Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
This disclosure relates generally to the field of pulsed neutron well logging. More specifically, the disclosure is related to methods for determining formation hydrogen index or neutron porosity when a wellbore contains various fluids, such as oil gas and/or air in unknown quantities.
Subsurface formation HI (hydrogen index) measurement using high energy neutrons as a measurement source has been used in well logging since at least the 1950s. In case of no bound-water in the formation matrix (such as clean sand, carbonate formation, but not shale), hydrogen atoms only appear in the pore space (oil or water). Thus, the formation hydrogen index is typically related to formation porosity. Neutron source based porosity measurements known in the art rely on the fact that the slowing down of neutrons, and therefore the average distance travelled within the formations by the neutrons, is strongly dependent on the hydrogen content of the formation. The hydrogen content dependency is due to the fact that neutrons can incur a very large energy loss in a single elastic scattering event with a proton (a hydrogen nucleus). In its simplest form, neutron based porosity measurement can be performed using a neutron source and a detector axially spaced from the neutron source. If the axial spacing of the detector from the source is chosen appropriately, then the neutron flux at the detector location will decrease monotonically with increasing formation hydrogen content. As one possible alternative, the neutron detector can be replaced by a gamma-ray detector, since the flux of neutron induced gamma-rays is related to the neutron flux.
Early versions of neutron-based porosity measurement instruments included those having a single gamma-ray detector (e.g., a Geiger-Mueller counter) with a radioisotope-based neutron source (e.g., 241AmBe, 238PuBe). Such instruments may be referred to as “neutron-gamma” instruments. Correspondingly, instruments using a neutron detector (e.g., a 3He proportional counter) may be referred to as “neutron-neutron” instruments. Traditionally, the term “neutron porosity” typically means a neutron-based porosity measurement using a 241AmBe source and “neutron-neutron” instruments. The following terms are defined in order to differentiate this work from the traditional “neutron porosity”. “Neutron-neutron porosity” may be defined as neutron porosity based on a neutron source and neutron detectors. Similarly, “neutron-gamma porosity” may be defined as neutron porosity based on a neutron source and gamma ray detectors, which is the subject of the present disclosure
Both neutron-neutron instrument measurements and to an even larger extent neutron-gamma instrument measurements are strongly affected by a multitude of environmental effects. Such effects include the fluid actually disposed in the wellbore at the time measurements are made.
It can be more difficult to measure formation HI based on gamma ray detectors as compared to using neutron detectors. In addition to other phenomena, gamma ray detectors measure the gamma rays from neutron “capture” interaction (i.e., capture of a thermal neutron by a nucleus of certain atoms having large “neutron capture cross section” and subsequent emission of a gamma ray) in the formation, wellbore or the instrument itself. Capture gamma ray measurement is therefore an indirect measurement the presence of neutrons. The physics of neutron-neutron porosity only involves neutron transport from the source to the neutron detector. The physics of neutron gamma porosity involves both neutron and gamma ray transport, so that such physics are more complex. Thus, neutron-gamma porosity may have more environmental effects which may be more difficult to interpret.
Notwithstanding the additional complexity in interpretation there may be advantages associated with measuring neutron-gamma porosity. The count rate of a gamma ray detector can be more than 1 order of magnitude higher than a 3He neutron detector. The depth of investigation (lateral distance from the wellbore wall into the formation) of a neutron-gamma measurement may be deeper than that of a neutron-neutron measurement. The energy of a gamma ray from a neutron capture event is normally in the million electron volt (MeV) range, which means such gamma rays can travel a longer distance than a thermal neutron before absorption. A scintillation type gamma ray detector can also provide gamma ray spectroscopy and inelastic neutron scatter-related measurements, which a thermal or epithermal neutron detector cannot. The foregoing features make neutron-gamma porosity very appealing.
A method for determining a formation hydrogen index according to one aspect of the disclosure includes using measurements of numbers of gamma rays detected during operation of a pulsed neutron source (“burst gamma rays”) to irradiate a formation and numbers of thermal neutron capture gamma rays made at at least two different axial spacings from the pulsed neutron source. At least one of (i) a first ratio of and (ii) a first logarithm of the first ratio of the numbers of burst gamma rays detected at a first axial spacing with respect to a number of burst gamma rays detected at a second axial spacing is determined. A second logarithm of a second ratio of the numbers of thermal neutron capture gamma rays detected at a first axial spacing with respect to the numbers of thermal neutron capture gamma rays detected at a second axial spacing is determined. A corrected second ratio of the numbers of thermal neutron capture gamma rays is determined using at least one of (i) the first logarithm and (ii) the first ratio, and the second logarithm. The formation hydrogen index is determined from the corrected second ratio.
This summary is provided to introduce a selection of concepts that are further described below in the detailed description. This summary is not intended to identify key or essential features of the claimed subject matter, nor is it intended to be used as an aid in limiting the scope of the claimed subject matter. Other aspects and advantages will be apparent from the description and claims that follow.
The instrument housing 12 contains a pulsed neutron source 14, and two or more gamma ray detectors 18, 20, 21 at different axial spacings from the pulsed neutron source. The pulsed neutron source 14 (hereinafter “source”), when activated, will emit controlled duration “bursts” of high energy neutrons (approximately 14 MeV, and which may be emitted isotropically). One example of a pulsed neutron source is described in U.S. Pat. No. 5,293,410 issued to Chen et al.
Shielding 16 may be interposed between the source 14 and the axially closest detector (e.g., near detector 16) to reduce the effects of direct neutron communication between the source 14 and the detectors 18, 20, 21. The detectors 18, 20, 21 may be scintillation counters each coupled to a respective counter or pulse height analyzer (not shown separately). Thus, numbers of and, with the use of a pulse height analyzer, energy of detected gamma rays may be characterized at each of a plurality of distances from the source 14.
The gamma ray detectors 18, 20, 21 may detect gamma rays arriving at the detector as a function of time. There are two principal mechanisms, through which a neutron-induced gamma ray can be generated. One is neutron inelastic scattering, which can be triggered only by “fast” neutrons (with energy above approximately 1 MeV, the exact energy threshold depending on the type of nucleus). The other is through neutron capture, which can be triggered primarily by thermal neutrons (with energy around 0.025 eV at room temperature) or epithermal neutrons (with energy from about 0.4 to 100 eV) being absorbed into a susceptible nucleus, as non-limiting examples, chlorine, boron and cadmium. When the source 14 is activated, the gamma rays arriving at the detectors 18, 20, 21 may be generated through both mechanisms because the source keeps emitting fast neutrons which can slow down to epithermal or thermal almost instantly (relative to the acquisition system timing). When the source 14 is switched off, the gamma rays arriving at the detectors 18, 20, 21 may be generated by epithermal or thermal neutron capture because no new fast neutrons are emitted into the wellbore and formations. Thus, the measured gamma ray flux at the detectors 18, 20, 21 during the source off time is an indirect measurement of epithermal and thermal neutrons. Such indirect measurement can be used to provide formation hydrogen index (HI) measurement.
A well logging instrument including a scintillation detector type radiation counter is shown at 210 in
The present example of the well logging instrument may be an instrument that makes measurements corresponding to selected properties of the Earth formations 215 based on spectral analysis of detected gamma rays. Such instruments include a housing 210A in which is disposed certain electronic circuitry, shown generally at E and to be further explained below. The housing 210A may or may not include a backup pad or arm 210B that is biased to one side of the instrument 210 to urge the other side of the instrument 210 into contact with the wall of the wellbore 212. The other side of the instrument 210 may or may not include a tungsten or similar high density skid or pad 210C in which is disposed a source radiation RS, which may be a pulsed neutron source as explained with reference to
One or more radiation detectors (e.g., 18, 21 and 20 as explained with reference to
While the example conveyance of a well logging instrument as shown in
There is a correspondence between the ratio of numbers of capture gamma rays detected at the far spacing detector (20 in
One can obtain two “burst measurements” from two detectors located at two-axial distances from the source, and compute a ratio of their respective count rates as a “burst ratio” BRAT, i.e. the ratio of counts acquired during the entire neutron burst or during a fraction thereof.
To illustrate the concept more clearly, one can substantially remove the porosity dependence of the burst ratio using a third ratio so that the measured burst ratio is substantially independent of the capture ratio, as shown in
Such linear function may be determined as follows. Define IRAT using Eq. 1.
The coefficient α in Eq. 1 is a constant, which is associated with the tool design and can be characterized by laboratory experiment or by modeling so that there is no HI sensitivity in IRAT. IRAT is very sensitive to gas/oil present in the borehole. It still has sensitivity to formation conditions, such as gas-filled porosity and lithology, but it is relatively small compared to the borehole gas/oil effects. In International Application Publication No. WO 2012/083210 are described many other options to remove the HI sensitivity from a burst measurement. The same techniques can be applied to the present techniques as well. The following section will illustrate that the borehole gas/oil effects on the capture ratio can be estimated using IRAT.
In the present example, one may use second order polynomial functions to predict the required gain and offset based on the IRAT, as shown in Eq. 2. The six coefficients (a1, a2, a3, b1, b2, and b3) are constants and associated with the tool design and the actual timing gates chosen for IRAT and TRAT. They can be characterized by laboratory experiment and/or modeling. Substituting Equation 1 in Equation 2, one will obtain Equation 3, which shows that the corrected capture ratio is essentially a second order function of three ratios, a burst ratio, a capture ratio and the third ratio. Note that Equation 3 is only one example. One can generalize Equation 3 to Equation 4 to show that the corrected capture ratio is essentially a function of three ratios.
In the same borehole conditions, the required gain and offset do not depend on the formation conditions. However, IRAT will have some formation dependency (lithology, gas-filled porosity, etc.). Thus, the computed gain and offset based on the IRAT will have some formation dependency as well. Fortunately, the lithology and gas-filled porosity effects turn out to be about 10 times smaller than the gas/oil borehole effects on the burst ratio. Therefore, the burst ratio can be used to compute the gas/oil borehole correction.
Some of the errors in the oil/gas borehole correction shown in
There are several ways to improve the correction. One can remove the HI sensitivity from the burst ratio using a non-linear formula or database-search method as discussed in the above referenced International Application publication. Another way is to use a long adaptive filter on the predicted gain and offset, to average out the leftover formation sensitivity in the gain and offset. In some conditions, one can even fix the gain and offset to their average values in certain zones.
Note that there is a plurality of options to remove the HI sensitivity from the burst ratio. For example, instead of using the capture/burst ratio, one can use TRAT itself to remove the HI sensitivity. As shown in
IRat=BRat+f(TRat) (5)
TRat_corrected=f(BRat,TRat) (6)
The concept of the present disclosure can also be applied to a tool design which contains at least one gamma ray detector and in which the neutron output of the generator is known. One possibility is the use of a neutron monitor such as a fast neutron (1 MeV energy and higher) detector installed proximate to the neutron source to monitor the variation of the neutron source output. Any or all the detector ratios discussed herein (either burst ratio, capture ratio or the third ratio) can be replaced by the ratio of a detected gamma ray count rate in a given timing gate and a signal indicative of the neutron output of the neutron generator. In the case of a fast neutron detector used as a neutron monitor, the number of fast neutron counts registered in the detector is directly related to the neutron output. Alternatively, the neutron output may be determined from the generator operating parameters or from the determination of radiation directly related to the neutron output of the generator and unaffected by the tool environment or a combination of a several neutron output measurements. Additionally, the concept of the present disclosure may also work for a tool equipped with more than two axially spaced apart gamma ray detectors. In such case, the detector ratios can be computed from any two detectors among the detectors in the tool.
A processor can include a microprocessor, microcontroller, processor module or subsystem, programmable integrated circuit, programmable gate array, or another control or computing device.
The storage media 106 can be implemented as one or more computer-readable or machine-readable storage media. Note that while in the example embodiment of
It should be appreciated that computing system 100 is only one example of a computing system, and that computing system 100 may have more or fewer components than shown, may combine additional components not depicted in the example embodiment of
Further, the steps in the processing methods described above may be implemented by running one or more functional modules in information processing apparatus such as general purpose processors or application specific chips, such as ASICs, FPGAs, PLDs, or other appropriate devices. These modules, combinations of these modules, and/or their combination with general hardware are all included within the scope of the present disclosure.
In order to automatically correct the oil/gas borehole effects in real time, it is useful to characterize the tool responses in known conditions for different borehole sizes and/or casing configurations. However, oil and gas borehole conditions are difficult to reproduce in the laboratory. A pressurized vessel is necessary to reproduce gas borehole conditions in laboratory. This is not only expensive but also poses a danger to the operators. A diesel-filled borehole can be made practically, but the tool response is so similar to that in a water filled borehole that it does not materially assist in tool characterization. A light oil-filled borehole is not practical either due to the flammability and the rate of evaporation of most liquids that resemble light oil.
A novel technique which reduces safety concerns is to use plastic balls mixed with either air or water to simulate oil/gas borehole conditions. This technique is very easy to use and inexpensive. The origin of this technique is the realization that for nuclear measurements the particular chemical form of a material does not matter. The only factor affecting nuclear measurements is the volumetric number density of all the component elements.
The proposed technique can easily be extended to mixtures of other materials with water or other liquids. Hollow balls of any material can be used and other liquids can be substituted for the water. This allows the operator to cause the simulated borehole fluid composition to match the properties of the desired real world condition.
A list of techniques that extends the range of possible borehole fluids that can be modeled (e.g. including but not limited to CO2) may include: (a) hollow solid particles mixed with a fluid (e.g. air or water). One can optimize the thickness and material of the hollow particles to achieve a particular element density; (b) constant stream of gas that is released at the bottom of a liquid column to create a stable (i.e. compositionally the same as a function of time) mix of gas and liquid with the desired properties while it rises; (c) a fluidized bed wherein solid particles are brought into constant motion by a fluid being pumped from below to create a stable composition as a function of time; (d) a foam, either stable or unstable (e.g. a foam temporarily stabilized by a surfactant or a more permanent foam such as polystyrene or neoprene); (e) machined or otherwise purposely structured solid (e.g. a carbon rod with a multitude of holes in it to model CO2).
A series of measurements can be made using this technique for different formation tanks. Then the measurements can be used to characterize the borehole gas/oil correction method, which was discussed earlier. One can also use the same measurements to benchmark/validate modeling simulation and use modeling to extent the formation/borehole conditions to a wider realistic range. The characterization method is an integral part of this borehole fluid correction method due to the nonlinear behavior of the correction term between the air point and the water point. A characterization of the correction term between these two extremes dramatically improves the performance of the algorithm.
Beside the gas borehole correction for the porosity measurement, the burst measurement can also be used to measure borehole fluid density.
In other embodiments, TRAT may computed as a capture gamma ray count rate measurement from the near detector (18 in
log(TRAT_corrected)=log(TRAT)−a·log(BRAT) (7)
The present example method shown here is performed in logarithmic space, which is different from the methods described above with reference to Eqs. (2) and (3). Eq. (7) has no cross term between TRAT and BRAT.
It has been determined that the compensation method in Eq. (7) not only removes wellbore fluid effect, but also remove the casing effect as well in one step.
All the foregoing wellbore fluid and casing/cement effects may be compensated using Eq. (7) having only one coefficient.
Because the compensation method using Eq. (7) can correct for wellbore fluid and casing/cement effects, which are very different effects, with only one coefficient, it is believed that the same method can also correct many other effects at the same time such as standoff, eccentric casing, cement washout, tubing, etc. For example, standoff effect is in effect a modified casing/cement effect relative to uncased condition, except that the casing and cement are substituted by wellbore fluid. Because the foregoing compensation method can correct for various casing weights and cement thicknesses, in which conditions the casing and tool positions relative to wellbore may vary substantially, a wellbore having eccentric casing or cement washout is not very different. A condition with a tubing can be treated as a condition with an additional casing. The foregoing compensation method is expected work for a wide range of open hole or cased hole conditions.
log(TRAT_correct)=log(TRAT)−a·BRAT (8)
There is porosity sensitivity in the burst ratio BRAT. Therefore, after compensation using the burst ratio, the capture ratio porosity sensitivity will be reduced. One can remove water filled porosity sensitivity from the burst ratio before performing wellbore effect compensation. Eq. (1) provides one method to correct the burst ratio. Eq. (9) below shows another example of correcting a burst measurement using a capture measurement before determining the ratio. The two coefficients a1 and a2 are not necessary the same. The two coefficients can be determined to remove the water-filled porosity sensitivity in the ratio. They can also be determined to remove the capture gamma ray count rate in the burst count rate by using a count rate in a capture gate.
The compensation can be performed using Eq. (10) below.
log(TRAT_correct)=log(TRAT)−a·IRAT_DF (10)
The general formula of corrected TRAT can be written as Eq. (11) using the raw burst count rate ratio without correcting for water filled porosity sensitivity. Eq. (12) shows the general formula of the corrected TRAT, with compensation by using a corrected burst count rate ratio from two detectors d1 and d2 (e.g., detectors 18 and 20 in
A flow chart of the embodiments described above with reference to
The process shown in flow chart form in
While the invention has been described with respect to a limited number of embodiments, those skilled in the art, having benefit of this disclosure, will appreciate that other embodiments can be devised which do not depart from the scope of the invention as disclosed herein. Accordingly, the scope of the invention should be limited only by the attached claims.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
4464569 | Flaum | Aug 1984 | A |
4645926 | Randall | Feb 1987 | A |
5293410 | Chen et al. | Mar 1994 | A |
5498960 | Vinegar et al. | Mar 1996 | A |
5539225 | Loomis et al. | Jul 1996 | A |
5608215 | Evans | Mar 1997 | A |
5699246 | Plasek et al. | Dec 1997 | A |
5804820 | Evans et al. | Sep 1998 | A |
5909772 | Merkel et al. | Jun 1999 | A |
6703606 | Adolph | Mar 2004 | B2 |
6754586 | Adolph et al. | Jun 2004 | B1 |
6884994 | Simonetti et al. | Apr 2005 | B2 |
7667192 | Fricke et al. | Feb 2010 | B2 |
8471197 | Inanc et al. | Jun 2013 | B2 |
9268056 | Zhou et al. | Feb 2016 | B2 |
9310515 | Zhou et al. | Apr 2016 | B2 |
20020170348 | Roscoe et al. | Nov 2002 | A1 |
20040128073 | Radtke et al. | Jul 2004 | A1 |
20060226351 | Stoller et al. | Oct 2006 | A1 |
20060284066 | Jacobson | Dec 2006 | A1 |
20070023626 | Riley et al. | Feb 2007 | A1 |
20090210161 | Duenckel | Aug 2009 | A1 |
20110001040 | Smith, Jr. | Jan 2011 | A1 |
20110213555 | Kopal et al. | Sep 2011 | A1 |
20110284731 | Roscoe et al. | Nov 2011 | A1 |
20110313669 | Thornton | Dec 2011 | A1 |
20120016588 | Evans | Jan 2012 | A1 |
20120126106 | Zhou et al. | May 2012 | A1 |
20120148004 | Caruso et al. | Jun 2012 | A1 |
20120197529 | Stephenson | Aug 2012 | A1 |
20120215451 | Husser et al. | Aug 2012 | A1 |
20130105678 | Wilson et al. | May 2013 | A1 |
20130166223 | Triplett | Jun 2013 | A1 |
20130282288 | Quinn et al. | Oct 2013 | A1 |
20140042311 | Zhou et al. | Feb 2014 | A1 |
20140088877 | Ellis et al. | Mar 2014 | A1 |
20140129149 | Gzara et al. | May 2014 | A1 |
20140343856 | Zhou | Nov 2014 | A1 |
20150226874 | Inanc et al. | Aug 2015 | A1 |
20150247948 | Zhou et al. | Sep 2015 | A1 |
20150268376 | Zhou et al. | Sep 2015 | A1 |
20150331141 | Grau et al. | Nov 2015 | A1 |
20160003025 | Beekman et al. | Jan 2016 | A1 |
20160003969 | Zhou et al. | Jan 2016 | A1 |
20160349398 | Zhou et al. | Dec 2016 | A1 |
20160349399 | Zhou | Dec 2016 | A1 |
20170160425 | Miles et al. | Jun 2017 | A1 |
20170227671 | Zhou | Aug 2017 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
2426516 | Mar 2012 | EP |
WO2010135618 | Nov 2010 | WO |
WO2012012101 | Jan 2012 | WO |
WO2012012120 | Jan 2012 | WO |
WO2012083210 | Jun 2012 | WO |
Entry |
---|
International Seach Report and Written Opinion Issued in the related PCT Application PCT/US2013/034343, dated Jul. 11, 2013 (8 pages). |
International Preliminary Report on patentability Issued in the related PCT Application PCT/US2013/034343, dated Oct. 1, 2014 (6 pages). |
European Search Report issued in the related EP Application 13769611.8, dated Mar. 3, 2016 (5 pages). |
Communication pursuant to Article 94(3) issued in the related EP Application 13769611.8, dated Mar. 23, 2016 (6 pages). |
Robert Freedman, et al., A modern method for using databases to obtain accurate solutions to complex reservoir characterization problems, SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering, Dec. 31, 2011, SPE 147169, pp. 1-15. |
International Seach Report and Written Opinion Issued in the related PCT Application PCT/US2014/037672, dated Sep. 2, 2014 (14 pages). |
International Preliminary Report on patentability Issued in the related PCT Application PCT/US2014/037672, dated Nov. 17, 2015 (10 pages). |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20160349399 A1 | Dec 2016 | US |