
Peeters, M., 2004, Advanced formation evaluation course: Power Point presentation.
Plumb, R.A., and Hickman, S.H., 1985, Stress-induced borehole elongation: A

comparison between the four-arm dipmeter and the borehole televiewer in the
Auburn geothermal well: Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 90, No. B7,
p. 5513-5521.
Rider, M., 1996, The geological interpretation of well logs: Whittles Publishing,
Scotland, 280 p.
Schlumberger well Surveying corporation, 1958, Microdevices: Document No. 8,

Chapter 6, p. 71-81.
Schlumberger, 2004, http://www.slb.com/media/services/evaluation/geology/fmi.pdf?
Seiler, D., King, G., and Eubanks, D., 1994, Field test results of a six arm
microresistivity borehole imaging tool: SPWLA 35th Annual Logging
Symposium, Houston, Texas, p. W1-W21.
181
Shade, M.E., and Hansen, D.K.T., 1992, Drilled sidewall cores aid in interpretation of
the Tertiary Wasatch Formation, Natural Buttes Field, Utah in Fouch, T.D.,
Nuccio, V.F., Chidsey, T.C., and Jr., eds., Hydrocarbon and mineral resources of
the Uinta Basin, Utah and Colorado: Utah Geological Association Guidebook 20,
p. 193-196.
Thompson, L.B., 2002, Atlas of borehole imagery: AAPG/Datapages Discovery series 4,

CD ROM.
USGS, 2005, http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-0026-02/fs-0026-02.pdf
Zheng, Z., Ewy, R.T., and Cook, N.G.W., 1989, Topical report on rock physics of
borehole breakouts: Gas Research Institute, Department of Materials Science and
Engineering University of California, Berkeley.
Zoback, M.D., Moos, D., Mastin, L., and Anderson, R.N, 1985, Wellbore breakout and
in-situ stress: Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 90, No. B7, p. 5523-5531.
Zoback, M.L., and Zoback, M.D., 1989, Tectonic stress field of the continental United
States: GSA Memoir 172, p. 523-537.
182
APPENDIX A
BAKER ATLAS PROGRAM (XLOG & NSLV)
A.1 Example of Input File for XLOG
A vertical fracture is assumed being 2 in away from the wellbore. Fracture

aperture is 0.10 in. The resistivity of mud invading the fracture is 0.10 ohmm. R xo and
R t are 15 and 30 ohmm, respectively. Invasion radius is 12 in away from the wellbore.
XLOG V2.5b INPUT
NMODES 1
DFERR_FOR_DFUN 1.D-8
RERR_FOR_DCADRE 1.D-8
TOL_FOR_DLAGF0 1.D-8
NTOL_FOR_DLAGF0 1
SPERR_FOR_DSPLINE 0.D0
FORMATION_CASES
NZONES 5
DIAMETER 8.D0 10.D0 10.01D0 20.D0
RES_H 0.1D0 15.D0 0.1D0 15.D0 30.D0
TOOL_ID MLL_1D
TOOL_DIA 8.D0
SEG_LENGTH 0.1D0
TOOL_OFFSET 0.D0
ELECTRODES
94. 4
0.2 0
2.4 2
0.2 0
0.8 1
0.2 0
2.4 2
0.2 0
34. 4
0.2 0
183
4.0 3
0.2 0
39. 4
END
SEGMENTATION
2 1.0
4 5.0
7 2.0
8 4.0
9 10.0
10 20.0
END
LARMOR 5
RARMOR 1.4
A.2 Example of Output for XLOG File (Input for NSLV File)
XLOG V2.5b OUTPUT
TOOL_ID = MLL_1D
TOOL DIAMETER = 8.0000 INCHES
BASIC SEGMENT LENGTH = 0.1000 INCHES
TOOL OFFSET = 0.0000 INCHES
NUMBER OF MODES = 1
TOOL LAYOUT:
1) EACH NUMBER IN THE SEQUENCE BELOW DESIGNATES A SEGMENT AND

INDICATES
ITS FUNCTION.
2) THE NUMBER 0 INDICATES THAT THE SEGMENT IS AN INSULATOR.
3) A NUMBER EQUAL TO 1 OR GREATER INDICATES THAT THE SEGMENT IS AN
ELECTRODE.
4) ALL ELECTRODE SEGMENTS HAVING THE SAME NUMBER ARE CONNECTED
TOGETHER.
# 0 - 0.1000 INCHES
# 1 - 0.1000 INCHES
# 2 - 1.0000 INCHES
# 3 - 0.1000 INCHES
# 4 - 5.0000 INCHES
DESCRIPTION OF CASES RUN

========================================
CASE 1
ZONE OUTSIDE DIA. RESISTIVITY
(INCHES) (OHM-M)
184
1 8.0000 1.000E-01
2 10.0000 1.500E+01
3 10.0100 1.000E-01
4 20.0000 1.500E+01
5 INF. 3.000E+01
========================================
ERROR PARAMETERS
DFERR = 1.000E-08 (DFUN COMPUTATION)

RERR = 1.000E-08 (DCADRE)
TOL = 1.000E-08 (DLAGF0)
NTOL = 1 (DLAGF0)
SPERR = 0.000E+00 (DSPLINE)
NOTES FOR READING THE DATA TABULATED BELOW
1) THE ELECTRODE SEGMENT CURRENTS ARE FOR THE CASE WHERE ALL
SEGMENT VOLTAGES ARE SIMULTANEOUSLY 1.0 VOLT.
2) THE SEGMENT CURRENTS READING FROM LEFT TO RIGHT CORRESPOND TO

THE ELECTRODE SEGMENTS (OMITTING INSULATORS) IN THE TOOL LAYOUT.
DIAGRAM READING THAT DIAGRAM FROM LEFT TO RIGHT.
3) THE INTEGERS ABOVE AND TO THE LEFT OF THE MUTUAL RESISTANCE ARRAY
INDICATE ELECTRODE NUMBERS. INTEGER NO. 5 INDICATES THE INFINITY
ELECTRODE.
***** CASE NO 1 *****
INTEGRATION INFORMATION
IN DLAGF0:
NOFUN = 340
IERR = 0
IN DCADRE:
DCADRE INTEGRATION PERFORMED TO SPECIFIED ACCURACY
# OF RADIAL ZONES = 5
ZONE OUTSIDE DIA. RESISTIVITY
(INCHES) (OHM-M)
1 8.0000 1.000E-01
2 10.0000 1.500E+01
3 10.0100 1.000E-01
4 20.0000 1.500E+01
5 3.000E+01
185
# OF ELECTRODES = 4
MUTUAL RESISTANCES
1 2 3 4 5
1 0.00000E+00 1.57756E+01 4.08325E+04 1.11151E+02 9.49273E+02
2 1.57756E+01 0.00000E+00 5.56422E+03 9.35840E+00 1.32406E+02
3 4.08325E+04 5.56422E+03 0.00000E+00 1.07912E+01 2.16113E+02
4 1.11151E+02 9.35840E+00 1.07912E+01 0.00000E+00 3.23787E+00
5 9.49273E+02 1.32406E+02 2.16113E+02 3.23787E+00 0.00000E+00
NOTES:
1) THE INTEGERS ABOVE AND TO THE LEFT OF THE MUTUAL RESISTANCE

ARRAY INDICATE ELECTRODE NUMBERS.
2) INTEGER NO. 5 INDICATES THE INFINITY ELECTRODE.
A.3 Example of Output File for NSLV
NSLV.out
SOURCE = XLOG v2.5b

TOOL_ID = MLL_1D
TOOL OFFSET = 0.0000 INCHES
RESPONSE_NAME MLL
RESPONSE_ID MLL
BHDia DiaInv Rmud Rxo Rtru Rmeas
8.0 0.0 0.100 0.000 0.000 98.209600
A.4 Calculation of Apparent Resistivity
98.209600
R a[Ω.m]= R meas .1[m]= =14.20445 ohmm
Rh 6.914

T6146 PDF

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

T6146 PDF

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

USE OF MICROLOGS AND ELECTRICAL BOREHOLE

IMAGES FOR FRACTURE DETECTION,

NATURAL BUTTES FIELD,

UINTA BASIN, UTAH

micrologs or equivalent logs available, but no borehole images.

borehole images and by micro-resistivity logs in the study area.

resistivities: deeper-reading micronormal and shallow-reading microinverse. The difference

and microlog anomalies.

LIST OF FIGURES……………………………………………………………………. viii

LIST OF TABLES……………………………………………………………………... xxi

CHAPTER 6 ................................................................................................................... 174

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 176

APPENDIX A................................................................................................................. 181

Figure 2-2. Location of Greater Natural Buttes field ......................................................... 6

Figure 2-3. Location of three study wells in the field......................................................... 7

Figure 2-5.Generalized stratigraphic correlation chart . ................................................... 10

Figure 2-7. West-east chronostratigraphic chart............................................................... 12

Figure 2-9. Orientation of maximum horizontal compressive stress................................ 20

Figure 2-11. Rose diagram of the 62 vertical extension fractures in the………………

Figure 3-1. The Formation MicroImager (FMI) Tool of Schlumberger .......................... 28

Figure 3-6. Static image and dynamic image ................................................................... 39

Figure 3-7. Static normalization and dynamic normalization........................................... 40

Figure 3-9. The effective bit size . .................................................................................... 47

Figure 3-10. Debris builds up . ......................................................................................... 48

Figure 3-11. Dip angle and dip azimuth . ......................................................................... 49

Figure 3-12. Depth shifting .............................................................................................. 52

Figure 3-13. Cross sectional view of a borehole breakout ............................................... 53

Figure 3-16. A washout .................................................................................................... 61

Figure 3-18. Key seats . .................................................................................................... 63

Figure 3-23. Fracture identification. ................................................................................. 70

Figure 3-26. Near-vertical induced fracture, Well Glenbench 822-27P........................... 74

Figure 3-27. Relationship between SHmax, water-flooding, and hydraulic fracturing.... 75

Figure 3-28. En-echelon induced fractures in a deviated interval .................................... 77

Figure 3-29. Open natural fracture.................................................................................... 78

Figure 3-30. Healed fracture. ............................................................................................ 79

Figure 3-38. Dip direction of breakout. ............................................................................ 89

Figure 3-40. Frequency histogram of vector means of SHmax from continuous………….

Figure 3-44. Frequency histogram of vector means of SHmax from continuous

Figure 3-46. Frequency histogram of vector means of SHmax from continuous

Figure 3-48. Frequency histogram of vector means of SHmax from continuous

Figure 3-50. Frequency histogram of vector means of SHmax from continuous

Figure 3-51. Strike azimuth of SHmax obtained from induced fractures,

Figure 3-53. Frequency histogram of vector means of SHmax from continuous

Figure 3-54. Strike azimuth of SHmax obtained from induced fractures,

Figure 3-56. Frequency histogram of vector means of SHmax from continuous

Figure 3-57. Strike azimuth of SHmax obtained from induced fractures,

Figure 3-59. Frequency histogram of vector means of SHmax from continuous

Figure 3-74. Frequency histogram of vector means of SHmax from continuous

Figure 4-1. The 2-arm microlog apparatus . ................................................................... 117

Figure 4-7. Correlation between borehole features and microlog anomalies,

Figure 4-8. Correlation between borehole features and microlog anomalies,

Figure 5-1. Model of fracture-invasion profile. .............................................................. 141

Figure 5-23. Radius of investigation of different resistivity tools. ................................. 160

Table 3-1. FMI specifications . ......................................................................................... 31

Table 3-2. EMI specifications........................................................................................... 35

Table 3-3. FMI applications ............................................................................................. 42

Table 3-8. Quality-ranking system for stress orientations. ............................................. 110

Table 4-1. Microlog interpretation ................................................................................. 122

Table 4-3. Comparison of microlog anomalies to other borehole features,

Table 4-5. Comparison of microlog anomalies to other borehole features,

Table 4-7. Comparison of microlog anomalies to other borehole features in three

Table 4-8. Comparison of microlog fracture anomalies based on the experimental

Natural fracture detection is one of the most important goals in reservoir