THERMAL DECAY LOGGING OF WESTERN CANADIAN

CARBONATE REEFS

D. BOYD

this article begins on the next page F

PETROLEUM SOCIETY OF CIM 89-40-78 THERMAL DECAY LOGGING OF WESTERN CANADIAN CARBONATE REEFS By Doug Boyd ABSTRACT To determine formation fluid saturations, thermal decay tools rely on the existence of a suff icient contrast between the thermal neutron capture cross section of a hydrocar- bon-bearing formation and that of a water-bearing formation. This contrast is dependent upon the formation's effective porosity (0e) and upon the contrast between formation water cross section (Ew) and hydrocarbon cross section (@e). Because of their low porosities which generally range from 3 to 14%,
Western Canadian carbonate reefs present difficult logging environments for thermal decay tools. To obtain meaningful water saturations (Ew), ac- curate input of all parameters in the thermal decay saturation equation is necessary. Methods to obtain the most accurate input parameters include the use of porosity obtained from openhole logs and core data and, more recently, from through-casing acoustic logs. Ac- curacy is also enhanced by utilizing elemental analysis for matrix cross section values (EmA) and by averaging References and illustrations at end of paper. By Doug Boyd Halliburton
Logging Services 78-1 PUBLICATION RIGHTS RESERVED THIS PAPER ISTO BE PRESENTEDATTHE 40th ANNUALTECHNICALMEETING OF THE PETROLEUM SOCIETY OF CIM HELD IN BANFF, MAY 28 TO 31,1989. DISCUSSION OF THIS PAPER IS INVITED. SUCH DISCUSSION MAY BE PRESENTED AT THE TECHNICAL MEETING AND WILL BE CONSIDERED FOR PUBLICATION IN CIM JOURNALS IF FILED IN WRITING WITH THE TECHNICAL PROGRAM CHAIRMAN PRIOR TO THE CONCLUSION OF THE MEETING. THERMAL DECAY LOGGING OF WESTERN CANADIAN CARBONATE REEFS PAPER NO. 89-40-78 data from multiple log runs to improve the statistical accuracy of the formation cross section
(EFM). Before logging, an indication of the quality of the satura- tion that can be calculated can be determined by evaluating the expression (pe(Ew - EHC). In the subject reefs, we have observed that, if the value is greater than 3, Sw is quantitative; if between 1.5 and 3 inclusive, Sw is qualitative; and if less than 1.5, Sw is ambiguous or unusable, Current thermal decay logging is commonly performed with the well shut in. Even if the well has been shut in for an extended period of time, this can produce erroneous results opposite perforations, due to borehole fluid encroachment into
the formation. To evaluate perforated zones, we have found that thermal decay logging should be performed while the well is flowing. This eliminates invasion effects near the borehole and can allow water production problems to be analyzed (e.g., locating fluid entry into the wellbore and indicating vertical water flow in fractures or in channels behind casing). This analysis is made possible by the oxygen activation measurement produced by the thermal decay tool. 1
 PETROLEUM SOCIETY OF CIM PAPER NO. 89-40-78

THERMAL DECAY LOGGING

OF WESTERN CANADIAN
CARBONATE REEFS

By
Doug Boyd
Halliburton Logging Servic:es

-.
,.'

PUBUCATION RIGHTS RESERVED :/.

THIS PAPER IS TO BE PRESENTED AT THE 401h ANNUAL TECHNICAL MEETING OF THE PETROLEUM SOCIETY
OF CIM HELD IN BANFF MAY 28 TO 31,1989 DISCUSSION OF THIS PAPER IS INVITED. SUCH DISCUSSION MAY BE
PRESENTED AT THE TECHNICAL MEETING AND WILL BE CONSIDERED FOR PUBLICATION IN CIM JOURNALS IF
FILED IN WRITING WITH THE TECHNICAL PROGRAM CHAIRMAN PRIOR TO THE CONCLUSiON OF THE MEETING.

data from mUltiple log runs to improve the statistical

ABSTRACT accuracy of the formation cross section (EFM).

To determine formation fluid saturations, thermal decay
tools rely on the existence of a sufficient contrast between
the thermal neutron capture cross section of a hydrocar-
bon-bearing tormation and that of a water-bearing
tormation. This contrast is dependent upon the
formation's effective porosity (<pe) and upon the contrast
between formation water cross section (Ew) and
hydrocarbon cross section (!:He).
Because of their low porosities which generally range
from 3 to 14%, Western Canadian carbonate reefs
present difficult logging environments for thermal decay
tools. To oblain meaningful water saturations (Ew). ac-
curate input 01 all parameters in the thermal decay
saturation equation is necessary. Methods to obtain the
most accurate input parameters include the use of
porosity obtained from openhole logs and core data and,
more recently, from through-casing acoustic logs. Ac-
curacy is also enhanced by utiliZing elemental analysis
for matrix cross section values (EMA) and by averaging
References and illustrations at end of paper.
Before logging, an indication of the quality of the satura-
tion that can be calculated can be determined by
evaluating the expression cp.(Ew - !:He). In the subject
reefs we have observed that, if the value is greater than
3, S~ is quantitative; il between 1.5 and 3 inclusive, Sw
is qualitative; and if less than 1-5, Sw is ambiguous or
unusable.
Current thermal decay logging is commonly performed
with the well shut in. Even ilthe well has been shut in for
an extended period of time, this can produce erroneous
results opposite perforations, due to borehole tluid
encroachment into the formation. To evaluate perforated
zones, we have found that thermal decay logging should
be performed while the well is flowing. This eliminates
invasion effects near the borehole and can allow water
production problems to be analyzed (e.g., locating flUid '..i-"
entry into the wellbore and indicating vertical water flow
in fractures or in channels behind caSing). This analysis
is made possible by the oxygen activation measurement /-;
produced by the thermal decay tool.

,",
78-1
PAPER NO. 89·40·78
INTRODUCTION
The Thermal MUlligate Decay logging tool is designed to
measure accurate EFM in the cased hole environment
regardless of borehole salinity. The theory and operation
ot the TM D' tool has been previously explained in the
literature." ,2.3) To determine formation fluid saturations,
the tool relies on the existence of a sufficient LFM contrast
between a hydrocarbon-bearing formation and a water-
bearing formation. This contrast is dependent in turn upon
cp. and upon the contrast between LW and LHC_
LFM has been successfully used to determine Sw in high
porosity (20 to 30%) formations such as exist along the
U.S. Gulf Coast and in the Middle East. Western
Canadian carbonates present a more difficull problem
due to their generally lower porosity (3 to 14%). Figure 1
illustrates that, at these low porosities, the EFM contrast
between hydrocarbon-filled and water-filled pore spaces
is small. This contrast increases with increases in water
salinity (Cw). In the Western Canadian reefs, it is for-
tunate that Cw is generally high (150,000 to 200,000 ppm
NaCI), providing for optimal contrast between LW and
LHC. However, even with these high salinities, there still
remains only a small difterence in EFM between water-
bearing and hydrocarbon-bearing formations due to the
low porosities, Because of the low porosity, any small
error in any of the other input parameters in the thermal
decay Sw equation (Equation 1) produces a large error in
Sw.
Sw= LFM-INT- LMA + lil. (LMA - LHC) + VSH (LMA - LSH)
lil. (Ew - LHC) , the scattering sensitivity of the tool's high-energy 14-MeV
...._ _ _.. _.. _.. _. _. , _ , (1)
where I:t.. and LSH are the matrix and shale cross sec-
tions, VSH is the shale volume, and LFM-INT is the intrinsic
formation cross section (I.e., the formation cross seclion
corrected for neutron diffusion in the borehole and forma-
tion).
To obtain valid water saturations in low porosity forma-
tions, the accuracy of each input parameter in Equation
1 must be maximized. Paramefric studies have shown
that shale uncertainties can have large effects on Sw
calculations. This can be seen in Figure 2, which il-
lustrates how computed Sw changes as a function of
porosity for differing shale parameters_ Note that an error
in VSH will have a larger effect on computed Sw than an
error in LSH. In general, VSH values are derived from a
gamma ray log or from openhole data. LSH is usually
obtained from Ihe LFM CUNe on the TMD log in a shale
zone, which, incidentally, mayor may not be repre-
sentative of the shale in the zones of interest. Fortunately,
A mark of Halliburton Logging Services, Inc,
78-2
PETROLEUM SOCIETY OF CIM
carbonate reseNoirs in Western Canada tend to be clean;
therefore,the effects of LSH and VSH variations are usually
small.
LMA can have a significant effect on calculated Sw. As can
be seen in Figure 3, an error 01 one-half capture unit (cu)
can produce an appreciable change in Sw. LMA can be
obtained through elemental analysis 01 core samples and
the subsequent summation of the caplure cross sections
of each 01 the components. LI.. can also be determined
from nuclear reactor measurements made on core
samples. In addition, Lt.. can also be derived from the
LFM CUNe on the TMD log in a water-wet zone with known
Cwo The first two methods may be inaccurate in Ihatlhe
core sample, if improperly prepared, may erroneously
include the salls of formation water deposited in the core.
The core must be washed in fresh water to remove any
sail deposits and in toluene to remove bitumen. Eslima-
tion of LMA from the log may also be inaccurale since a
water-wet zone and an accurate porosity value in that
zone are required, but may not be avaitable,
Other paramelers in Equation 1 must also be determined.
¢. may be obfained from modern openhole logs, core
data, cased hole neutron logs (limited to formalions con-
taining liqUid-filled pores), and cased hole acouslic logs.
Porosity can also be determined from Ihe near delector
to far detector count-rale ratio curve (RN/F) on Ihe TMD
log. However, this is considered the leasl accurate
porosity measurement since the variable standoff thai
occurs with this tool induces changes in RN/f, and also
because there is a large lithology effect, resulling from
neutrons .
It is also necessary to determine LW in Equation 1. This
can be done direclly by utilizing a portable chamber
containing a small neutron source and deteclor!'), or by
making a Cw measurement from which Lw can be in-
ferred. LHC can be estimated; this number varies lillie for
oit but widely for gas. LolL requires knowledge of gas/oil
ratios (GOR); '£GAS requires reservoir pressure and
temperature, and gas specific gravity
A rule of thumb can be applied to determine whelher
accurate water salurations in a particular clean reservoir
can be calculated This involves the expression ¢.(LW -
LHC) which is indicalive 01 the maximum LfM difference
that can occur between having all water or all hydrocar-
bons in the formation pore space. If <p. is expressed as a
decimal fraclion, and LW and LHC in capture units, the
expression can serve as an indicator of the quality of the
calculated Sw. If the value of the expression is less than
1.5, then Sw will be ambiguous or unusable, and logging