tracing to calculate signal arrival times at all the sensors, and updates an initially homogeneous formation model to create a final model that satisfies the observed data. To visualize the resulting compressional-slowness radial profile, the differential percentage between observed slowness and far-field slowness is color-coded and plotted against radial distance from the borehole wall (right).
9
Data from this Chevron well showed that the sandstones of interest exhibited radial variations in compressional slowness approaching 15 %
at
the borehole wall and extending up 1 ft [ 30 cm] into the formation. However, quantifying the radial P-wave slowness variation alone does not identify its cause. Compressional-slowness variations can be caused by fluid changes, such as invasion of drilling fluid, or by radial changes in stress or formation strength. Additional information from the shear-slowness radial profile could help distinguish between these. Shear-slowness radial profiles are constructed in a multistep procedure.1 6
Semblance processing
of flexural waveforms at low frequencies provides an initial estimate of formation elastic param- eters. These parameters are used to model a homogeneous isotropic formation. Differences between measured and modeled slownesses at a large selection of frequencies form the input to an inversion procedure that yields the actual flexural-slowness radial profile. The results are plotted with colors that represent the amount of difference between observed slowness and the slowness of the unaltered, far-field formation. In the South Timbalier case, the shear- slowness radial profile shows a large difference in near-wellbore slowness compared with far- field slowness. Flexural-wave dispersion curves
14 . Bennett L, Le Calvez J , Sarver DR, Tanner K , Birk WS, Waters G, Drew J , Prim iero P, Eisner L, J ones R, Leslie D, William s MJ , Govenlock J , K lem RC and Tezuk a K :
“ The Source for Hy draulic Fracture Characterization, ” Oil eld Review 17 , no. 4 ( Winter 2005 / 2006) : 4 2– 5 7 .
15 . Z eroug S, Valero H-P and Bose S: “ Monopole Radial Pro ling of Com pressional Slow ness, ” prepared for presentation at the 7 6th SEG Annual International Meeting, New Orleans, Octob er 1– 3 , 2006.
Hornb y BE: “ Tom ographic Reconstruction of Near- Borehole Slow ness Using Refracted Sonic Arrivals, ” Geophy sics5 8, no. 12 ( Decem b er 19 9 3 ) : 17 26– 17 3 8.
16. Sinha BK : “ Near-Wellb ore Characterization Using Radial Pro les of Shear Slow ness, ” Ex panded Ab stracts, 7 4 th SEG Annual International Meeting, Denver ( Octob er 10– 13 , 2004 ) : 3 26– 3 3 1.
> Com pressional and shear radial pro ling in a Chevron Gulf of Mex ico w ell. P-w ave data from all three transm itters and 13 receivers are input to tom ographic reconstruction b ased on tracing ray s through a m odeled form ation w ith properties that vary gradually aw ay from the b orehole. The percentage difference b etw een ob served com pressional slow ness and slow ness of the unaltered, far- eld form ation is plotted on color and distance scales to indicate the ex tent of difference aw ay from the b orehole ( Track 6) . In these sandstones, com pressional slow ness near the b orehole varies b y up to 15 % from far- eld slow ness, and the variation ex tends to 1 ft from the b orehole w all. Shear-
w ave radial pro les appear in Track s 3 and 5 for the fast and slow shear differences from far- eld slow ness, respectively . Large differences, attrib uted to plastic y ielding in the near-w ellb ore region, are show n in red, and ex tend out to ab out 10 in. from the b orehole w all. These differences occur only in the sandstone intervals, identi ab le from the gam m a ray log in Track 4 .
X ,4 9 0
Compressional 1 8 0
H ole Diameter in.
1 9 1 .7
Density g/ cm3
2 .7 3 0 0 3 0 0
F ast Shear Slow Shear
µs/ ft µs/ ft
µs/ ft 8 0 1 0 0 0 %
Distance from B orehole Center
1 0 0 2 ft 0 1 0
F ast Shear Differential
2 5 0 %
G amma R ay
gAP 1 1 0I 0
Distance from B orehole Center
ft 2 0
Slow Shear Differential
2 5 0 %
Distance from B orehole Center
ft 2
Compressional Differential
2 5
X ,4 8 0
X ,5 0 0
X ,5 1 0
X ,5 2 0
X ,5 3 0
X ,5 4 0
X ,5 5 0
Spring 2006
23
M easured depth, ft
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68