Formation Density from a Cloud, While Drilling

Environmental, health and security concerns have encouraged service companies to search for alternatives to the traditional logging sources relied on for formation density measurements. Scientists recently developed a reliable LWD measurement that uses a pulsed neutron generator similar to those that have been deployed in wireline logging tools for decades.

Franoise Allioli Valentin Cretoiu Marie-Laure Mauborgne Clamart, France Mike Evans Sugar Land, Texas, USA Roger Grifths Petaling Jaya, Malaysia Fabien Haranger Christian Stoller Princeton, New Jersey, USA Doug Murray Abu Dhabi, UAE Nicole Reichel Stavanger, Norway
Oileld Review Summer 2013: 25, no. 2. Copyright 2013 Schlumberger. For help in preparation of this article, thanks to Doug Aitken, Sugar Land, Texas. EcoScope and NeoScope are marks of Schlumberger.

Formation density logs rst appeared in the mid1950s. Henri Doll, a Schlumberger research scientist who is credited with the development of the density measurement and many other petrophysical measurements in use today, received a patent for the concept in 1951. The formation density tool he helped design uses a radioisotopic source that emits gamma rays and then counts the gamma rays that return to the tool after passing through the formation. Recently, a new technique has been introduced that eliminates the traditional gamma ray source in logging-whiledrilling (LWD) applications. Density tools were originally referred to as gamma-gamma density (GGD) devices because gamma rays were emitted from a logging source and then returning gamma rays that passed through the formation were counted by the tool.1 The hardware and the electronics used in counting those returning gamma rays have undergone evolutionary changes over the past half century, yet the source has remained a fundamental requirement for formation density logging. Traditional wireline and LWD formation density tools use a cesium [137Cs] gamma ray source.2 To gain a statistically precise measurement, a 63-gigabequerel (GBq) or higher source strength is normally used.3 Density tools are not the only tools that use sources for petrophysical measurements. Traditional thermal neutron porosity measurements rely on americium beryllium [241AmBe] sources to generate the neutrons used in the measurement.

Service companies go to great lengths to minimize the risks associated with the use of sources; these devices must be handled carefully to avoid health, security and environmental concerns.4 In a number of locations throughout the world, the use of traditional source material is being discouraged or even banned. In response, service companies have sought to develop alternatives to tools that require sources.5 Increasingly, pulsed neutron generators (PNGs) are replacing 241AmBe neutron sources in both LWD and wireline applications.6 PNGs produce high-energy, fast neutrons using a charged particle accelerator. Inelastic collisions between these fast neutrons and the nuclei of a variety of atoms found in formation uids and minerals can put those nuclei in an excited state. Typically, the nuclei return to ground state by emitting one or more gamma rays. These gamma rays form a cloud that can act as a distributed source in the formation. The gamma rays undergo attenuation as they travel through the formation. As in the case of a radioisotopic source, the attenuation of these gamma rays depends mainly on the electron density of the materials making up the formation. Scientists have developed a technique that takes advantage of the distributed gamma ray cloud to compute formation density, although they rst had to develop a method that accurately modeled gamma ray transport from the formation to one or more detectors on a tool. The resultant bulk density measurement is similar to that

Oileld Review

from a GGD tool, but it comes from the neutroninduced gamma rays. The density derived from this technique is referred to as a sourceless neutron gamma density (SNGD) measurement.7 This article presents the SNGD measurement theory and discusses some of the advantages of a sourceless LWD density tool. Field results validate this new technique.
1. In this article, a source refers to a radioisotopic device used in petrophysical logging tools that emits ionizing radiation. 2. The radioisotope 137Cs has a half-life of 31.17 years and emits gamma rays with an average energy level of 662 keV. 3. A becquerel (Bq) is the activity of a quantity of radioactive material in which one nucleus decays per second. Prior to the adoption of Bq as a standard SI unit of measurement, radioactivity was expressed in curies (Ci), which was the radioactivity of 1 g of the radium isotope 226Ra. 1 GBq = 0.027027 Ci.

As Low as Reasonably Achievable Traditional sources used for petrophysical analysis are protected and isolated while being transported to and from drilling rigs and are stored in shields that protect personnel from exposure. Pressure vessels that house the radioactive elements are made from materials designed to protect sources from mechanical damage and
4. Evans M, Allioli F, Cretoiu V, Haranger F, Laporte N, Mauborgne M-L, Nicoletti L, Reichel N, Stoller C, Tarrius M and Grifths R: Sourceless Neutron-Gamma Density (SNGD): A Radioisotope-Free Bulk Density Measurement: Physics, Principles, Environmental Effects, and Applications, paper SPE 159334, presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, USA, October 810, 2012. 5. Reichel N, Evans M, Allioli F, Mauborgne M-L, Nicoletti L, Haranger F, Laporte N, Stoller C, Cretoiu V, El Hehiawy E and Rabrei R: Neutron-Gamma Density (NGD): Principles, Field Test Results and Log Quality Control

corrosion in the harsh wellbore environment. While inserting a source into a logging tool, workers follow strict safety practices to eliminate potential for exposure. When the tool is lowered below the rig oor, the potential for human exposure goes with it. Sources must be handled carefully, but when established safety precautions are followed, there is little risk of exposure.
of a Radioisotope-Free Bulk Density Measurement, Transactions of the SPWLA 53rd Annual Logging Symposium, Cartagena, Colombia, June 1620, 2012, paper GGG. 6. For more on pulsed neutron generators: Adolph B, Stoller C, Archer M, Codazzi D, el-Halawani T, Perciot P, Weller G, Evans M, Grant J, Grifths R, Hartman D, Sirkin G, Ichikawa M, Scott G, Tribe I and White D: No More Waiting: Formation Evaluation While Drilling, Oileld Review 17, no. 3 (Autumn 2005): 421. 7. The term sourceless indicates that this measurement does not use radioisotopic sources.

Summer 2013

Pulsed Neutron Generator Controls On-off switch Main power Ion source

High-voltage supply

241AmBe

Target

n p+
Deuterium
2H

n n p+
Tritium
3H

n n p+ p+
Helium
4He

n
Neutron

Kinetic energy E (17.6 MeV)

> Pulsed neutron generator (PNG). PNGs are self-contained particle accelerators that produce neutrons using a fusion reaction. A high voltage potential accelerates ionized deuterium and tritium isotopes of hydrogen toward a target doped with tritium (top). The fusion reaction (bottom) results in the production of a 4He nucleus and a neutron. The reaction energy is transferred into the kinetic energy of the two particles and is converted into heat when the particles are stopped in matter. The neutrons leave the reaction with very high speed, having kinetic energy of approximately 14 MeV of the total 17.6 MeV released. When the main power is disconnected, the PNG produces no neutrons.

In the early days of the nuclear age, which coincided with the development of many of the tools used in petrophysical analysis, radiation safety practices focused on time, distance and shielding: Minimize exposure time, keep maximum reasonable distance from radiation sources and maintain barriers (shielding) between people and material. These principles are still applied today for working with traditional sources, and exposure limits have been established to ensure the safety and health of workers who routinely handle these materials. Workers are also closely monitored to determine exposure levels. Observations of the long-term effects of radiation on humans resulting from surface detonation of nuclear devices, however, led scientists to develop a new methodology for dealing with human exposure. As low as reasonably achievable (ALARA) has emerged as the standard for regulators. The goal of ALARA is to eliminate exposure whenever and wherever possible, which has driven service companies to investigate alternatives to traditional sources such as 137Cs and 241AmBe. A PNG is one example of an alternative to traditional sources.8 A PNG is a miniature particle generator. Deuterium [2H] and tritium [3H] are accelerated into a tritium-doped target, and high-energy (approximately 14 MeV) neutrons are released (above). When not electrically energized, PNGs do not emit external radiation. Scientists and engineers developed the rst PNGs in the 1950s. These devices have since been adopted for many

downhole applications, including neutron porosity tools, cased hole formation evaluation tools and capture and inelastic spectroscopy services. PNGs have emerged as a viable alternative to 241AmBe sources. For LWD operations, turbine generators have been developed to supply the downhole electrical power needed to operate PNGs. This advance has allowed design engineers to incorporate PNGs in services such as the EcoScope multifunction logging-while-drilling service and the NeoScope tool.9 Attempts to replace 137Cs sources used in GGD tools used for formation density, considered by many geoscientists to be one of the most critical parameters for the quantitative determination of formation porosity, have not met with similar success until recently. Scientists have been unable to replace 137Cs-dependent measurements for a number of reasons. For example, there is no comparable electronic gamma ray generator, and replacing other sources was deemed a higher priority. The half-life of 241AmBe is 432 years, much longer than the approximately 30-year half-life of 137Cs. The activity of an 241AmBe source is higher and also more difcult to shield.10 If an LWD logging tool becomes stuck in a well, operators must ensure that the source will remain in place, intact and isolated for hundreds or even thousands of years. The shorter half-life of 137Cs and its lower radiotoxicity do not remove the risk, but, compared to 241AmBe, there is a reduced potential for long-term consequences.11

As a way to mitigate risk associated with sources, some operators have opted to use PNG-based wireline and LWD neutron porosity tools exclusively rather than tools with a traditional source. Additionally, the prospect that some countries may mandate the elimination of traditional sources entirely is a concern to both operators and service companies. Another reason for the delay in replacing density sources is that bulk density resulting from the GGD measurement is a fairly straightforward petrophysical parameter that has been accepted by the interpretation community for decades. Replacing GGD tools with SNGD tools adds a greater level of complexity and introduces some differences in measurement physics.12 As a consequence, scientists have invested considerable time and resources in understanding the physics involved in using induced gamma rays for density measurements. In 2005, scientists and engineers at Schlumberger introduced the algorithms needed to compute an SNGD measurement. They were able to demonstrate that a sourceless density measurement that replicated traditional formation density measurements could be produced. Seven years later, they launched the rst commercial PNG-based LWD gamma density tool in the oil and gas industry. This tool delivers a high-quality bulk density measurement comparable to that of traditional GGD tools. Because the technique uses a PNG in place of a traditional source, the tool complies with ALARA objectives.13

8. For more on radioactive sources used in logging tools: Aitken JD, Adolph R, Evans M, Wijeyesekera N, McGowan R and Mackay D: Radiation Sources in Drilling Tools: Comprehensive Risk Analysis in the Design, Development and Operation of LWD Tools, paper SPE 73896, presented at the SPE International Conference on Health, Safety and Environment in Oil and Gas Exploration and Production, Kuala Lumpur, March 2022, 2002. 9. Japan Oil, Gas and Metals National Corporation (JOGMEC), formerly Japan National Oil Corporation (JNOC), and Schlumberger collaborated on a research project to develop LWD technology that reduces the need for traditional chemical sources. Designed around the pulsed neutron generator (PNG), NeoScope and EcoScope services use technology that resulted from this collaboration. The PNG and the comprehensive suite of measurements in a single collar are key components of the NeoScope and EcoScope services that deliver game-changing LWD technology. 10. Sources that emit gamma rays can be shielded using lead, although lead is not an effective shield for neutrons. Shields for neutron sources generally contain polyethylene. 11. Aitken et al, reference 8. 12. In some regions, operators consider the anhydrite measurement a validation of proper tool calibration. This valuea density of 2.98 g/cm3is outside the quoted formation density range of the SNGD measurement. 13. The PNG used in the NeoScope tool contains a small amount1.6 Ciof tritium, a radioisotope of hydrogen. The half-life of tritium is 12.3 years. Tritium is also used in conjunction with phosphorous in luminous watch dials and exit signs in buildings.

Oileld Review

PNG-Based Measurements Neutron-gamma density Neutron porosity Spectroscopy Sigma

Other Measurements Array resistivity Dual ultrasonic caliper Annular pressure while drilling Temperature Azimuthal gamma ray Near-bit inclination Three-axis shock and vibration Near epithermal detector Short-spacing gamma ray detector Far thermal neutron detectors Pulsed neutron generator Neutron flux detector

Long-spacing gamma ray detector

Near thermal neutron detectors

> NeoScope LWD logging tool and its capabilities. Engineers designed the NeoScope tool (bottom) with several collocated petrophysical measurements on a single 7.6-m [25-ft] collar. The table (top ) summarizes the tools capabilities.

More Than Just Density The scientists who developed the SNGD model worked with engineers to include this new design concept in the NeoScope sourceless formation evaluation while drilling service. Six petrophysical measurements are incorporated in the NeoScope platformSNGD, neutron porosity, elemental capture spectroscopy, sigma, resistivity and azimuthal natural gamma rayand they are collocated on a single, relatively short collar (above). The NeoScope LWD tool is generally located close to the bit, giving well placement engineers early and precise geosteering data. Near-bit positioning allows the tool to make measurements when drilling uid invasion is still minimal, which further simplies data interpretation and modeling. This is especially important for sigma measurements. The NeoScope tool also contains sensors to measure hole size, annular pressure and temperature, near-bit borehole inclination and triaxial shock and vibration. In addition to collocated measurements close to the bit, the NeoScope tool design has other benets; the SNGD measurement has a greater depth of investigation (DOI) than traditional GGD tools have and is less dependent on wellbore wall contact for accurate measurements. Even a small standoff for the GGD tools may result in compromised measurements, and hole rugosity has always been problematic for traditional density tools (right). The SNGD measurement is collocated with the other neutron-based measurements and resistivity measurements. Conventional logging strings often have separate tools for each measurement. Collocating the sensors reduces the effects of irregular tool movement that can cause misalignment of depth reference points. Collocation also simplies interpretation because

the sensors are simultaneously measuring the same formation volume under identical static and dynamic conditions. The NeoScope service measures neutronbased petrophysical properties, along with bulk density. Most wireline and historical neutron porosity data come from tools that use 241AmBe sources; the NeoScope service provides a comparable thermal neutron measurement. Formation hydrogen index (HI), the basis of neutron porosity computation, is also an output of the tool. The neutron count rates in near and far helium-3 detectors are used to determine HI and thermal neutron porosity. Compared with traditional thermal neutron porosity, this PNG-based HI is less sensitive to environmental conditions.

Sigmaanother output available from the NeoScope toolis the macroscopic thermal neutron capture cross section of the formation. Sigma is a measurement of the formations ability to capture, or absorb, thermal neutrons, and the measurement can provide resistivity-independent uid saturation in the presence of saline formation water. High-energy, fast neutrons are emitted by the tool, slowed by collisions with the nuclei of elements in the formationprimarily hydrogenand then absorbed by receptive atoms and molecules. After these neutrons are absorbed, capture gamma rays are generated, which are counted by the detectors. The rate at which thermal neu-

1.0

Plan View
0.8

Fraction of response

0.6

Borehole

Azimuthal density

0.4

GGD data SNGD data

0.2

Depth of investigation SNGD measurement volume

10

12

Depth into formation, in.

> Greater DOI of the SNGD measurement. Traditional GGD measurements, such as from LWD azimuthal density tools, read only a few inches into the formation (left, red) and have a narrow measurement aperture (right ). Hole rugosity may negatively impact the quality of the measurement. Although the SNGD (green) has a greater DOI, which results in a measurement that is less sensitive to rugosity and standoff, it does not have an azimuthal component.

Summer 2013

Compton Scattering Gamma ray Formation

Detectors

Nuclear source

Incident gamma ray

Scattered gamma ray

e
> Compton scattering of gamma rays. For traditional density tools (left), gamma rays are emitted by a source and then interact with the formation in three main ways. Compton scattering (right) is the primary interaction related to bulk density measurements. Pair production and photoelectric effect (not shown) are the other two interactions. For most well logging situations, the amount of Compton scattering is related to the electron density of the atoms that make up the minerals and uids in the formation. Electron density is directly related to bulk density. The formation bulk density is computed from the number of gamma rays that make their way from the source, through the formation and back to the detectors. Higher density results in fewer returning gamma rays compared with measurements in lower density formations.

Electronic source High energy Traditional source

10 6

Neutron energy leaving source Intermediate energy Neutron energy, eV

10 4

Inelastic region
10 2

Epithermal energy

Capture gamma ray emitted

10 0

Average thermal energy 0.025 eV

102 200

Neutrons with thermal energy

400

Time, s

> Life of a neutron. Both electronic and traditional sources emit high-energy, fast neutrons. Neutrons from the PNG electronic source used in the NeoScope tool have an initial kinetic energy of about 14 MeV but in a few microseconds reach thermal energy level (approximately 0.025 eV). During those rst few microseconds, before neutron kinetic energy falls below about 1 MeV, the neutrons experience inelastic collisions that produce gamma rays. These are the gamma rays used for SNGD processing. After several microseconds, the neutrons reach thermal energy level and are eventually captured. The capturing atoms generate gamma rays to return to ground state.

trons are captured depends on the capture cross sectionsigmaof the element absorbing them. The capture cross section of chlorine, which is the strongest neutron absorber of common elements encountered in well logging, is higher than that of oil or gas. If the porosity and formation water salinity are known, the water saturation can be determined from sigma. Because the measurement is acquired near the bit, it is possible to determine sigma in the absence of mud ltrate invasion. This establishes a reliable baseline for comparison with future cased hole sigma logs. An added benet of water saturation computed from sigma data occurs when logging in high-angle wells. When high-angle and horizontal wells cross or approach bedding planes with resistivity contrasts, the resistivity measurements often exhibit anomalous readings. Because sigma data are not similarly affected at bed boundaries, saturation measurements computed from sigma may be more accurate than traditional computations that are based on Archies equation. Missing from the SNGD measurement is the photoelectric factor (PEF) measurement. Conventional density tools include this lithology indicator for inferring the rock matrixa crucial input for computing density porosity. Although the PEF measurement is not available with the new technique, the NeoScope tool provides neutron capture spectroscopy, which delivers formation elemental composition information. These data offer petrophysicists a more reliable and accurate lithology determination than do PEF measurements. The primary drivers for development of a sourceless density tool have been environmental and security concerns. In some areas of the world, regulations prevent drillers from reentering a reservoir in which a traditional source has been left behind in a stuck drilling assembly. Because PNGs are inactive and cannot produce neutrons when circulation ceases, operators are often permitted to drill sidetrack wells very near a wellbore in which a sourceless tool has been lost.14 The radioisotope-free nature of the NeoScope service is also attractive in unconventional plays because many of these are located near population centers, where the public may be wary of traditional sources. There are no traditional sources with the NeoScope service, completely eliminating their transportation and handling at the wellsite. The NeoScope service provides real-time natural gamma ray images to steer the well, triple combo data for petrophysical analysis and spectroscopic lithology information to accurately evaluate reservoir quality, but avoids raising public concern regarding the presence of radioactive sources.

Oileld Review

Its Not Simple The physics of formation density measurements with GGD tools is relatively straightforward. As the 137Cs in a typical logging source decays, it emits about 5.0 1010 gamma rays/s (GR/s). These GRs interact with the electrons of atoms in the formation in a variety of ways but primarily by Compton scattering (previous page, top).15 These interactions result in most of the GRs being absorbed by the formation, but a few travel back to detectors in the tool located a xed distance from the source. Formation density measurements are computed from the number of gamma rays traveling from the source to the detectors. From the original pool of GRs emitted by the source, a small fraction of the scattered gamma raysa few hundred to more than 10,000 GR/s will make it to the detectors. High-density rocks with little porosity result in fewer GRs returning to the tool than occurs in porous rocks lled with water, oil or gas. Gamma ray output can also vary from source to source. To compensate for differences in individual sources and detector efciencies, each tool is calibrated to a xed reference so the tool delivers the correct downhole density value. As previously noted, engineers have successfully developed tools that replace the 241AmBe source with PNG-based tools for both neutron porosity and capture spectroscopy. The pursuit of a high-quality, radioisotope-free density measurement has been more elusive because of the lack of electronic gamma ray emitters analogous to PNGs to replace 137Cs. To overcome this hurdle, Schlumberger scientists adapted some of the principles used for neutron-based measurements, such as spectroscopy and sigma, to develop the SNGD measurement. PNGs generate high-energy neutrons in short bursts. Neutrons leave the tool and interact with the various elements of the formation rocks and uids. The interactions that have the greatest effect are predominantly elastic collisions with hydrogen nuclei (previous page, bottom). With successive collisions, the initial high-energy neutrons slow down and reach thermal energy level.16 Thermal neutron porosity tools count the number of thermal neutrons that arrive back at the tool; from this count rate, the traditional thermal neutron porosity is computed.17 Not all the collisions are elastic. Immediately after the initial burst of neutrons from the PNG, but before the neutrons reach thermal level, inelastic collisions occur between the fast neutrons and atomic nuclei in the formation (above right). Inelastic collisions cause some atomic nuclei to become excited and emit one or more

Inelastic Neutron Scattering

Excited nucleus

Inelastic gamma rays

Neutron Capture Excited nucleus Slow neutron

Capture gamma ray

> Neutron interactions. The neutron interactions relevant to petrophysical logging can be separated into three categories: Inelastic scatter (top), elastic scatter (not shown) and capture (bottom). Inelastic gamma rays are generated by the interaction of a fast neutrontypically with energy greater than 1 MeVwith a nucleus. The interaction lifts the nucleus into an excited state, the neutron emerges with less energy and one or more gamma rays are emitted. Also counted among the inelastic gamma rays are those following a high-energy nuclear reaction, such as a reaction in which the neutron knocks out a particlesuch as an alpha particle, a proton or a second neutronfrom the nucleus. In elastic scattering, the neutron bounces off the nucleus without pushing it into an excited state. The only energy loss is from the kinetic energy imparted to the nucleus on which the scattering occurs. Elastic scattering from hydrogen, the essential mechanism underlying the neutron porosity measurement, is a result of the collision between particles of equal massneutron and protonwhich causes maximum energy loss. The neutron capture reaction, in which a neutron can be absorbed by a nucleus, dominates at low neutron energy. This leaves the absorbing nucleus in an excited state and the resulting deexcitation is accompanied by the emission of gamma rays.
14. In 1999, the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) modied existing regulations to exempt PNGs from well abandonment procedures applied to radioisotopic sources. For more: NRC: Regulatory Analysis of Energy Compensation Sources for Well Logging and Other Regulatory ClaricationsChanges to 10 CRF Part 39, Ofce of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards (December 1999), http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ ML0036/ML003690515.pdf (accessed April 29, 2013). 15. Compton scattering occurs when a gamma ray collides with an electron, transferring part of its energy to the electron, while itself being scattered. The gamma ray continues at a reduced energy. The degree of Compton scattering depends on the electron density of the target material. As the electron density increases, there is more attenuation of gamma ray energy. 16. PNGs emit fast neutrons with a kinetic energy level of about 14 MeV. Thermal neutrons have a kinetic energy of about 0.025 eV at room temperature. 17. Weller G, Grifths R, Stoller C, Allioli F, Berheide M, Evans M, Labous L, Dion D and Perciot P: A New Integrated LWD Platform Brings Next-Generation Formation Evaluation Services, Transactions of the SPWLA 46th Annual Logging Symposium, New Orleans, June 2629, 2005, paper H.

Summer 2013

GRs as they return to ground state. Scientists are able to use the energy spectrum of inelastic GRs to identify elements such as carbon, oxygen, silicon, calcium, iron and sulfur. Engineers use the volumetric yields of these elements to compute lithology, and this is the basis of neutron spectroscopy measurements. The energy spectrum of inelastic gamma rays is also the basis of carbon/oxygen ratio tools, which are used to identify hydrocarbonbearing zones in cased holes. During the short period of inelastic collisions, a GR cloud forms (below). This articially generated cloud emits around 108 GR/s, about two orders of magnitude lower than the number emitted by a typical 137Cs source. Scientists have determined, however, that there are sufcient GRs produced to function in a manner similar to that of a traditional source. The GR cloud is short-lived because the neutrons that create it collide with other nuclei, rapidly slow to thermal level and are subsequently captured. The number of gamma rays that result from inelastic collisions and reach the detectors from the GR cloud is inuenced by three factors: the

Long-spacing detector response

Inelastic count rate, counts/s

Gamma ray transport

Neutron transport

Formation density, g/cm 3

> Nuclear transport and long-spacing detector response. The response of the long-spacing gamma ray detector (black) is largely determined by neutron (blue) and gamma ray transport (red). Neutron transport is related to the interactions of neutrons with atomic nuclei in the formation. Inelastic gamma rays are produced during inelastic scattering of fast neutrons. Elastic scattering, which occurs primarily when neutrons collide with hydrogen nuclei, reduces the energy of the fast neutrons below the threshold for producing inelastic gamma rays. Thus, with increased formation density (lower porosity), there are fewer hydrogen nuclei available for elastic scattering and, as a result, there are more fast neutrons available for the production of inelastic gamma rays. Gamma ray transport and the number of inelastic gamma ray counts decrease with increased formation density because the higher electron density provides more opportunity for gamma ray interactions and energy reduction.

Inelastic gamma ray source volume

PNG Neutron detector Inelastic scattering

Inelastic gamma ray scattering volume

Gamma ray detector

> Inelastic gamma ray cloud. The PNG generates neutrons that move away from the source and collide inelastically with atoms in the formation (blue shading). These collisions cause a cloud of inelastic gamma rays to form (green shading). Some of these gamma rays will travel back to the tool and be counted by the detectors.

fast neutron transport from the PNG to the point where inelastic GRs are produced within the formation, the subsequent transport of GRs from their origin back to the detectors in the tool and the electron density of the formation. The GRs generated in the formation by inelastic interactions move rapidly through the formation, interacting in a manner similar to GRs generated by a radioisotopic source, and they are attenuated by collisions with electrons within the formation primarily through Compton scattering (above). Properly characterized, the counts at the detector are used to compute electron density, which in turn is used to compute the formation bulk density.18 If only inelastic GRs were present, the characterization would be more easily performed; however, another major source of GRs complicates the measurement. Fast neutrons eventually become thermal neutrons and are captured by atoms in the formation. Nuclei that capture thermal neutrons emit GRs to return to a stable energy state in a manner similar to the emission of GRs resulting from inelastic collisions. The population density of thermal neutrons available for capture is directly related to the number of hydrogen atoms

in the formation. In a typical downhole environment, the element with the highest probability of absorbing thermal neutrons is chlorine [Cl], whose number density is related to the salinity of the formation uids. The SNGD measurement is based only on GRs generated by the inelastic collisions. To correctly compute the bulk density value, the contributions from capture GRs resulting from neutron capture must be quantied and removed from the measurement.19 Engineers must also account for the variability of the initial source strength. The output of a traditional source may vary, depending on age and activity level of the radionuclide, but the output is fairly constant and its change over time is predictable. Calibration of GGD tools accounts for variability between sources and detector efciencies by correcting to a known reference. The output of a PNG is not as predictable and may vary over short periods of time and even between bursts. A control loop in the NeoScope tool adjusts the PNG to maintain a constant average output, and the tool includes a detector at the
18. Reichel et al, reference 5. 19. Epithermal neutrons have an energy range between about 0.02 eV and 10 keV at room temperature.

10

Oileld Review

NeoScope Calibration Facility 1 2 3 4

NeoScope tool

Mud channel

Calibration sleeve

Aluminum calibration sleeve

Water

Detectors

> NeoScope calibration device. A special calibration facility was developed specically for the NeoScope tool. Four measurements are performed in a water-lled tank using a calibration sleeve and a simulated mud channel. With the PNG turned on, responses are measured in four congurations: sleeve raised, mud channel lled with air (1); sleeve raised, mud channel lled with water (2); sleeve lowered, mud channel lled with water (3); and sleeve lowered, mud channel lled with air (4). These four measurements allow calibration gains and offsets to be computed and provide quality checks for tool verication.

PNG to determine the neutron output and compensate for variations. To provide the specied 0.025-g/cm3 accuracy for the density measurement, the SNGD model uses a combination of responses from multiple detectors and requires a complex and demanding calibration. This calibration consists of correlating the count rates measured by each of the tools detectors to

those measured in the same environment with the reference tool. For this purpose, engineers have designed a new calibration tank that allows measurements over a wide range of count rates (above). The uncertainties found in downhole log measurements arise from the primary measurement, applied corrections and conversion of measured parameters to formation properties. To mitigate

these uncertainties, the NeoScope service includes a quality control system that begins with general tool system hardware and moves to specic sensor functions, individual sensor measurements and integrated measurements that may involve multiple individual sensor responses (below). The last step of the process is quality control of the nal integrated answers that may use multiple measurements.

PNG Neutron monitor

Long-spacing gamma ray detector Source output correction (neutron monitor) Neutron transport correction (near epithermal and far thermal detectors)

Near epithermal detector Near thermal detector Short-spacing gamma ray detector Far thermal detector Long-spacing gamma ray detector

Sigma input Spectroscopy input Neutron porosity input Neutron-gamma density input Fast neutron correction (short- and long-spacing gamma ray detectors) Sigma correction SNGD output

> Multi-input, multioutput measurements. The nuclear portion of the NeoScope tool (left ) uses a single PNG to generate neutrons, but the responses from multiple detectors are integrated to produce specic measurements. For example, sigma data are derived from near thermal, short-spacing gamma ray and long-spacing gamma ray detectors. SNGD data, the most complex measurement from the NeoScope tool, are primarily computed using counts from the long-spacing gamma ray detector, but inputs from the neutron monitor, near epithermal detector, short- and long-spacing gamma ray detectors and far thermal detectors are required to provide an accurate nal answer. The owchart (right ) traces the corrections applied to arrive at the nal density output.

Summer 2013

11

SNGD Density range Precision at ROP 61 m/h [200 ft/h] Accuracy Clean sandstone, limestone and dolomite Shale Salt Anhydrite Axial resolution Depth of investigation Image capability 0.025 g/cm3 0.045 g/cm3 Not applicable Not applicable 89 cm [35 in.] 25 cm [10 in.] No 1.7 to 2.9 g/cm3 0.018 g/cm3

GGD 1.7 to 3.05 g/cm3 0.006 g/cm3 0.015 g/cm3 0.015 g/cm3 0.015 g/cm3 0.015 g/cm3 36 cm [14 in.] 10.2 cm [4 in.] Yes

> Specications for SNGD and GGD tools.

Individual quality control considerations that may impact accuracy include sensor and hardware functionality, density values within the 1.7- to 2.9-g/cm3 range of SNGD and tool standoff. In addition, environmental quality controls include borehole size, deviation, ROP and formation shaliness, all of which may impact measurement accuracy (above). The indicators are combined into a measurement quality control ag. A green ag suggests that the measurement is accurate and within specied limits. A yellow ag indicates that the measurement is likely to be within its specied

range but may require further interpretation, and a red ag means that the measurement is outside specied accuracy parameters. These quality ag values are crucial for comparing the accuracy of GGD and SNGD measurements. Field Testing and Beyond Field tests for the SNGD measurements consisted of comparing them with GGD measurements using a modied tool that allowed engineers to acquire both measurements simultaneously from the same well using the same

3.0

2.8

Data within tolerance Data at limit of tolerance

2.6

2.4

2.2

2.0 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3.0

SNGD data, g/cm3

> Crossplot comparison. Density data from a GGD tool were compared with data from an SNGD tool; the data are color-coded by their quality ag value. There is good agreement between the two when SNGD data are within tolerance. The data align well along the ideal axis and are agged as green. Invasion effects start to occur in the lower density range at approximately 2.3 g/cm3. The spread of the data points around the ideal line is attributed to differences in the axial resolution of the two measurements while crossing various layers at high deviations.

bottomhole assembly. Objectives for eld testing included logging in the following: clean sandstone, limestone and dolomite formations anhydrite shale gas and light hydrocarbon reservoirs large boreholes deviated and vertical wells. Scientists compared the GGD measurement, considered the benchmark, with SNGD results and accounted for the differences and limitations of both measurements. Test acceptance criteria were based on a systematic evaluation of both measurements, and nal analysis was based on a set of numerical interpretation criteria.20 The maximum acceptable error when two independent measurements are compared is the sum of their individual accuracies. In this case, the acceptable error for the two measurements is 0.040 g/cm3 in clean formations and 0.060 g/cm3 in shales.21 The data from the combined tools were plotted, which allowed engineers to quantify any deviation from perfect agreement. Additionally, scientists had to account for conditions in each well that might impact GGDto-SNGD comparisons. These conditions included ltrate invasion, the presence of gas or light hydrocarbons that may change with time and various drilling conditions, such as mud weight, uid variations and changes in ROP. If a large discrepancy between the two measurements could be explained by environmental effects, the test was considered acceptable. All tests were performed in 8 1/2-in. boreholes. In a eld test of the NeoScope service, the operator drilled a well with an average inclination of 60 through a sandstone reservoir using 1.26-g/cm3 [10.5-lbm/galUS] water-base mud (WBM). The caliper log indicated the borehole was in gauge, and no GGD data corrections were required. Additionally, the GGD data indicated no major azimuthal effects. Sigma was within a range that indicated minimal correction to the SNGD. In the hydrocarbon-bearing section of the formation, the resistivity log indicated some invasion (next page). Because of the difference in their DOIs, the SNGD and GGD outputs were slightly different in this zone. By contrast, these measurements were almost identical in a noninvaded water-bearing section of the formation. The SNGD data were within accuracy limits throughout the well (left).
20. Reichel et al, reference 5. 21. Theys P: Log Data Acquisition and Quality Control. Paris: Editions Technip, 2nd edition, 1999.

12

GGD data, g/cm3

Oileld Review

Resistivity 40-in. Attenuation 34-in. Attenuation 28-in. Attenuation Mudcake Washout Density Caliper
8 in. 0.02

Quadrant Bulk Density Data Average Density Density Image Density Correction
0.8 200 1.7 0 g/cm3 2.7 1.9 50 g/cm3 0.2 1.9 2.9 1.9 2.9 1.9 1.9 g/cm3 2.9

22-in. Attenuation 16-in. Attenuation

ohm.m

Bottom Density
g/cm3 2.9

Neutron Density
g/cm3

Deviation
10 0 degree 90

40-in. Phase Shift 34-in. Phase Shift 28-in. Phase Shift 22-in. Phase Shift 16-in. Phase Shift
0.2 ohm.m

Sigma
cu

Left Density
g/cm3 2.9

Bulk Density
g/cm3

Pyrite Water

Ultrasonic Caliper
8 in. 10 0 150

Collar Rotation
RPM 500

Image-Derived Density 1.9

1.9 g/cm3 2.9

Right Density
g/cm3 2.9

Gamma Ray
0 gAPI

Bulk Density Upper

2,000 1.9 g/cm3 2.9 40

Neutron Porosity (Thermal)

%

Up Density
g/cm3 2.9

Sandstone Clay Quality Flags

Depth, ft
X10

15 1.9

X20

X30

X40

X50

X60

X70

> Density comparison in an invaded oil zone. The interval from X10 to X40 ft is an oil-bearing sandstone with mud ltrate invasion. The invasion is indicated by separation in the resistivity curves (Track 2, blue shading). The sandstone below X60 ft (red shading) is water lled, and the lack of separation indicates little to no invasion. The NeoScope toolalong with a conventional GGD LWD toolwas run in this well. The density image (Track 3) indicates a fairly homogeneous reservoir, as does the lithology computed from spectroscopy data (Track 6). Quadrant density data (Track 5) overlie each other through the two sections, as would be expected with the high-quality wellbore conditions. There is excellent agreement between the traditional density (Track 4, red) and the NeoScope density (black), although there is a slight difference between the two datasets in the oil-bearing interval because of the invasion. These data overlie the thermal neutron porosity data (blue) in clean, water- or oil-lled rocks. (Adapted from Reichel et al, reference 5.)

Summer 2013

13

Resistivity 40-in. Attenuation 34-in. Attenuation 28-in. Attenuation Mudcake Washout Density Caliper
8 in. 0.02

Density Image

Quadrant Bulk Density Data Average Density

g/cm3

22-in. Attenuation 16-in. Attenuation

ohm.m

1.7

g/cm3

2.7

Density Correction
0.8 g/cm3 0.2

1.9

2.9

Sigma
200 0 1.9 cu 50

Bottom Density
1.9 g/cm3 2.9

Neutron Density
g/cm3 2.9

Deviation
10 0 degree 90

40-in. Phase Shift 34-in. Phase Shift 28-in. Phase Shift 22-in. Phase Shift 16-in. Phase Shift
0.2 ohm.m

Image-Derived Density 1.9

g/cm3 2.9

Left Density
1.9 g/cm3 2.9

Bulk Density
g/cm3 2.9

Ultrasonic Caliper
8 in. 10 0 150

Collar Rotation
RPM 500

Bulk Density Bottom 1.9

1.9 g/cm3 2.9

Right Density
1.9 g/cm3 2.9

Carbonate Sandstone Clay Quality Flags

Gamma Ray
0 gAPI

Bulk Density Upper

2,000 1.9 g/cm3 2.9 40

Neutron Porosity (Thermal)

%

Up Density
g/cm3 2.9

Depth, ft

15 1.9

X10

X20

X30

> Comparison of washout effects on density. Density data were acquired using a NeoScope tool and a conventional GGD LWD tool across a predominantly water-lled carbonate section (Track 6, lithology) of a test well. Caliper data (Track 1) from the NeoScope tool (black) and the traditional density tool (red) indicate an enlarged borehole (blue shading) above and below X12 ft. Resistivity data are presented in Track 2. Track 3 contains density image data from the traditional tool, along with azimuthal density from the bottom (red dashed) and upper (green) quadrants, an image-derived density (black) and sigma data (purple). The bulk density data from the conventional tool (Track 4, red) are affected by hole conditions from X10 to X18 ft, but the NeoScope tool provides good density data (black). The differences in the quadrant data from the traditional GGD tool (Track 5) demonstrate the effects of the enlarged borehole. The left quadrant (blue) and the upper quadrant (green) data are invalid, as is the average computed density (red). The bottom quadrant (pink) and the right quadrant (dark red) data are closer to the NeoScope density in Track 4. While the NeoScope density has a greater DOI and is less affected by washouts or hole rugosity, the yellow quality ag (Track 7) indicates the measurements are approaching the limits. (Adapted from Reichel et al, reference 5.)

In another eld test conducted in a limestone formation at the Schlumberger test facility in Cameron, Texas, USA, engineers drilled a well with an average inclination of 25 using 1.13-g/cm3 [9.4-lbm/galUS] WBM (above). The caliper log indicated hole enlargement in the top section of the log. In zones where the SNGD quality control ag was yellow, there were signicant differences between the SNGD and GGD data. The density correction on GGD data

was generally between 0.1 and 0.15 g/cm3, which is not usually indicative of compromised data quality resulting from hole rugosity, although the quadrant density data clearly showed effects of the enlarged borehole. Analysis of these two logs highlighted the value of the greater DOI of the SNGD measurement. The SNGD data were borehole corrected and, because of the NeoScope tools greater DOI, were less inuenced by variations in the near-borehole environ-

ment. The SNGD curve tracks the thermal neutron porosity curve in clean formations as expected. The SNGD data appear more reliable than the traditional GGD measurement. A Middle East operator tested the new SNGD design in four environments.22 The NeoScope tool was run in a high-angle, high gas saturation reservoir drilled with nonaqueous mud, a high gas saturation reservoir drilled with WBM, an oilsaturated carbonate reservoir drilled with high-

14

Oileld Review

salinity WBM and an oil-saturated carbonate reservoir drilled with low-salinity WBM. To validate the measurements, traditional GGD tools were run for comparison. The rst test was in an 8 1/2-in. wellbore, in which the high-angle well approached 90 deviation at TD. The nonaqueous mud system was barite-saturated, which invalidated PEF measurements from the GGD tool. The reservoir section was predominantly limestone and the formation density ranged from around 1.95 to 2.7 g/cm3. A comparison of the data from the GGD tool with those from the NeoScope SNGD measurement shows excellent agreement (right). One benet of the NeoScope tool is the availability of neutron capture spectroscopy data. Although the PEF measurement from the traditional tool was affected by barite in the mud system, lithology could still be determined using spectroscopy data from the NeoScope tool. The majority of the interval was limestone, although some dolomite was observed. The second example was a vertical well drilled with WBM through a gas-lled carbonate reservoir in the same eld as the previous well. Comparison of GGD with SNGD data again showed good agreement across a wide range of values. A third example was drilled with high-salinity WBM through an oil-saturated carbonate reservoir. In this highly deviated well, the porosity data from the GGD and SNGD measurements compared favorably, well within statistical precision limits of the measurements. As is typical of liquid-lled reservoirs, the neutron porosity data values were similar to porosities computed from formation density data. A fourth well was a high-angle well drilled with low-salinity polymer-base WBM. As with the other three wells, there was excellent agreement between the SNGD data and conventional GGD measurements. Petrophysical analysis of data from these four wells demonstrated that in a variety of wells with a wide range of density values, SNGD data from the NeoScope tool compare favorably with data from conventional density tools. In addition to the SNGD data, the neutron porosity and resistivity measurements provide a sourceless triplecombo logging option for LWD applications. Sigma and spectroscopy data are added benets that petrophysicists can use to better characterize and understand reservoirs.
22. Atfeh M, Al Daghar KA, Al Marzouqi K, Akinsanmi MO, Murray D and Dua R: Neutron Porosity and Formation Density Acquisition Without Chemical Sources in Large Carbonate Reservoirs in the Middle EastA Case Study, Transactions of the SPWLA 54th Annual Logging Symposium, New Orleans, June 2226, 2013, paper KKK.

Density Correction
0.8 g/cm3 0.2

Neutron Porosity (Corrected) Resistivity Bit Size

8 in. 10 40 % 15

40-in. Phase Shift 34-in. Phase Shift 28-in. Phase Shift

10 1.9

Bulk Density
g/cm3 2.9

Lithology Density Image

g/cm3 2.75

Dolomite Calcite Sandstone

2.95

Ultrasonic Caliper
8 in.

Neutron Density
1.9 g/cm3 2.9 1.9

22-in. Phase Shift Depth, ft 0 Sigma

cu 50 0.2

Gamma Ray
0 gAPI 100

16-in. Phase Shift

ohm.m 2,000 40

Neutron Porosity (Thermal)

% 15 1.95

Bulk Density
g/cm3

Clay

X,300

X,400

X,500

X,600

> Density comparison in a barite-weighted mud system. Barite in drilling mud can render PEF measurements invalid. PEF is important for inferring lithology, which is used for porosity calculations. In this high-angle Middle East carbonate reservoir, the spectroscopy data from the NeoScope tool provide mineralogy information (Track 6) that would not have been available from traditional density tools. For example, the data show dolomite mixed with calcite from X,350 to X,420 ft. In the high-density carbonate intervals, such as from X,400 to X,520, the NeoScope density data (Track 4, black) compare favorably with traditional bulk density (red). Traditional thermal neutron porosity (blue) is presented along with a density-corrected thermal neutron porosity (green). The NeoScope tool does not provide azimuthal density or density images as are available from the traditional LWD GGD tool (Track 5). Sigma data (Track 2) may be used to determine changes in hydrocarbon saturation or uid contacts over time. Track 3 presents resistivity data. (Adapted from Atfeh et al, reference 22.)

The Pulse of Things to Come? It has been a long time coming, but the introduction of SNGD technology may revolutionize LWD porosity logging. Replacing sources with PNGs has the potential to eliminate exposure risks and reduce costs associated with source storage, transportation and record keeping.

Introducing similar measurements for wireline applications is the next obvious step. Unfortunately, modeling borehole effects on the measurement for wireline tools has been beyond the reach of current research and software. It may take some time, but if traditional sources can be replaced in wireline tools, the ALARA standardas low as reasonably achievablewill be reached in the oil and gas industry. TS

Summer 2013

15