Modern oil field operators demand access to a great quantity of information regarding the parameters and conditions encountered downhole. Such information typically includes characteristics of the earth formations traversed by the borehole and data relating to the size and configuration of the borehole itself. The collection of information relating to conditions downhole, which commonly is referred to as “logging,” can he performed by several methods including wireline logging and “logging while drilling” (LWD).
In wireline logging, a sonde is lowered into the borehole after some or all of the well has been drilled. The sonde hangs at the end of a long wireline cable that provides mechanical support to the sonde and also provides an electrical connection between the sonde and electrical equipment located at the surface of the well. In accordance with existing logging techniques, various parameters of the earth's formations are measured and correlated with the position of the sonde in the borehole as the sonde is pulled uphole.
In LWD, the drilling assembly includes sensing instruments that measure various parameters as the formation is being penetrated, thereby enabling measurements of the formation while it is less affected by fluid invasion. While LWD measurements are desirable, drilling operations create an environment that is generally hostile to electronic instrumentation, telemetry, and sensor operations.
Among the available wireline and LWD tools are a variety of resistivity logging tools including, in particular, “array laterolog” tools. Such tools typically include a central electrode around a tool body, with guard electrodes symmetrically spaced above and below the central electrode. The tool drives auxiliary currents between the guard electrodes and the center electrode to “focus” the current from the center electrode, i.e., to reduce dispersion of the current from the center electrode until after the current has penetrated some distance into the formation. Generally speaking, a greater depth of investigation can be achieved using more widely-spaced guard electrodes, but the vertical resolution of the measurements may suffer. Accordingly, existing tools employ multiple sets of guard electrodes at different spacings from the central electrode to enable multiple depths of investigation without unduly sacrificing vertical resolution. Laterolog tools with one, two, three, and four sets of guard electrodes have been created. Though measurements of the simpler tools are conceptually subsets of the measurements provided by the more complex tools, in practice the presence of the extra guard electrodes affects the measurements of the complex tools, thereby making it difficult to compare measurements from different tools.
The various disclosed embodiments are better understood when the following detailed description is considered in conjunction with the accompanying drawings, in which:
While the invention is susceptible to various modifications and alternative forms, specific embodiments are shown by way of example in the drawings and will herein he described in detail. It should be understood, however, that the drawings and detailed description are not intended to limit the disclosure, but on the contrary, the intention is to cover all modifications, equivalents and alternatives falling within the scope of the appended claims.
Accordingly, there are disclosed herein improved multi-array laterolog tool systems and methods that acquire a set of array measurements sufficient to provide laterolog tool measurements of differing array sizes. Such systems and method offer multiple depths of investigation while offering greater measurement stability in borehole environments having high resistivity contrasts. In at least some system embodiments, a wireline or LWD tool body has a center electrode positioned between multiple pairs of guard electrodes and a pair of return electrodes. The tool's electronics provide a current from the center electrode to the pair of return electrodes and currents from each pair of guard electrodes to the pair of return electrodes. Each of the currents may be distinguishable by frequency or distinguishable by some other means. This novel arrangement of currents provides a complete set of measurements that enables one tool to simultaneously emulate a whole range of laterolog tools. The contemplated numbers of guard electrode pairs ranges from three to five, though of course more can be employed if space permits. Monitor electrodes can also be provided to separate the signal measurements from the transmission source.
At least some method embodiments include operating on measurements indicative of electrical resistance between a pair of return electrodes and each of: a center electrode and multiple pairs of guard electrodes. The measurements are processed to determine formation resistivity logs at multiple depths of investigation. One processing approach includes deriving measurements of resistivity between the center electrode and each pair of guard electrodes before combining the derived measurements in a manner that enforces predetermined relationships between the voltages at the monitor electrodes. Examples of the predetermined relationships include: equality, and a predetermined ratio.
The disclosed systems and methods are best understood in the context of the larger systems in which they operate. Such systems are illustrated in
A LWD tool suite 26 is integrated into the bottom-hole assembly near the bit 14. As the bit extends the borehole through the formations, logging tool 26 collects measurements relating to various formation properties as well as the tool orientation and various other drilling conditions. The LWD tools 26 may take the form of a drill collar, i.e., a thick-walled tubular that provides weight and rigidity to aid the drilling process. (For the present discussion, the set of logging tools is expected to include a multi-array laterolog resistivity tool to measure formation resistivity.) A telemetry sub 28 may be included to transfer images and measurement data to a surface receiver 30 and to receive commands from the surface. In some embodiments, the telemetry sub 28 does not communicate with the surface, but rather stores logging data for later retrieval at the surface when the logging assembly is recovered.
At various times during the drilling process, the drill string 8 may be removed from the borehole as shown in
An alternative logging technique is tubing-conveyed logging.
Surface computer system 66 is configured to communicate with supervisory sub 64 to set logging parameters and collect logging information from the one or more logging tools 65 such as a multi-array laterolog tool. Surface computer system 66 is configured by software (shown in
In each of the foregoing logging environments, the logging tool assemblies may include a navigational sensor package having directional sensors for determining the inclination angle, the horizontal angle, and the rotational angle (a.k.a. “tool face angle”) of the bottomhole assembly (BHA). As is commonly defined in the art, the inclination angle is the deviation from vertically downward, the horizontal angle is the angle in a horizontal plane from true North, and the tool face angle is the orientation (rotational about the tool axis) angle from the high side of the wellbore. In accordance with known techniques, directional measurements can be made as follows: a three axis accelerometer measures the earth's gravitational field vector relative to the tool axis and a point on the circumference of the tool called the “tool face scribe line”. (The tool face scribe line is typically drawn on the tool surface as a line parallel to the tool axis.) From this measurement, the inclination and tool face angle of the BHA can be determined. Additionally, a three axis magnetometer measures the earth's magnetic field vector in a similar manner. From the combined magnetometer and accelerometer data, the horizontal angle of the BHA may be determined.
A discussion of the multi-array laterolog tool electronics is in order before describing the physical construction of the tool.
The tool electronics employ the current electrodes to provide the currents I0−I5 and I0′−I5′ as illustrated in
To enable the monitor electrodes to distinguish the effects of the various currents, the currents are given distinguishable features. In the contemplated tool embodiment, the electrodes are pair-wise connected and currents I0−I5 have distinguishable signal frequencies f1-f6. The contemplated set of frequencies includes 80 Hz, 115 Hz, 145 Hz, 185 Hz, 235 Hz, and 285 Hz. (It is expected that the borehole fluid will he fairly conductive, thereby allowing low frequency currents to pass into and through the formation.) This frequency set offers sufficient frequency spacing to enable fast logging, while not spreading the frequencies so far apart as to incur excessive frequency dependence in the resistivity measurements. Moreover this frequency set avoids the use of harmonic frequencies which could he unduly sensitive to nonlinear effects in the system. Nevertheless, other sets of frequencies would also be suitable for distinguishing the currents. Alternatively, the currents could be distinguished through the use of time division multiplexing, code division multiplexing, or other methods that enable the currents to he independently monitored.
While each of the currents is provided with a characteristic that makes its effects distinguishable from those of the other currents, in at least some tool embodiments some of the currents are given common features. For example, some tool embodiments provide current I0 with frequencies f1 and f2. The sharing of frequency f2 by both current I0 and I1 enables straightforward hardware focusing as described in greater detail below.
As the tool drives the current electrodes, the currents pass through the borehole fluid and the formation to reach the return electrodes, creating a field potential indicative of the resistivity of the materials along the various current flow paths. The control module records a voltage signal from each monitor electrode to measure the field potential at the monitor electrode locations. A frequency analysis of the voltage signals (e.g., by Fourier transform, filtering, or least-squares curve fitting) separates out those voltage signal components attributable to each of the currents.
With the measurements for the current flow pattern of
vi=[vi,1 vi,2 vi,3] (1)
where the different vector components correspond to different frequencies f1, f2, f3. (Throughout the following description, vi,j represents the jth frequency component of the voltage signal received by the ith monitor electrode.) If the currents I0, I1, and I2 differ only in frequency and not magnitude, then the truncated flow pattern measurements 808 are:
v′i=[vi,1−vi,3 vi,2−vi,3 vi,3−vi,3] (2)
The last vector component is of course zero, as I2 is not part of the truncated flow pattern. (Where the current magnitudes are not equal the measurements should be scaled accordingly before applying the correction.)
Those familiar with laterolog tools recognize that the analysis is not yet complete, as the tool has not yet provided for focusing of the current. As with existing laterolog tools, focusing is accomplished by balancing the current from the center electrode with currents from the guard electrodes. In the current flow pattern of
v′1,1−v′2,1=c(v′2,2−v′1,2) (3)
where c is a scale factor that causes I1 to balance I0. (This use of internal scale factors is herein termed “software focusing”) The apparent resistivity is then
where k1 is a tool constant, I0 is the current from the center electrode, and
VM1=v′1,1+cv′1,2. (5)
The foregoing approach can be condensed into the following equations
in combination with equation (4) above. The first and second subscripts in Ij,k are the source electrode (A0, A1, . . . ) and the frequency (f1, f2, . . . ). The second subscript is added for generality. Certain tool embodiments employ currents with multiple frequency components to enable adaptive hardware balancing of the currents. For example, the current from electrode A0 can include two signal frequencies f1 and f2, where f2 is also the signal frequency of the current from electrode A1. The control module 410 (
with
VM1=c1,1v1,1+v1,2+c1,3v1,3. (9)
and
I0=c1,1I0,1+I0,2 (10)
in combination with equation (4) above.
Thus suitable equations for the software focusing approach and the combined hardware/software focusing approach for Model 1 have been disclosed.
where k2 is the tool constant for Model 2 and
VM1=v1,1+c2,1v1,2+c2,2v1,3+c2,3v1,4, (12)
with the coefficients being the solution to the simultaneous set of equations
This last set of equations introduces the use of an enhanced focusing factor λm,n, which is a desired ratio between the voltages on selected monitor electrodes. The first subscript m is the model number (2 indicates Model 2) and the second subscript n is the position of the monitor electrodes (n=2 indicates the monitor electrodes between current electrodes A1 and A2, whereas n=3 indicates the monitor electrodes between A2 and A3, n=4 indicates the monitor electrodes between A3 and A4, and n=5 indicates the monitor electrodes between A4 and A5). The focusing factor is a selected ratio between the inner monitor electrode and the outer monitor electrode (e.g., λ2,2 is the selected ratio of M3 to M4). By default, the selected value of λ is 1.0 (meaning enforced equality), but it has been found that often a deeper depth of investigation can be achieved by decreasing λ by around 10 to 20 percent.
For the combined hardware/software focusing approach (where the tool sources 10 with two frequency components as described previously), equation (10) is used in combination with the following equations:
VM1=c2,1v1,1+v1,2+c2,2v1,3+c2,3v1,4, (13)
I0=c2,3I0,3+I0,2 (14)
with the coefficients being the solution to the simultaneous set of equations
For Model 3 (
where k3 is the tool constant for Model 3 and
VM1=v1,1+c3,1v1,2+c3,2v1,3+c3,3v1,4+c3,4v1,5, (17)
with the coefficients being the solution to the simultaneous set of equations
For the combined hardware/software focusing approach (where the tool sources I0 with two frequency components as described previously), equation (16) is used in combination with the following equations:
VM1=c3,1v1,1+v1,2+c3,2v1,3+c3,3v1,4+c3,4v1,5, (19)
I0=c3,1I0,3+I0,2 (20)
with the coefficients being the solution the simultaneous set of equations
The equations for Models 4 and 5 can be readily written by observing the patterns made apparent in the equations for Models 1-3. Each column in the simultaneous-equation matrices corresponds to a signal frequency. The last row corresponds to the current components, while each of the remaining rows is the desired balance for the two monitor electrodes between a given set of current electrodes.
Numerous variations and modifications will become apparent to those skilled in the art once the above disclosure is fully appreciated. It is intended that the claims be interpreted to embrace all such variations and modifications.
Filing Document | Filing Date | Country | Kind | 371c Date |
---|---|---|---|---|
PCT/US2010/056645 | 11/15/2010 | WO | 00 | 5/8/2013 |
Publishing Document | Publishing Date | Country | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
WO2012/067599 | 5/24/2012 | WO | A |
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
3262050 | Threadgold et al. | Jul 1966 | A |
4412180 | Desbrandes | Oct 1983 | A |
4484139 | Bravenec | Nov 1984 | A |
4524325 | Moore et al. | Jun 1985 | A |
4570123 | Grosso | Feb 1986 | A |
4646026 | Chemali et al. | Feb 1987 | A |
4675610 | Chapman et al. | Jun 1987 | A |
4675611 | Chapman et al. | Jun 1987 | A |
4677385 | Chapman et al. | Jun 1987 | A |
4677386 | Chapman et al. | Jun 1987 | A |
4703279 | Chapman et al. | Oct 1987 | A |
4714889 | Chapman et al. | Dec 1987 | A |
5343153 | Davies et al. | Aug 1994 | A |
5399971 | Seeman et al. | Mar 1995 | A |
6060886 | Tabarovsky et al. | May 2000 | A |
20080303526 | Itskovich et al. | Dec 2008 | A1 |
20090230968 | Bittar et al. | Sep 2009 | A1 |
20090309591 | Goodman et al. | Dec 2009 | A1 |
20130234718 | Li, Shanjun et al. | Sep 2013 | A1 |
Entry |
---|
PCT International Search Report and Written Opinion, dated Feb. 1, 2011, Appl No. PCT/US2010/056645, “Multi-Array Laterolog Tools and Methods”, filed Nov. 15, 2010, 8 pgs. |
ARI*. Azimuthal Resistivity Imager., 1993, Schlumberger Wireline and Testing, pp. -15, Retrieved from the Internet: <http://www.slb.com/˜/media/Files/resources/books/industry—articles/ari—client—book.ashx>. |
PCT International Search Report and Written Opinion, dated Feb. 27, 2012, Appl No. PCT/US2011/058867, “Multi-Array Laterolog Tools and Methods with Differential Voltage Measurements”, filed Nov. 2, 2011, 9 pgs. |
PCT International Preliminary Report on Patentability, dated Nov. 26, 2012, Appl No. PCT/US2010/056645, “Multi-Array Laterolog Tools and Methods” filed Nov. 15, 2010, 3 pgs. |
PCT International Preliminary Report on Patentability, dated May 30, 2013, Appl No. PCT/US2011/058867, “Multi-Array Laterolog Tools and Methods with Differential Voltage Measurements”, filed Nov. 2, 2011, 5 pgs. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20130257436 A1 | Oct 2013 | US |