1. Field of the Invention
The invention relates generally to the field of relief wells. More specifically, the invention relates to systems and methods for determining more accurate distance and direction measurements from an open relief well to a cased, blown-out well.
2. Background Art
Well blowouts, such as the BP Macondo well blowout in the Gulf of Mexico on Apr. 20, 2010, highlight both the need and the public expectation for the oil and gas industry to have available the most accurate and efficient tools possible for killing a blown out well. One of the tools of last resort is the drilling of a relief well. The objective of a relief well may be to intersect and penetrate the casing in the blown out well so that high density fluid (e.g., “heavy” drilling mud) can be pumped into the relief well and ultimately into the blown out well in order to “kill” the blown out well, i.e. to stop entry into the blow out well of fluids from formations penetrated by the blown out well. In cases where intersection of the relief well and the blown out well is not required, it may be necessary to bring the two wellbores into close proximity to one another for the same purpose, i.e., to pump fluid into the relief well and then into the blow out well to kill the blown out well.
The geodetic location the bottom of a well (“bottom hole location”) drilled through subsurface formations can have an ellipse of uncertainty whose axes can be of the order of 200 feet or more depending on the well axial length (depth) and other circumstances. The positional uncertainty is caused by small systematic and random errors in directional survey measurements that accumulate with increasing depth. For this reason the intersection of a small (e.g., 7 inch) diameter casing by a relief well at a depth of several miles below the water bottom or the Earth's surface is difficult given the uncertainties in the bottom hole locations of both wells. Therefore a ranging method is needed that can guide the relief well to the blown out well. The ranging method involves making deep reading logging measurements in the relief well that are sensitive to the presence of a pipe in a blown out well, e.g., casing or drill pipe. The ranging measurements are processed to estimate the distance and direction from the relief well to the blown out well.
In order for the ranging method to be effective in locating the blown out well, sensors disposed in the relief well ideally have sensitivity to the presence of the casing or drill pipe in the blown out well at distances of the order of 200 feet or more. For electromagnetic sensors such sensitivity requires the use of low frequency electromagnetic field of the order of 1 Hz or less and long spacings between an electromagnetic field source and electromagnetic field detectors. Such electromagnetic measurements are sensitive to the presence of the casing or drill pipe because the electrical conductivity of such pipe, typically made from electrically conductive material such as steel or various alloys thereof is typically more than six orders of magnitude greater than that of subsurface formations.
A magnetic ranging tool was developed at Cornell University and is known in the industry as Extended Lateral Range Electrical Conductivity (“ELREC”). A resistivity ranging tool and method developed by Schlumberger Well Surveying Corp., a predecessor to the assignee of the present invention, is known as the Ultra-Long Spaced Electrical Log (ULSEL).
The ULSEL tool is a very long spaced version of the Schlumberger Electrical Survey (ES) tool first developed by Marcel and Conrad Schlumberger in the 1920s. The ES tools were used to record the first Schlumberger resistivity log in 1927 in Pechelbron, France. ES tools had current and voltage measuring electrodes mounted on an insulated bridle or cable that was lowered into the well at the end of an electrical cable connected to an electric current source disposed at the surface. Referring to
Apparent formation resistivities may be computed from the measured potential differences using pairs of voltage measuring electrodes M, N with different spacings therebetween. ES tools include a 16-inch “Normal” electrode pair whose electrode spacings are AM=16 in. (1.33 ft), AN=20 ft, AB=89 ft, and a 64-inch “Normal” with spacings, AM=64 in. (5.33 ft), AN=71 ft, and AB=89 ft. The depth of investigation (measurement extent laterally from the axis of the well) of ES tools is determined principally by the AM spacing. Because the A electrode emits a current that is unfocused, in conductive wells, i.e., those having electrically conductive fluid therein, the apparent resistivities from the short spaced ES measurements may be dominated by effects of such fluid in the well. The borehole effect on the ES tools was later addressed by the introduction of resistivity tools with focused current source electrodes, e.g., the Schlumberger “LATEROLOG 7” and its successors. The borehole effect on the longer spaced ULSEL measurements (e.g., 64 inch Normal) is substantially lower, or may even be negligible because of the longer distances between the M and N electrodes and the A electrode.
ULSEL tools were developed more than 40 years ago for determining distance from a well to a salt dome hydrocarbon trap in formations found in and near the Gulf Coast of the United States. ULSEL tools are essentially log-spaced ES tools consisting of current and voltage measuring electrodes on an insulated bridle. For salt dome profiling the bridle is about 5000 feet long and long spacings, e.g., AM=1000 feet and AN=4000 feet were able to detect salt domes at distances of 1200 to 1500 feet from an open well. For operation using very longest ULSEL spacings, very low frequencies are used to mitigate the skin-effect, which suppresses the measured apparent resistivities. Very long spaced normal and/or lateral measurements typically must be performed while the tool is stationary in the well.
The procedure used was to drill a well close to the salt dome to ensure efficient draining of the reservoir near the salt-dome flank. One of the major users and proponents of this technology for salt dome proximity logging was Standard Oil Company of California (now Chevron Corp.) which used ULSEL tools in wells drilled in shallow waters off the coast of Louisiana (see, e.g., R. J. Runge, A. E. Worthington, and D. R. Lucas, Ultra-Long Spaced Electric Log (ULSEL), SPWLA, 10th Annual Logging Symposium, 1969, Paper H). In the case of salt dome profiling, the ULSEL tool response is sensitive to the presence of salt domes because they have resistivities that are typically tens of thousands of ohm-meters and therefore represent a resistive anomaly (the opposite of a well casing which represents a conductive anomaly). Such anomaly is observable as an increase in the measured apparent ULSEL resistivity.
It was recognized that the ULSEL tool could also be used to detect conductive casing or drill pipe in a blown out well from within an open relief well. In 1972 Shell Oil Company used the ULSEL tool to estimate distance from relief wells to two blowouts (see, e.g., F. R. Mitchell, et al., “Using Resistivity Measurements to Determine Distance Between Wells,” J. Pet. Technology, pp. 723-740, June, 1972). The blowouts were in a well known as the Cox No. 1, a gas well producing 40% H2S located in Piney Woods, Miss. and the Bay Marchand Platform B well blowout off the coast of Louisiana. Using the notation AM/AN for electrode spacings the ULSEL spacings used by Shell for detecting the casing included 20/71, 75/350, 150/350, 75/600, 150/600 with all spacings designated in feet. The ULSEL tool can be moved along the interior of the relief well at moderate speeds using the foregoing spacings. As shown in
The ELREC instrument was used by Shell Oil Company in drilling a relief well in 1982 (see, C. L. West, A. F. Kuckes, and H. J. Ritch, Successful ELREC Logging for Casing Proximity in an Offshore Louisiana Blowout, SPE paper 11996, presented at the SPE 58th Ann. Tech. Conf. & Exhibition, held in San Francisco, Calif., Oct. 5-8, 1983). In the foregoing offshore Louisiana blowout, both ELREC and ULSEL instruments were used to provide a more accurate assessment of the location of the blown out well relative to the relief well.
ELREC tools are based on the principle that a low frequency (e.g., 1 Hz) alternating current (AC) imparted into an open (i.e., uncased) relief well will seek a low impedance path and flow through the steel casing or drill pipe in the blown out well. The current flow in the target or blown out well produces a low frequency magnetic field whose amplitude and direction are measured by magnetometers on the instrument(s) disposed in the relief well. The direction and amplitude of the detected magnetic field can be used in conjunction with directional survey measurements to predict distance and direction to the target or blown out well. In ideal situations the direction of the detected AC magnetic field is perpendicular to a plane containing the blown out well and the relief well. The distance to the blown out well requires knowing the current distribution in the blown out well casing. Such current distribution may be computed by making some assumptions that are not necessarily valid. One of these assumptions is that the current is flowing in an infinitely long casing. This assumption neglects the casing end effects and can lead to errors in the distances computed form the magnetic method.
There continues to be a need for more accurate devices for determining distance and direction from a relief well to a blown out well to assist in efficient drilling of such relief wells.
One aspect of the invention is a well logging apparatus. The well logging apparatus includes at least one current source, and disposed a current source electrode, a current return electrode, a first pair of voltage measuring electrodes for measuring a potential difference between the first pair of voltage measuring electrodes, and a magnetometer for measuring a static magnetic field produced by an alternating current flowing on a casing of a blown out well.
Another aspect of the invention is a method for well logging. The method can include the steps of lowering into a wellbore a well logging apparatus including a current source electrode, a first pair of voltage measuring electrodes, and a magnetometer. A current is emitted from the current source electrode. A potential difference is measured across the first pair of voltage measuring electrodes. A low frequency magnetic field produced by an alternating current flowing on casing in a cased well is measured.
Other aspects and advantages of the invention will be apparent from the following description and the appended claims.
The invention provides for obtaining both magnetic field measurements and apparent resistivity electromagnetic measurements at the same time and/or by a single instrument. Methods and apparatus for performing such measurements will now be described with reference to
A magnetometer assembly, shown in
It should be understood that the relative locations of the magnetometer assembly 23 and the electrodes A, B, N, M shown in
There may be advantages to having both magnetic and apparent resistivity ultra-deep reading electromagnetic measurements (e.g., hundreds of feet) performed by a single tool. One important objective, but not the only objective of using such an instrument is to determine both the direction and the distance from a relief well to a blown out well. Other objectives may be to simply determine distance between a well being drilled and another well for avoiding intersection or to assist in causing intersection, depending on the purpose for the wells. For purposes of the invention, the well being drilled in which there is no casing at or near the depth of drilling will be referred to as the “open well”, while the other well, in which a casing is disposed at the target geodetic location and depth will be referred to as the “cased well.”
Determining both distance and direction from the open well 12 to the cased well 24 using electric and magnetic field measurements may include modeling the two types of sensor responses. Such modeling may be performed by solving Poisson's or Maxwell's equations for a current source (I) disposed in a layered subsurface medium containing a casing such as the one shown at 20. Each of the foregoing methods has certain advantages and disadvantages depending on the subsurface environment such that having both measurements available improves the accuracy of the predicted position of the cased well 24.
Apparent resistivity logs can be interpreted to predict distances from the open well 12 to the casing 24 in a cased well provided that an accurate model of the layers of the subsurface formations is used in the solution of Poisson's equation. The foregoing method can also provide a direction from the open well to the cased well provided that the open well trajectory is curved (see, e.g, Freedman, U.S. Pat. No. 4,329,647; and, Leonard, J. Production Editor, New method helps to find both distance and direction from relief well to blowout, Oil & Gas Journal, May, 17, 1982, p. 103-106). If the open well trajectory is straight over the interval in which voltage drop (potential difference) measurements are made then the apparent resistivity values calculated from the voltage drop measurements can be interpreted to provide only distance to the cased well. In the latter case measurements of the magnetic field direction made by the magnetometer assembly 23 can be interpreted to provide the direction from the open well to the cased well. Therefore having both measurements can provide both distance and direction. A model of the formation layers may be obtained from, for example, interpreted surface reflection seismic data, well log data (e.g., from the cased well prior to insertion of the casing 20 or from another nearby well), core sample data and/or combinations of the foregoing.
In general, distance predictions made from apparent resistivity measurement interpretation are more accurate than those obtained from the magnetic field amplitudes. The amplitude of the magnetic field measured by the magnetometer assembly 23 depends on the current distribution in the cased well 20. The actual current distribution in the cased well may be difficult to compute accurately. For example, in many situations the casing in a blown out well is ruptured. In such cases the assumption typically made that the casing 20 is an infinitely long current source is not valid. Furthermore, some of the current can return in the open well can be through the surface or other casing 18 in the open well 12 rather than entirely through the B electrode. Such current return is not accounted for in the computations of the current flowing in the cased well casing 20.
Moreover, the magnetometer assembly measurements may benefit from being centralized in the open well 12 so that the detected magnetic field is due entirely to current flow in the casing 20. Good centralization can be difficult to achieve in practice, especially in highly inclined wells. Eccentering of the magnetometer assembly 23 can be a source of uncertainty in determining the distance and direction from the magnetometer assembly measurements. For the foregoing reasons, the apparent resistivity measurements using a long spaced (example spacings are described in the Background section herein) electric logging instrument may be included to predict accurate distances to the cased well 24.
Another limitation of the magnetic field amplitude measurement method for determining distance between the open well and the cased well is that the magnetic field measurements are sensitive to motion of the magnetometer assembly 23. As will be appreciated by those skilled in the art, motion of the instrument 30 in the Earth's magnetic field and/or the electromagnetic field induced by imparting AC across the current source and return electrodes A, B, respectively, may induce voltages in the magnetometer assembly by the Lorenz force. Such sensitivity requires the magnetometer assembly 23 to be stationary during the measurements. Apparent resistivity measurements with respect to depth (“logs”) such as may be made using the instrument 30 can be recorded while the instrument is moving in the open well 12 thus providing continuous resistivity measurements along the open well 12 for analysis of the distance of the cased well 24 from the open well 20. Having both voltage drop measurements and magnetic field measurements, it is possible to make a few stationary measurements of the magnetic field amplitude using the magnetometer assembly 23 to predict the direction from the open well 12 to the cased well 24. The foregoing direction determination can be cross-checked with a direction predicted from the apparent resistivity measurements to provide a self-consistent check on the predicted cased well 24 direction from the open well 12.
The electrodes and magnetometer(s) shown in
The magnetic field measurements made by the magnetometer assembly 23 are affected by the position of the magnetometer assembly 23 with respect to the center of the open well 12, as stated above. Therefore, it is desirable to use centralizers (not shown) to center the magnetometer assembly 23 in the open well 12.
Referring to
Referring once again to
In addition to relief well drilling to kill a blown out well, the instrument 30 can be used to prevent unintended intersections of wells. Such use may be, for example, in situations where multiple directional wells are drilled from a single surface location or in well-placement applications to achieve close proximity to another cased well. The instrument can also be used for detecting distance to a salt dome or other high resistivity anomaly in the subsurface.
Although specific embodiments of the invention have been described above in detail, the description is merely for purposes of illustration. Various modifications of, and equivalent steps corresponding to, the disclosed aspects of the example implementations, in addition to those described above, can be made by those skilled in the art without departing from the scope of the invention defined in the following claims, the scope of which is to be accorded the broadest interpretation so as to encompass such modifications and equivalent structures.
Filing Document | Filing Date | Country | Kind | 371c Date |
---|---|---|---|---|
PCT/US11/60802 | 11/15/2011 | WO | 00 | 8/24/2013 |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
61415414 | Nov 2010 | US |