The basic principles and techniques for electromagnetic logging for earth formations are well known. For example, induction logging to determine the resistivity (or its inverse, conductivity) of earth formations adjacent a borehole has long been a standard and important technique in the search for and recovery of subterranean petroleum deposits. In brief, a transmitter transmits an electromagnetic signal that passes through formation materials around the borehole and induces a signal in ore or more receivers. The amplitude and/or phase of the receiver signals are influenced by the formation resistivity, enabling resistivity measurements to be made. The measured signal characteristics and/or formation properties calculated therefrom are recorded as a function of the tool's depth or position in the borehole, yielding a formation log that can be used by analysts.
Note, however, that the resistivity of a given formation may be isotropic (equal in all directions) or anisotropic (unequal in different directions). In electrically anisotropic formations, the anisotropy is generally attributable to fine layering during the sedimentary build-up of the formation. Hence, in a formation coordinate system oriented such that the x-y plane is parallel to the formation layers and the z axis is perpendicular to the formation layers, resistivities RX and RY in directions x and y, respectively, tend to be the same, but resistivity RZ in the z direction is different. Thus, the resistivity in a direction parallel to the plane of the formation (i.e., the x-y plane) is often known as the horizontal resistivity, RH, and the resistivity in the direction perpendicular to the plane of the formation (i.e., the z direction) is often known as the vertical resistivity, RV. The index of anisotropy, η, is defined as η=[RV/RH]1/2.
As a further complication to measuring formation resistivity, boreholes are generally not perpendicular to formation beds. The angle between the axis of the well bore and the orientation of the formation beds (as represented by a vector normal to the formation bed) has two components. These components are the dip angle and the strike angle. The dip angle is the angle between the borehole axis and the normal vector for the formation bed. The strike angle is the direction in which the boreholes axis “leans away from” the normal vector. (These will be defined more rigorously in the detailed description.)
Electromagnetic resistivity logging measurements are a complex function of formation resistivity, formation anisotropy, and the formation dip and strike angles, which may all be unknown. Moreover, engineers often rely on simplified models to interpret the measurements in a suitably prompt manner. Logging tools that fail to account for each of the unknown parameters and differences between the model and the operation of the “real world” tool may provide measurement quality that is less than ideal. Conversely, tools that account for each of these factors will provide improved resistivity measurements. Moreover, tools that are able to provide dip and strike measurements along with azimuthal orientation information, can be used for geosteering.
Accordingly, there are disclosed herein tilted antenna logging systems and methods yielding robust measurements signals. In the drawings:
It should be understood, however, that the specific embodiments given in the drawings and detailed description below do not limit the disclosure. On the contrary, they provide the foundation for one of ordinary skill to discern the alternative forms, equivalents, and other modifications that are encompassed in the scope of the appended claims.
The disclosed tool configurations and operations are best understood in the context of the larger systems in which they operate. Accordingly, an illustrative logging while drilling (LWD) environment is shown in
An electromagnetic resistivity logging tool 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 position and various other drilling conditions. The logging tool 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. A telemetry sub 28 may be included to transfer tool measurements to a surface receiver 30 and to receive commands from the surface receiver.
The tool orientation measurements may be performed using an azimuthal orientation indicator, which may include magnetometers, inclinometers, and/or accelerometers, though other sensor types such as gyroscopes can be used. Most preferably, the orientation measurements are collected using both a 3-axis fluxgate magnetometer and a 3-axis accelerometer. As is known in the art, the combination of those two sensor systems enables the measurement of the toolface, borehole inclination, and compass direction of the borehole. The toolface and hole inclination angles are calculated from the accelerometer sensor output. The magnetometer sensor outputs are used to calculate the compass direction. With the toolface, the hole inclination, and the compass information, a tool in accordance with the present disclosure can be used to steer the bit to the desirable bed.
At various times during the drilling process, the drill string 8 may be removed from the borehole as shown in
The vertical resistivity is generally defined to be the resistivity as measured perpendicular to the plane of the formation, and the horizontal resistivity is the resistivity as measured within the plane of the formation. Determination of each of these parameters (dip angle, strike angle, vertical resistivity, and horizontal resistivity) is desirable.
h=mC (1)
In express form, equation (1) is:
where MX, MY, and MZ are the magnetic moments (proportional to transmit signal strength) created by transmitters TX, TY, and TZ, respectively, HX, HY, HZ are the magnetic fields (proportional to receive signal strength) at the receiver antennas RX, RY, and RZ, respectively.
In the antenna configuration of
It is noted that three transmitter antenna orientations and three receiver antenna orientations are employed in the antenna configuration of
Before considering various tools having specific antenna configurations, the electronics common to each tool are described.
Control module 602 may process the amplitude and phase shift measurements to obtain compensated measurements and/or measurement averages. In addition to being stored in memory downhole, the raw, compensated, or averaged measurements may be transmitted to the surface for processing to determine coupling matrix elements, dip and strike angles, vertical and horizontal resistivity, and other information such as (i) distance to nearest bed boundary, (ii) direction of nearest bed boundary, and (iii) resistivity of any nearby adjacent beds. Alternatively, all or some of this processing can be performed downhole and the results may be communicated to the surface. The data storage/transmitter module 610 may be coupled to telemetry unit 28 (
In some embodiments, the transmitter coil 704 is spaced approximately 30 inches from the receiver coils 710, 712. The additional receiver coils could be positioned approximately 8 inches further from the transmitter coil. The transmitter and receiver coils may comprise as little as one loop of wire, although more loops may provide additional signal power. The distance between the coils and the tool surface is preferably in the range from 1/16 inch to ¾ inch, but may be larger. Transmitter coil 704 and receiver coil 712 may each have a tilt angle of about 45° and aligned with the same azimuth angle, while receiver coil 710 may have a tilt angle of about 45° and an azimuth 180° apart from receiver coil 712 (or equivalently, a tilt angle of minus 450 at the same azimuth angle as receiver coil 712).
The signal measured by a tilted receiver in response to the firing of a tilted transmitter can be expressed in terms of the signals Vu that would be measured by the tool of
where θT is the tilt angle of the transmitter and θR is the tilt angle of the receiver. In written-out form, the received signal is:
meaning that
Sinusoidal curve fitting may be applied to the received signal to extract the (summed) coefficients in equation (5). The measurements of a second tilted receiver's response to the tilted transmitter provides an additional set of measurements that enables the individual CIJ (or equivalently, the V1) values to be obtained. (Note that in most cases Vxy may be assumed equal to Vyx, but the same is not true for the other cross components.) As an example, take θ1=θr2=θc and θr1=−θr2, with the receivers R1 and R2 collocated at a distance d1 from the transmitter. The zz coupling component with can be written as
where Vr1_const is the constant complex voltage Vconst from equation (4) associated with receiver R1, and VR2_const is the corresponding value for receiver R2. Along similar lines, the xx and yy components can be written
The cross components can be written:
Other techniques for deriving the coupling components from the received signal measurements are known and may be used. See, e.g., WO 2008/076130 “Antenna coupling component measurement tool having a rotating antenna configuration” and WO 2011/129828 “Processing and Geosteering with a Rotating Tool”.
To provide more robust measurements, additional transmitters and/or receivers may be included on the tool as indicated in
Given the illustrative antenna configurations, the tool measurements may be combined as outlined below to provide more robust values, i.e., measurements that are insensitive to environmental effects (e.g., temperature, pressure, and eccentricity) and that compensate for tool non-idealities such as the presence of a conductive tool mandrel when the models assume point dipoles. As one step in this direction, the tool may acquire measurements with a second set of receivers at a distance d2 from the transmitter (see, e.g.,
S1=Vzz(d1)/Vzz(d2) (9)
has been found to significantly reduce sensitivity to the mandrel effect, and it serves as a good indication of formation resistivity. Signal 1 can be calibrated by means of an air-hang measurement in which the tool is suspended sufficiently far from any conductive or partially conductive materials (e.g., 20 feet in the air) and the received signal responses noted. Representing the air-hang measurements with an “air” superscript, the calibrated signal is:
The second expression above simply indicates that the calibration can be equivalently performed on a component by component basis.
Taking as an example the antenna configuration of
To improve resistance to temperature effects, compensated measurements can be used. Such compensation techniques are known (at least with respect to tools using coaxial antennas), and they combine the measurements extracted from the receivers' responses to the first antenna with the receivers' responses to the second antenna. For example, denoting the calibrated signal measurement derived from transmitter Tup1 (
S1comp=√{square root over (S1cal(Tup1)−S1cal(Tdn1))} (11)
An alternative compensation approach is to simply average the two calibrated measurements. Depending on the antenna configuration it may be desirable to precede this compensation calculation with depth shifting and/or azimuth reversal of the calibrated signal measurements to ensure that the measurements collected using the different antennas are all associated with the same region of the formation. The additional measurements can also improve signal to noise ratio.
Returning to a single-transmitter analysis, we now consider additional tool signals. As with Signal 1, it is helpful to normalize the other coupling components. Unfortunately, the distance effect on the xx coupling component measurements is different than the effect on the zz coupling component measurements, making a different approach desirable. The ratio thereafter termed “Signal 2” or “S2”):
S2(d)=Vxx(d)/Vzz(d) (12)
has been found to compensate for the mandrel effect and produce a better approximation of a point-dipole tool response. It can be calibrated and compensated in a similar fashion as Signal 1. The responses of the second set of receivers can also be taken into account with a geometrical average, yielding a combined S2:
S2combined=√{square root over (S2(d1)·S2(d2))} (13)
which can also be calibrated and compensated as described previously.
S3(d)=Vyy(d)/Vzz(d) (14)
with
S3combined=√{square root over (S3(d1)·S3(d2))} (15)
In a similar vein, a fourth signal may be defined:
S4(d)=Vxx(d)/Vyy(d) (16)
with
S4combined=√{square root over (S4(d1)·S4(d2))} (17)
It is expected that an approximate skew angle of 45° would offer the best noise immunity as it provides antenna responses with roughly equal signal responses from the xx and zz components. We note that signal S4 can be defined using the inverse ratio with equally effective results.
Though the foregoing four signals have each been defined in terms of a ratio between two components, the definition of robust signals need not be so limited. A fifth contemplated signal is defined as:
The fifth signal offers an enhanced sensitivity to relative dip angle. As with the other signals, combined, calibrated, and compensated versions of the fifth signal can be determined. With this set of robust measurement signals, one can expect to compute very reliable inversion results.
The ratio, calibration, and compensation techniques that have been applied to the extracted coupling components can also be applied to the receiver signals. Thus, for example, an calibrated azimuthal resistivity signal can be expressed
or a geosteering signal based on operation of a first transmitter Tup1 can be expressed
and a combined geosteering signal can be expressed:
VGeoT
Eq. (17) to Eq. (19) illustrate general compensation methods that apply to azimuthal measurements of MWD/LWD tools with tilted antenna systems. These signal, can be used to determine formation parameters, such as formation resistivity, formation anisotropy, formation relative dip angle, etc. In addition, due to the cancellation of mandrel and temperature effects, these signals can be also used for look-ahead tools.
It is noted that signals S1-S5 are calculated from the coupling components, and can be determined from these components regardless of how the coupling components were derived from the tool measurements. Among other things, this observation indicates that the principles disclosed herein can be applied to the measurements of any antenna configuration sufficient to determine the coupling components (including that of
We have found that signal set S1-S4 serves as an excellent set of inputs from which formation parameters such as horizontal resistivity, anisotropy, dip angle, and strike angle can be derived. Accuracy is improved with the use of additional signals such as signal S5.
Without limiting the manner in which the signal set is employed to derive the formation parameters, we note that the S1 signal closely relates to the operation of a conventional logging tool and indeed, can be converted to a conventional resistivity signal. Signal S2 and S3 can be used to determine resistive anisotropy of the formation. Signal S4 captures the divergence of the xx and yy coupling components and provides a useful sensitivity to dip angle. Signal S5 relates the cross-coupling components to the direct coupling components and serves to speed the inversion with its unique sensitivity to the formation parameters. Performing inversion on the set of signals S1-S4 or S1-S5 yields a robust estimate of formation parameters.
In block 808, a test is made to determine whether additional measurements are needed or will be forthcoming at the current borehole position. For example, in tools having multiple transmitters, it is desired to have measurements from each transmitter. Other reasons for needing additional measurements include having a desired number of measurements within each measurement bin before additional processing is performed, or having at least a given number of azimuthally different measurements before additional processing is performed. If additional measurements at the current position are expected, the additional processing may be postponed until all the relevant measurements have been collected. The logging process then proceeds with the selection of the next transmitter in block 809 and blocks 804-809 are repeated until sufficient measurements have been achieved for the current borehole position.
Once a sufficient number of measurements have been obtained at a given position in the borehole, the method continues with block 810, where the orthogonal antenna coupling are extracted from the azimuthally-dependent measurements collected at the current borehole position. This may be done in accordance with the equations (3)-(8) given above, or by any suitable method including a least squares solution to a linear system of equations such a, that disclosed in WO 2008/076130 “Antenna coupling component measurement tool having a rotating antenna configuration”. Certain antenna configurations (e.g., those using orthogonal triads) may yield such measurements directly.
In block 812, signals S1-S5 are derived from the orthogonal components as described above. There may be a set of such signals for each of multiple transmit-receive antenna pairings, which can be subjected to a combination operation (to combine measurements by receivers at different distances) and/or a compensation operation (to combine measurements obtained in response to different transmitters) to yield more accurate signals S1-S5 in optional block 814. An optional calibration operation may also be applied in block 814.
In block 816, an initial estimate of the formation parameters is made. This estimate can be based on default values, previous results, or randomly generated. The contemplated formation parameters include horizontal resistivity, anisotropy, dip angle, and strike, but other parameters can be employed. In block 818, a predicted set of signals S1-S5 is generated from a model based on the estimated formation parameter values. In block 820, the predicted signal set is compared to the set of signals derived in blocks 812-814. If there is not an adequate match, the estimated values are updated in block 821 in accordance with a Levenberg-Marquardt technique, a Gauss-Newton technique, or other numerical solution technique. Blocks 818-821 are repeated until the predicted set of signals converges to the derived set. Then, in optional block 822, a real-time log displaying one or more of the formation parameters as a function of position is updated with the newly determined parameter values. The log associates the calculated values with a depth or axial position within the borehole.
In block 824 a check is made to determine if logging information is available (or will become available) for additional positions within the borehole. If so, the process begins again with block 802. Otherwise, the process terminates.
Numerous variations and modifications will become apparent to those skilled in the art once the above disclosure is fully appreciated. For example, the foregoing disclosure describes numerous antenna configurations in the context of a logging while drilling tool, such antenna configurations can also be readily applied to wireline logging tools. Furthermore, the principle of reciprocity can be applied to obtain equivalent measurements while exchanging each antenna's role as a transmitter or receiver. It is intended that the following claims be interpreted to embrace all such variations and modifications.
Filing Document | Filing Date | Country | Kind | 371c Date |
---|---|---|---|---|
PCT/US2012/043943 | 6/25/2012 | WO | 00 | 12/22/2014 |
Publishing Document | Publishing Date | Country | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
WO2014/003702 | 1/3/2014 | WO | A |
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
2884590 | Welz | Apr 1959 | A |
2901689 | Barrett | Aug 1959 | A |
3014177 | Hungerford et al. | Dec 1961 | A |
3187252 | Hungerford | Jun 1965 | A |
3406766 | Henderson | Oct 1968 | A |
3408561 | Osborn | Oct 1968 | A |
3412815 | Holser | Nov 1968 | A |
3510757 | Huston | May 1970 | A |
3539911 | Youmans et al. | Nov 1970 | A |
3561007 | Gouilloud et al. | Feb 1971 | A |
3614600 | Ronka et al. | Oct 1971 | A |
3808520 | Runge | Apr 1974 | A |
3982176 | Meador | Sep 1976 | A |
4072200 | Morris et al. | Feb 1978 | A |
4104596 | Smither | Aug 1978 | A |
4224989 | Blount | Sep 1980 | A |
4258321 | Neale | Mar 1981 | A |
4297699 | Fowler et al. | Oct 1981 | A |
4302722 | Gianzero | Nov 1981 | A |
4319191 | Meador et al. | Mar 1982 | A |
4360777 | Segesman | Nov 1982 | A |
4430653 | Coon et al. | Feb 1984 | A |
4443762 | Kuckes | Apr 1984 | A |
4458767 | Hoehn, Jr. | Jul 1984 | A |
4472684 | Schuster | Sep 1984 | A |
4502010 | Kuckes | Feb 1985 | A |
4504833 | Fowler et al. | Mar 1985 | A |
4536714 | Clark | Aug 1985 | A |
4553097 | Clark | Nov 1985 | A |
4593770 | Hoehn, Jr. | Jun 1986 | A |
4605268 | Meador | Aug 1986 | A |
4611173 | Bravenec et al. | Sep 1986 | A |
4636731 | Savage et al. | Jan 1987 | A |
4651101 | Barber et al. | Mar 1987 | A |
4670717 | Sender | Jun 1987 | A |
4697190 | Oswald | Sep 1987 | A |
4700142 | Kuckes | Oct 1987 | A |
4780857 | Lyle et al. | Oct 1988 | A |
4785247 | Meador et al. | Nov 1988 | A |
4791373 | Kuckes | Dec 1988 | A |
4808929 | Oldigs | Feb 1989 | A |
4814768 | Chang | Mar 1989 | A |
RE32913 | Clark | Apr 1989 | E |
4825421 | Jeter | Apr 1989 | A |
4829488 | Siegfried, II | May 1989 | A |
4845433 | Kleinberg | Jul 1989 | A |
4845434 | Kuckes et al. | Jul 1989 | A |
4873488 | Barber et al. | Oct 1989 | A |
4875014 | Roberts et al. | Oct 1989 | A |
4899112 | Clark et al. | Feb 1990 | A |
4909336 | Brown et al. | Mar 1990 | A |
4933640 | Kuckes | Jun 1990 | A |
4940943 | Bartel et al. | Jul 1990 | A |
4945987 | Wittrisch | Aug 1990 | A |
4949045 | Clark et al. | Aug 1990 | A |
4962490 | Lyle et al. | Oct 1990 | A |
4968940 | Clark et al. | Nov 1990 | A |
4980643 | Gianzero et al. | Dec 1990 | A |
5089779 | Rorden | Feb 1992 | A |
5113192 | Thomas | May 1992 | A |
5115198 | Gianzero et al. | May 1992 | A |
5133418 | Gibson et al. | Jul 1992 | A |
5138313 | Barrington | Aug 1992 | A |
5155198 | Keohan | Oct 1992 | A |
5200705 | Clark et al. | Apr 1993 | A |
5210495 | Hapashey et al. | May 1993 | A |
5230386 | Wu et al. | Jul 1993 | A |
5230387 | Waters et al. | Jul 1993 | A |
5239448 | Perkins et al. | Aug 1993 | A |
5241273 | Luling | Aug 1993 | A |
5243290 | Safinya | Sep 1993 | A |
5248975 | Schutz | Sep 1993 | A |
5260662 | Rorden | Nov 1993 | A |
5278507 | Bartel et al. | Jan 1994 | A |
5318123 | Venditto et al. | Jun 1994 | A |
5329448 | Rosthal | Jul 1994 | A |
5332048 | Underwood et al. | Jul 1994 | A |
5339036 | Clark et al. | Aug 1994 | A |
5343152 | Kuckes | Aug 1994 | A |
5357253 | Van Etten et al. | Oct 1994 | A |
5358050 | Schmidt | Oct 1994 | A |
5377104 | Sorrells et al. | Dec 1994 | A |
5389881 | Bittar et al. | Feb 1995 | A |
5400030 | Duren et al. | Mar 1995 | A |
5402068 | Meador et al. | Mar 1995 | A |
5420589 | Wells et al. | May 1995 | A |
5424293 | Sinclair et al. | Jun 1995 | A |
5442294 | Rorden | Aug 1995 | A |
5485089 | Kuckes | Jan 1996 | A |
5503225 | Withers | Apr 1996 | A |
5508616 | Sato et al. | Apr 1996 | A |
5530358 | Wisler et al. | Jun 1996 | A |
5530359 | Habashy et al. | Jun 1996 | A |
5541517 | Hartmann | Jul 1996 | A |
5550473 | Klein | Aug 1996 | A |
5552786 | Xia et al. | Sep 1996 | A |
5563512 | Mumby | Oct 1996 | A |
5589775 | Kuckes | Dec 1996 | A |
5594343 | Clark et al. | Jan 1997 | A |
5631562 | Cram et al. | May 1997 | A |
5656930 | Hagiwara | Aug 1997 | A |
5676212 | Kuckes | Oct 1997 | A |
5720355 | Lamine et al. | Feb 1998 | A |
5725059 | Kuckes et al. | Mar 1998 | A |
5747750 | Bailey et al. | May 1998 | A |
5757191 | Gianzero | May 1998 | A |
5765642 | Surjaatmadja | Jun 1998 | A |
5781436 | Forgang et al. | Jul 1998 | A |
5854991 | Gupta et al. | Dec 1998 | A |
5886526 | Wu | Mar 1999 | A |
5892460 | Jerabek et al. | Apr 1999 | A |
5900833 | Sunlin et al. | May 1999 | A |
5917160 | Bailey | Jun 1999 | A |
5923170 | Kuckes | Jul 1999 | A |
5999883 | Gupta et al. | Dec 1999 | A |
6044325 | Chakravarthy et al. | Mar 2000 | A |
6084826 | Leggett, III | Jul 2000 | A |
6098727 | Ringgenberg et al. | Aug 2000 | A |
6100839 | Heger et al. | Aug 2000 | A |
6147496 | Strack et al. | Nov 2000 | A |
6158532 | Logan et al. | Dec 2000 | A |
6163155 | Bittar | Dec 2000 | A |
6181138 | Hagiwara et al. | Jan 2001 | B1 |
6191586 | Bittar | Feb 2001 | B1 |
6191588 | Chen | Feb 2001 | B1 |
6206108 | MacDonald et al. | Mar 2001 | B1 |
6216783 | Hocking et al. | Apr 2001 | B1 |
6218841 | Wu | Apr 2001 | B1 |
6218842 | Bittar | Apr 2001 | B1 |
6257334 | Cyr | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6297639 | Clark et al. | Oct 2001 | B1 |
6304086 | Minerbo et al. | Oct 2001 | B1 |
6351127 | Rosthal et al. | Feb 2002 | B1 |
6353321 | Bittar | Mar 2002 | B1 |
6359438 | Bittar | Mar 2002 | B1 |
6373254 | Dion et al. | Apr 2002 | B1 |
6389438 | Zhou | May 2002 | B1 |
6405136 | Li et al. | Jun 2002 | B1 |
6435286 | Stump et al. | Aug 2002 | B1 |
6460936 | Abramov et al. | Oct 2002 | B1 |
6466020 | Kuckes et al. | Oct 2002 | B2 |
6476609 | Bittar | Nov 2002 | B1 |
6491115 | Van Houwelingen et al. | Dec 2002 | B2 |
6496137 | Johansson | Dec 2002 | B1 |
6508316 | Estes et al. | Jan 2003 | B2 |
6538447 | Bittar | Mar 2003 | B2 |
6541979 | Omeragic | Apr 2003 | B2 |
6557650 | Fayard et al. | May 2003 | B2 |
6566881 | Omeragic et al. | May 2003 | B2 |
6573722 | Rosthal et al. | Jun 2003 | B2 |
6584837 | Kurkoski | Jul 2003 | B2 |
6614229 | Clark et al. | Sep 2003 | B1 |
6630831 | Amini | Oct 2003 | B2 |
6633252 | Stolarczyk et al. | Oct 2003 | B2 |
6646441 | Thompson et al. | Nov 2003 | B2 |
6651739 | Arndt et al. | Nov 2003 | B2 |
6672409 | Dock et al. | Jan 2004 | B1 |
6691036 | Blanch et al. | Feb 2004 | B2 |
6710600 | Kopecki et al. | Mar 2004 | B1 |
6712140 | Van Oers et al. | Mar 2004 | B2 |
6727706 | Gao et al. | Apr 2004 | B2 |
6736222 | Kuckes et al. | May 2004 | B2 |
6755263 | Alft et al. | Jun 2004 | B2 |
6765385 | Sinclair et al. | Jul 2004 | B2 |
6771206 | Berthelier et al. | Aug 2004 | B2 |
6777940 | Macune | Aug 2004 | B2 |
6778127 | Stolarczyik et al. | Aug 2004 | B2 |
6788065 | Homan et al. | Sep 2004 | B1 |
6810331 | Bittar et al. | Oct 2004 | B2 |
6856132 | Appel | Feb 2005 | B2 |
6863127 | Clark et al. | Mar 2005 | B2 |
6885943 | Bittar et al. | Apr 2005 | B2 |
6900640 | Fanini et al. | May 2005 | B2 |
6911824 | Bittar | Jun 2005 | B2 |
6925031 | Kriegshauser et al. | Aug 2005 | B2 |
6934635 | Kennedy | Aug 2005 | B2 |
6940446 | Cist | Sep 2005 | B2 |
6943709 | Blanch et al. | Sep 2005 | B2 |
6944546 | Xiao et al. | Sep 2005 | B2 |
6958610 | Gianzero | Oct 2005 | B2 |
6961663 | Sinclair et al. | Nov 2005 | B2 |
6985814 | McElhinney | Jan 2006 | B2 |
7013991 | Wilson-Langman et al. | Mar 2006 | B2 |
7019528 | Bittar | Mar 2006 | B2 |
7038455 | Beste et al. | May 2006 | B2 |
7046009 | Itskovich | May 2006 | B2 |
7046010 | Hu et al. | May 2006 | B2 |
7062072 | Anxionnaz et al. | Jun 2006 | B2 |
7098664 | Bittar et al. | Aug 2006 | B2 |
7098858 | Bittar et al. | Aug 2006 | B2 |
7123016 | Larsen | Oct 2006 | B2 |
7133779 | Tilke et al. | Nov 2006 | B2 |
7138803 | Bittar | Nov 2006 | B2 |
7143844 | Alft et al. | Dec 2006 | B2 |
7171310 | Haugland | Jan 2007 | B2 |
7202670 | Omeragic et al. | Apr 2007 | B2 |
7227363 | Gianzero et al. | Jun 2007 | B2 |
7265552 | Bittar | Sep 2007 | B2 |
7268019 | Golla et al. | Sep 2007 | B2 |
7296462 | Gregory et al. | Nov 2007 | B2 |
7301223 | Rodney et al. | Nov 2007 | B2 |
7306056 | Ballantyne et al. | Dec 2007 | B2 |
7313479 | Frenkel | Dec 2007 | B2 |
7336222 | Praskovsky et al. | Feb 2008 | B2 |
7345487 | Bittar et al. | Mar 2008 | B2 |
7350568 | Mandal et al. | Apr 2008 | B2 |
7382135 | Li et al. | Jun 2008 | B2 |
7394257 | Martinez et al. | Jul 2008 | B2 |
7425830 | Banning et al. | Sep 2008 | B2 |
7425831 | Banning et al. | Sep 2008 | B2 |
7427862 | Dashevsky et al. | Sep 2008 | B2 |
7427863 | Bittar | Sep 2008 | B2 |
7477162 | Clark | Jan 2009 | B2 |
7503404 | McDaniel et al. | Mar 2009 | B2 |
7557579 | Bittar | Jul 2009 | B2 |
7557580 | Bittar | Jul 2009 | B2 |
7609065 | Banning et al. | Oct 2009 | B2 |
7612565 | Seydoux et al. | Nov 2009 | B2 |
7657377 | Sinclair et al. | Feb 2010 | B2 |
7676326 | Podladchikov | Mar 2010 | B2 |
7686099 | Rodney et al. | Mar 2010 | B2 |
7739049 | Market et al. | Jun 2010 | B2 |
7746078 | Bittar et al. | Jun 2010 | B2 |
7755361 | Seydoux et al. | Jul 2010 | B2 |
7775276 | Pelletier et al. | Aug 2010 | B2 |
7786733 | Seydoux et al. | Aug 2010 | B2 |
7812610 | Clark et al. | Oct 2010 | B2 |
7825664 | Homan et al. | Nov 2010 | B2 |
7839148 | Vehra et al. | Nov 2010 | B2 |
7839346 | Bittar et al. | Nov 2010 | B2 |
7848887 | Yang et al. | Dec 2010 | B2 |
7912648 | Tang et al. | Mar 2011 | B2 |
7924013 | Seydoux et al. | Apr 2011 | B2 |
7948238 | Bittar | May 2011 | B2 |
7982464 | Bittar et al. | Jul 2011 | B2 |
8004282 | Itskovich | Aug 2011 | B2 |
8016053 | Menezes et al. | Sep 2011 | B2 |
8026722 | McElhinney | Sep 2011 | B2 |
8030937 | Hu et al. | Oct 2011 | B2 |
8085049 | Bittar et al. | Dec 2011 | B2 |
8085050 | Bittar et al. | Dec 2011 | B2 |
8096355 | McDaniel et al. | Jan 2012 | B2 |
8159227 | Wang | Apr 2012 | B2 |
8174265 | Bittar et al. | May 2012 | B2 |
8244473 | Radtke | Aug 2012 | B2 |
8274289 | Bittar et al. | Sep 2012 | B2 |
8347985 | Bittar et al. | Jan 2013 | B2 |
8378908 | Wisler et al. | Feb 2013 | B2 |
8499830 | Alberty | Aug 2013 | B2 |
8749243 | Bittar et al. | Jun 2014 | B2 |
8917094 | Bittar et al. | Dec 2014 | B2 |
8954280 | Li | Feb 2015 | B2 |
9310508 | Donderici et al. | Apr 2016 | B2 |
9364905 | Hou | Jun 2016 | B2 |
9547102 | Wu | Jan 2017 | B2 |
9753175 | Li | Sep 2017 | B2 |
9791586 | Bittar | Oct 2017 | B2 |
20010022464 | Seear | Sep 2001 | A1 |
20030023381 | San Martin | Jan 2003 | A1 |
20030055565 | Omeragic | Mar 2003 | A1 |
20030076107 | Fanini et al. | Apr 2003 | A1 |
20030090424 | Brune et al. | May 2003 | A1 |
20030229449 | Merchant et al. | Dec 2003 | A1 |
20030229450 | Strickland | Dec 2003 | A1 |
20040019427 | San Martin et al. | Jan 2004 | A1 |
20040059514 | Bittar et al. | Mar 2004 | A1 |
20040061622 | Clark | Apr 2004 | A1 |
20040196047 | Fanini et al. | Aug 2004 | A1 |
20050006090 | Chemali et al. | Jan 2005 | A1 |
20050024060 | Bittar | Feb 2005 | A1 |
20050211469 | Kuckes et al. | Sep 2005 | A1 |
20050218898 | Fredette et al. | Oct 2005 | A1 |
20060011385 | Seydoux et al. | Jan 2006 | A1 |
20060015256 | Hassan et al. | Jan 2006 | A1 |
20060038571 | Ostermeier et al. | Feb 2006 | A1 |
20060054354 | Orban | Mar 2006 | A1 |
20060102353 | Storm et al. | May 2006 | A1 |
20060125479 | Chemali et al. | Jun 2006 | A1 |
20070075455 | Marini et al. | Apr 2007 | A1 |
20070075874 | Shah et al. | Apr 2007 | A1 |
20070079989 | Bankston et al. | Apr 2007 | A1 |
20070235225 | Bittar | Oct 2007 | A1 |
20070278008 | Kuckes et al. | Dec 2007 | A1 |
20080000686 | Kuckes et al. | Jan 2008 | A1 |
20080002523 | Podladchikov | Jan 2008 | A1 |
20080018895 | Opsal | Jan 2008 | A1 |
20080143336 | Legendre et al. | Jun 2008 | A1 |
20090037111 | Radtke | Feb 2009 | A1 |
20090045973 | Rodney et al. | Feb 2009 | A1 |
20090164127 | Clark | Jun 2009 | A1 |
20090179647 | Wang et al. | Jul 2009 | A1 |
20090229826 | East, Jr. et al. | Sep 2009 | A1 |
20090278543 | Beste et al. | Nov 2009 | A1 |
20090309600 | Seydoux et al. | Dec 2009 | A1 |
20090315563 | Fox et al. | Dec 2009 | A1 |
20100004866 | Rabinovich et al. | Jan 2010 | A1 |
20100012377 | Sharp et al. | Jan 2010 | A1 |
20100082255 | Davydycheva et al. | Apr 2010 | A1 |
20100117655 | Bittar | May 2010 | A1 |
20100127708 | Bittar | May 2010 | A1 |
20100262370 | Bittar et al. | Oct 2010 | A1 |
20100284250 | Cornish et al. | Nov 2010 | A1 |
20110006773 | Bittar | Jan 2011 | A1 |
20110019501 | Market | Jan 2011 | A1 |
20110175899 | Bittar et al. | Jul 2011 | A1 |
20110186290 | Roddy et al. | Aug 2011 | A1 |
20110187566 | Soenen et al. | Aug 2011 | A1 |
20110192592 | Roddy et al. | Aug 2011 | A1 |
20110199228 | Roddy et al. | Aug 2011 | A1 |
20110221442 | Maurer et al. | Sep 2011 | A1 |
20110221443 | Bittar et al. | Sep 2011 | A1 |
20110234230 | Bittar et al. | Sep 2011 | A1 |
20110251794 | Bittar et al. | Oct 2011 | A1 |
20110298461 | Bittar et al. | Dec 2011 | A1 |
20110308859 | Bittar et al. | Dec 2011 | A1 |
20110309833 | Yang | Dec 2011 | A1 |
20110309835 | Barber et al. | Dec 2011 | A1 |
20120001637 | Bittar et al. | Jan 2012 | A1 |
20120024600 | Bittar et al. | Feb 2012 | A1 |
20120025834 | Minerbo et al. | Feb 2012 | A1 |
20120133367 | Bittar et al. | May 2012 | A1 |
20120199394 | Bittar | Aug 2012 | A1 |
20120283951 | Li | Nov 2012 | A1 |
20120283952 | Tang et al. | Nov 2012 | A1 |
20130073206 | Hou | Mar 2013 | A1 |
20130105224 | Donderici et al. | May 2013 | A1 |
20140032116 | Guner et al. | Jan 2014 | A1 |
20140191879 | Bittar et al. | Jul 2014 | A1 |
20150240629 | Wu | Aug 2015 | A1 |
20150355368 | Li | Dec 2015 | A1 |
20150369950 | Wu | Dec 2015 | A1 |
20160274263 | Hou | Sep 2016 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
2012383577 | Jun 2012 | AU |
2011202215 | May 2013 | AU |
2011202518 | May 2013 | AU |
2873718 | Jan 2014 | CA |
2116871 | Nov 2009 | EP |
1315984 | Jan 2011 | EP |
1155343 | Mar 2011 | EP |
2108981 | May 2011 | EP |
2110687 | Aug 2011 | EP |
2007149106 | Dec 2007 | WO |
2008008346 | Jan 2008 | WO |
2008008386 | Jan 2008 | WO |
2008021868 | Feb 2008 | WO |
2008076130 | Jun 2008 | WO |
WO 2008076130 | Jun 2008 | WO |
2011129828 | Oct 2011 | WO |
WO 2011129828 | Oct 2011 | WO |
2012005737 | Jan 2012 | WO |
2012008965 | Jan 2012 | WO |
2012064342 | May 2012 | WO |
2012121697 | Sep 2012 | WO |
WO 2014003701 | Jan 2014 | WO |
WO 2014003702 | Jan 2014 | WO |
Entry |
---|
AU Patent Examination Report No. 1, dated Mar. 27, 2015, Appl No. 2012383577, “Tilted Antenna Logging Systems and Methods Yielding Robust Measurement Signals,” Filed Jun. 25, 2015, 3 pgs. |
PCT International Search Report and Written Opinion, dated Sep. 20, 2012, Appl No. PCT/US2012/043943, “Tilted Antenna Logging Systems and Methods Yielding Robust Measurement Signals” filed Jun. 5, 2012, 12 pgs. |
PCT International Preliminary Report on Patentability, dated Jun. 6, 2014, Appl No. PCT/US2012/043943, “Tilted Antenna Logging Systems and Methods Yielding Robust Measurement Signals” filed Jun. 5, 2012, 6 pgs. |
Moran, J. H., et al., “Effects of Formation Anisotropy of Resistivity-Logging Measurements,” Geophysics, vol. 44, No. 7, (Jul. 1979), p. 1266-1286, 21 Figs., 4 Tables. |
Barriol, Yves et al., “The Pressures of Drilling and Production”, Oilfield Review, Autumn 2005, pp. 22-41. |
Bell, C. et al., “Navigating and Imaging in Complex Geology With Azimuthal Propagation Resistivity While Drilling”, 2006 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, SPE 102637, San Antonio, TX, USA, Sep. 24, 2006, pp. 1-14. |
Bittar, Michael S., “A New Azimuthal Deep-Reading Resistivity Tool for Geosteering and Advanced Formation Evaluation”, 2007 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, SPE 109971, Anaheim, CA, USA, Nov. 11, 2007, pp. 1-9. |
Bittar, Michael S. et al., “A True Multiple Depth of Investigation Electromagnetic Wave Resistivity Sensor: Theory, Experiment, and Prototype Field Test Results”, SPE 22705, 66th Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition of the SPE, Dallas, TX, Oct. 6, 1991, pp. 1-8, plus 10 pgs of Figures. |
Bittar, Michael S. et al., “Invasion Profiling with a Multiple Depth of Investigation, Electromagnetic Wave Resistivity Sensor”, SPE 28425, 69th Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition of the SPE, New Orleans, LA, Sep. 25, 1994, pp. 1-12, plus 11 pgs of Figures. |
Bittar, Michael S. et al., “The Effects of Rock Anisotropy on MWD Electromagnetic Wave Resistivity Sensors”, SPWLA 35th Annual Logging Symposium, Jun. 19, 1994, 18 pgs. |
Bonner, S. et al., “A New Generation of Electrode Resistivity Measurements for Formation Evaluation While Drilling”, SPWLA 35th Annual Logging Symposium, Jun. 19, 1994, pp. 1-19. |
Bonner, Steve et al., “Resistivity While Drilling—Images from the String”, Oilfield Review, Spring 1996, pp. 4-19. |
Callaghan, G., “HFSS Modeling of Cross-Coupling in Borehole Radar”, The Institution of Electrical Engineers, printed and published by IEEE, 2002, pp. 217-221, Savoy Place, London WC2R 0BL, UK, pp. 217-221. |
Chou, Lawrence et al., “Steering Toward Enhanced Production”, Oilfield Review, Autumn 2006, pp. 54-63. |
Clark, Brian et al., “A Dual Depth Resistivity Measurement for Fewd”, SPWLA 29th Annual Logging Symposium, Jun. 1988, 25 pgs. |
Clark, Brian et al., “Electromagnetic Propagation Logging While Drilling: Theory and Experiment”, SPE Formation Evaluation, Sep. 1990, pp. 263-271. |
Daniels, David J., “Surface-Penetrating Radar”, Electronics & Communication Engineering Journal, Aug. 1996, pp. 165-182. |
Hagiwara, T., “A New Method to Determine Horizontal-Resistivity in Anisotropic Formations Without Prior Knowledge of Relative Dip”, 37th Annual SPWLA Logging Symposium, New Orleans, LA, Jun. 16, 1996, pp. 1-5 , plus 3 pgs of Figs. |
Li, Qiming et al., “New Directional Electromagnetic Tool for Proactive Geosteering and Accurate Formation Evaluation While Drilling”, SPWLA 46th Annual Logging Symposium, Jun. 26-29, 2005, p. 1-16, New Orleans, LA, USA. |
Liu, Sixin et al., “Application of Borehole Radar for Subsurface Physical Measurement”, Nanjing Institute of Geophysical Prospecting and Institute of Physics Publishing, J. Geophys. Eng. 1 (2004), pp. 221-227. |
Liu, Sixin et al., “Electromagnetic Logging Technique Based on Borehole Radar”, IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, vol. 40, No. 9, Sep. 2002, pp. 2083-2092. |
Luling, Martin G. et al., “Processing and Modeling 2-MHz Resistivity Tools in Dipping, Laminated, Anisotropic Formations: SPWLA”, SPWLA 35th Annual Logging Symposium, Paper QQ, Jun. 19-22, 1994, 1994, pp. 1-25. |
Mack, S. G. et al., “MWD Tool Accurately Measures Four Resistivities”, Oil & Gas Journal, May 25, 1992, pp. 1-5. |
Mechetin, V. F. et al., “Temp—A New Dual Electromagnetic and Laterolog Apparatus—Technological Complex”, All-Union Research Logging Institute, Ufa, USSR. Ch. Ostrander, Petro Physics Int'l, Dallas, Texas, USA, Date Unkn, 17 pgs. |
Meyer, W. H. , “New Two Frequency Propagation Resistivity Tools”, SPWLA 36th Annual Logging Symposium, Jun. 26-29, 1995, 12 pgs. |
Moinfar, Ali et al., “Time-Lapse Variations of Multi-Component Electrical Resistivity Measurements Acquired in High-Angle Wells”, Moinfar, Ali, et al., “Time-Lapse Variations of Multi-Component Electrical Resistivity Measurements Acquired in High-Angle Wells,” Petrophysics, Dec. 2010, pp. 408-427, vol. 51, No. 6, 20 pgs. |
Rodney, Paul F. et al., “Electromagnetic Wave Resistivity MWD Tool”, SPE Drilling Engineering, Oct. 1986, p. 337-346. |
Van Dongen, Koen W. et al., “A Directional Borehole Radar System”, Subsurface Sensing Technologies and Applications, vol. 3, No. 4, Oct. 2002, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands, pp. 327-346. |
Zhu, Tianfei et al., “Two Dimensional Velocity Inversion and Synthetic Seismogram Computation”, Geophysics, vol. 52, No. 1, Jan. 1987, pp. 37-49. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20150322774 A1 | Nov 2015 | US |