Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
These issues are the main responsibility of service companies. The service companies draw
on their global experience to control the quality of the logs they deliver to their clients. They
usually do a good job, and take remedial action, such as rerunning the tool when warranted.
Such remedial actions usually require the assent of the operating company.
Operating companies send representatives to the well site to witness logging operations.
Company representative are usually geophysicists, geologists, and/or petrophysicists. In
addition to ascertaining the quality of the measurement, they insure that service companies
meet their contractual obligations. A contract between the service company and the operator
specifies, among other things, tools to be run, intervals to be logged, repeat runs, logging
speeds , and matrix parameters used in density and neutron porosity calculations. They also
initiate and approve, with the consent of management, modifications to logging programs
when necessary.
Examples of these modifications include repeat logging over an interval where the log quality
is suspect, approval of tool conveyance over a troublesome interval through drill pipes. In
case of problematic borehole or when a tool malfunctions, they may curtail the use of an
open hole tool and substitute a cased hole tool in its place, when feasible. Company
representative will also guide additional data acquisition. They will select depths to get side
wall cores and perform formation tests.
These are the responsibility of log analysts usually the petrophysicists. The most critical
borehole environment which will impact the quality of the log and the validity of the measured
data are wellbore size and wellbore rugosity. Severe wellbore enlargement beyond the bit
size will impact the reading of centralized tools. Well bore rigosity, displayed in Figure 1, will
impact pad type tools. Borehole size and rugosity can easily be inferred from caliper
readings. The impact of bore hole environment is illustrated by the density log of Figure 2. A
clear correlation between the low density reading and the caliper indicating borehole
enlargement and rugosity may result, if overlooked by the analyst, in false interpretation in
terms of high porosity or gas presence. To determine the potential of zones A,B, and C
marked on the log the analyst have to rely on other data such as the mud log and/or the
resistivity log. The analyst has to omit the density values from the analysis as they are not
representative of true formation densities. This may render porosity estimation unfeasible.
Figure 1. Pad type tool trapping drilling mud pockets in rugose borehole
Another critical aspect which dramatically affects the validity of the data is tool sticking due to
unfavorable borehole conditions. Tool sticking is indicated from the increase in cable tension
which is displayed at the far right side of Figure 3. While the tool is stuck the recorded
measurements are no longer versus depth. To flag this condition curves are usually traced
with a finer font to alert the analyst. The data gaps are not at the same depth as the tool
sensors are not at the same depth. Determining the tool depth after it frees itself is
problematic as the tool tends to yo yo before it stabilizes.
In summary, the lingering and troublesome log quality issues are those related to bore hole
conditions leading to enlargement, rugosity and tool sticking. Before undertaking the
interpretation phase, the analyst should look for these conditions and avoid their negative
impact on interpretation results.
26 al 30 de Marzo de 2012
http://bit.ly/mWoQmf
contacto: info@op-ct.com