Borehole Imaging

7/27/2019 Borehole Imaging

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/borehole-imaging 1/11

Borehole imaging

The term "borehole imaging" refers to those logging and data-processing methods that are used to

produce centimeter-scale images of the borehole wall and the rocks that make it up. The context is,

therefore, that of open hole, but some of the tools are closely related to their cased-hole equivalents.

Borehole imaging has been one of the most rapidly advancing technologies in wireline well logging. Theapplications range from detailed reservoir description through reservoir performance to enhanced

hydrocarbon recovery. Specific applications are fracture identification, analysis of small-scale

sedimentological features, evaluation of net pay in thinly bedded formations, and the identification of

breakouts (irregularities in the borehole wall that are aligned with the minimum horizontal stress and

appear where stresses around the wellbore exceed the compressive strength of the rock).

The subject area can be classified into four parts:

Optical imaging

Acoustic imaging

Electrical imaging

Methods that draw on both acoustic and electrical imaging techniques using the same logging tool

Prensky[1] has provided an excellent review of this important subject.

Contents

[hide]

1 Optical imaging

2 Acoustic imaging

3 Electrical imaging

4 Conjunctive acoustic and electrical imaging

5 References

6 Noteworthy papers in OnePetro

7 External links

8 See also

Optical imaging

Downhole cameras were the first borehole-imaging devices. Today they furnish a true high-resolution

color image of the wellbore. The principal drawback is that they require a transparent fluid in liquid-filledholes. Unless transparent fluid can be injected ahead of the lens, the method fails. This requirement has

limited the application of downhole cameras. The other major historic limitation, the need to wait until the

camera is recovered before the images can be seen, has fallen away with the introduction of digital

systems.

http://petrowiki.org/Borehole_imaging#cite_note-r1-0



http://petrowiki.org/Borehole_imaging



http://petrowiki.org/Borehole_imaging#Optical_imaging


http://petrowiki.org/Borehole_imaging#Acoustic_imaging


http://petrowiki.org/Borehole_imaging#Electrical_imaging


http://petrowiki.org/Borehole_imaging#Conjunctive_acoustic_and_electrical_imaging


http://petrowiki.org/Borehole_imaging#References


http://petrowiki.org/Borehole_imaging#Noteworthy_papers_in_OnePetro


http://petrowiki.org/Borehole_imaging#External_links


http://petrowiki.org/Borehole_imaging#See_also














The principal application of downhole video has been in air-filled holes in which acoustic and contact

electrical images cannot be obtained. Most applications described in the literature are directed at fracture

identification or casing inspection.



Acoustic imaging

Acoustic borehole-imaging devices are known as "borehole televiewers." They are mandrel tools and

provide 100% coverage of the borehole wall. The first borehole televiewer, operating at a relatively high

ultrasonic frequency of 1.35 MHz, was developed by Mobil Corp. in the late 1960s.[2][3] Since then, a

succession of improvements have been made, principally through advances in digital instrumentation and

computer-image enhancement. Modern tools contain a magnetometer to provide azimuthal information.








Selected High Temperature Borehole Imaging Tools



1. (a) Acoustic Televiewer (BHTV) built by ALT (Applied Logic Tecnologies): A boreholeteleviewer bounces an acoustic pulse against the borehole wall to develop an image of itsreflectivity. (Prototype developed through funding provided by Department of Energy (DOE),Geothermal Technologies Program, and Department of Defense (DOD), through a contractwith Sandia National Lab).

2. (b)Hot Hole Formation Micro-Scanner (FMS) f rom Schlumberger: The FMS images theresistivity of the borehole wall by placing an electrode at constant electrical potential(voltage) against the borehole wall and measuring the current.

Several other tools can be used if geothermal wells are cooled by the effective circulation ofcold fluids, especially immediately after drilling a well. However, such logging is time limited(due to re-heating) and effective cooling is sensitive to well conditions.

The borehole televiewer operates with pulsed acoustic energy so that it can image the borehole wall in

the presence of opaque drilling muds. Short bursts of acoustic energy are emitted by a rotating

transducer in pulse-echo mode. These travel through the drilling mud and undergo partial reflection at the

borehole wall. Reflected pulses are received by the transducer. The amplitudes of the reflected pulses

form the basis of the acoustic image of the borehole wall. These amplitudes are governed by several

factors. The first is the shape of the borehole wall itself: irregularities cause the reflected energy to scatter

so that a weaker reflected signal is received by the transducer. Examples of these irregularities are

fractures, vugs, and breakouts. Moreover, the reflected signal is degraded in elliptical and oval wellbores

because of non-normal incidence. The second factor is the contrast in acoustic impedance between the

drilling mud and the material that makes up the borehole wall. Acoustic impedance provides an acoustic

measure of the relative firmness of the formations penetrated by the wellbore material and, thus, it has

the capability of discriminating between different lithologies, with high acoustic impedance giving rise to

high reflected amplitudes. Borehole televiewers work best where the borehole walls are smooth and the

contrast in acoustic impedance is high. The third factor is the scattering or absorption of acoustic energy

by particles in the drilling mud. This problem is more serious in heavily weighted muds, which are the

most opaque acoustically, and it gives rise to a loss of image resolution.

The borehole televiewer can provide a 360° image in open or cased holes. It can operate in all downhole

environments other than gas-filled holes. The travel time for the acoustic pulse depends on the distance

between the transducer and the borehole wall, as well as the mud velocity. Modern televiewers allow

some independent method of measuring the mud velocity. Thus, the borehole televiewer also operates as

an acoustic caliper log. For best results, the tool should be centered, although correction algorithms have

been developed for eccentered surveys.

An example of a modern ultrasonic imaging tool is Schlumberger’s Ultrasonic Borehole Imager (UBI™),

which is based on the cased-hole USI with two hardware modifications: a focused transducer was fitted

for improved resolution, and an openhole centralizer was added.[4] The tool incorporates a rotating

transducer within a subassembly. The size of the subassembly is selected on the basis of the diameter of

the hole that is to be logged. The direction of rotation of the subassembly governs the orientation of the

transducer. There are two positional modes:

http://www.alt.lu/acoustic_televiewer.htm



http://www.odplegacy.org/PDF/Operations/Engineering/Logging_Tools/FMS_Sonic.pdf











The standard measurement mode with the transducer facing the borehole wall (Fig. 1)

The fluid-property mode with the transducer facing a target within the tool

In standard mode, the tool measures both amplitude and transit time at one of two frequencies, 250 or

500 kHz, with recommended logging speeds of 800 ft/hr [244 m/hr] and 400 ft/hr [122 m/hr], respectively,

where logging speed is primarily determined by vertical sampling density and the rate of transducerrotation. The higher frequency allows a sharper image resolution of 0.2 in. [5 mm], but it is less effective

in highly dispersive muds where the lower frequency should be used. The tool can also be used for

investigating the geometry of the inner surface of casing where it is not desired to measure resonant

ringing as an indicator of cement integrity.

Fig. 1 – Principle of the Ultrasonic Borehole Imager (UBI™). The UBI measures reflection amplitude and

radial distance using a direct measurement of mud velocity.[4]

Baker Atlas’ Circumferential Borehole Imaging Log (CBIL™) has a similar range of capability but is rated

to 20,000 psi [138 MPa] and 400°F [204°C]. Halliburton’s Circumferential Acoustic Scanning Tool(CAST™) additionally offers simultaneous casing inspection and cement evaluation. It is rated to 20,000

psi [138 MPa] and 350°F [177°C], as is Schlumberger’s UBI. Both of these tools predated the UBI. [5][6]

Data are usually presented as depth plots of enhanced images of amplitude and borehole radius.

Applications include:

Fracture detection

Analysis of borehole stability

Identification of breakouts

Fig. 2 shows an example of breakout identification using an ultrasonic borehole televiewer .[7]

The datapresented are from the Cajon Pass scientific borehole in southeastern California. The aim was to

investigate the orientation and magnitudes of in-situ stresses using borehole-image data. The televiewer

has superseded multiarm dipmeter calipers for these applications. Although the caliper can reveal the

orientation of breakouts, the tool provides little information about their size and, more generally, about the

overall shape of the borehole wall. The ultrasonic televiewer can detect much smaller features than the

multiarm caliper and can distinguish between features that are stress induced and those that are drilling

artifacts.










http://petrowiki.org/File:Vol5_Page_0401_Image_0001.png







Fig. 2 – Example of breakout detection using an ultrasonic borehole televiewer. Breakouts are indicated by

the low acoustic amplitude of the reflected signal, shown here as darker areas. The breakouts are rotated

because of a drilling-induced slippage of localized faults[7]

(Courtesy of SPWLA.)

Electrical imagingMicroresistivity imaging devices were developed as an advancement on dipmeter technology, which they

have mostly superseded. Traditionally, they have required a conductive borehole fluid, but it will be seen

later that this requirement has been obviated by oil-based-mud imaging tools. Originally, in the mid-

1980s, they comprised two high-resolution pads with 27 button electrodes distributed azimuthally on

each. This arrangement provided a coverage of 20% of an 8.5-in. [216-mm] wellbore in a single

pass.[8] This coverage was doubled by the development of a four-pad microresistivity imaging tool, each

with 16 button electrodes arranged azimuthally in two rows of eight. The number of electrodes was limited

by tool-transmission electronics.[9]Coverage was increased still further through the use of pads with flaps

that opened to give a borehole-wall coverage of 80% in an 8-in. [203-mm] hole.[10] In another approach,

the six-arm dipmeter evolved into a six-pad microresistivity imager ,[11]

Halliburton’s Electrical Micro-Imaging tool (EMI™). Each pad contained 25 button electrodes also arranged azimuthally in two rows.

With this arrangement, a 60% coverage was achieved in an 8-in. [203-mm] hole.

The measurement principle of the microresistivity imaging devices is straightforward. The pads and flaps

contain an array of button electrodes at constant potential (Fig. 3). An applied voltage causes an

alternating current to flow from each electrode into the formation and then to be received at a return

electrode on the upper part of the tool. The microelectrodes respond to current density, which is related to

localized formation resistivity. The tool, therefore, has a high-resolution capability in measuring variations

from button to button. The resistivity of the interval between the button-electrode array and the return

electrode gives rise to a low-resolution capability in the form of a background signal. The tool does not

provide an absolute measurement of formation resistivity but rather a record of changes in resistivity. Theresolution of electrical microimaging tools is governed by the size of the buttons, usually a fraction of an

inch. In theory, any feature that is as large as the buttons will be resolved. If it is smaller, it might still be

detected. The tools can be run as dipmeters.























Fig. 3 – Measurement principle of microresistivity imaging devices illustrated by Schlumberger’s Formation

MicroImager (FMI™). (Courtesy of Schlumberger.)

Data are presented as orientated, juxtaposed pad outputs whereby the cylindrical surface of the borehole

wall is flattened out. This has the effect of distorting quasiplanar features such as dipping layers or

fractures, which appear as sinusoidal in the data display. Fig. 4 shows a typical data display and

identifies some of the key features.

Fig. 4 – Recognition of sedimentary and structural features in microresistivity images. These Formation

MicroImager (FMI™) images have been used to generate the dip information in Track 2. The combination of

FMI images and dip data clearly differentiates the eolian and interdune sands in this 8.5-in. [216 mm]

borehole. (Courtesy of Schlumberger.)

Electrical microimaging tools have proved superior to the ultrasonic televiewers in the identification of

sedimentary characteristics and some structural features such as natural fractures in sedimentary rocks.

They are especially useful for net-sand definition in thinly laminated fluvial and turbidite depositional

environments.

There are several microimaging tools available, each with similar capability. For example, Schlumberger’s

fullbore FMI™ has two horizontally offset rows of 24 button electrodes on each pad and each flap, making

a total of 192 electrodes (Fig. 5). The buttons have a diameter of 0.2 in. [5 mm], which determines the

intrinsic spatial resolution of the tool. However, features as small as 50-μ fluid-filled fractures can be







detected (but not fully resolved). Current is focused into the formation, where a depth of investigation of

several tens of centimeters is claimed. However, the image probably relates to a depth of investigation of

no more than 0.8 in. [20 mm]. The high-resolution image is normalized with respect to the low-resolution

part of the signal or to another resistivity loggingtool.

Fig. 5 – The Formation MicroImager (FMI™) pad and flap assembly with horizontally offset rows of electrode

buttons. (Courtesy of Schlumberger.)

The conventional microresistivity imaging devices require a conductive mud in which to function.

However, drilling with oil-based or synthetic muds has increased because of the improved drilling

efficiency and greater borehole stability relative to water-based muds. Rather than have to change out the

mud specifically for a microresistivity imaging survey, two other approaches have been pursued. The first

has been to develop a new synthetic mud that retains all the stabilizing characteristics of conventional

synthetic muds but is sufficiently conductive to permit microresistivity imaging measurements. [12] The

second has been to develop an electrical imaging device that operates in oil-based muds. This problem

was addressed by the so-called oil-based mud dipmeters. These are conventional four-arm dipmeters forwhich the four microelectrodes are replaced by microinduction sensors.[13] More recently, contact

resistivity methods have been applied in oil-based or synthetic muds.[14] Schlumberger’s Oil-Base

MicroImager (OBMI™) uses four pads positioned at 90° to one another to achieve a 32% coverage of an

8-in. [203-mm] wellbore. Each pad contains two current electrodes and a set of five pairs of closely

spaced potential electrodes positioned centrally between the current electrodes (Fig. 6). The

arrangement is reminiscent of the Schlumberger electrode array that is still used for surface resistivity

sounding in geoelectrical prospecting. However, in this downhole case, the aperture of the sensor gives

an intrinsic spatial resolution of 0.4 in. [10 mm] with a nominal depth of investigation of 3.5 in. [90 mm].

Although the OBMI tool is sensitive to borehole rugosity, it has performed well in oil-based and synthetic

muds for which water content lies between 1 and 30%. Examples of microresistivity image displays are

shown in Figs. 7 and 8.

http://petrowiki.org/Resistivity_and_spontaneous_(SP)_logging



http://petrowiki.org/Microresistivity_logs




















Fig. 6 – Principle of the Oil-Base MicroImager (OBMI™). A current, i , is applied between electrodes A and B.

The potential difference, δV , is measured between electrodes C and D. An apparent formation resistivity, R xo ,

is calculated using Ohm’s law and an array geometry factor .[14]

(Courtesy of SPWLA.)

Fig. 7 – Example of the Formation MicroImager (FMI™) run in highly laminated sediments. The FMI tool is

able to detect laminations as thin as 0.2 in. [5 mm]. In contrast, note the undiagnostic smoothed form of the

conventional array induction logs around depth XX30 ft in Track 2. Microresistivity tools are able to detect

pay in places where conventional log analysis might overlook it. Note the more complete description of

borehole geometry afforded by the X and Y calipers in Track 1. (Courtesy of Schlumberger.)
















Fig. 8 – Example of an electrical microimage using the six-arm Electrical Micro-Imaging Tool (EMI™). Static

(Track 2) and dynamic (Track 5) image enhancement has revealed a laminated sand/shale sequence and

delivered computed dips (Track 4) of the sedimentary strata. The enhanced images also reveal drilling-

induced fractures, which cut vertically across the bedding as sensed by Pads 2 and 5. (Courtesy of

Halliburton.)

Conjunctive acoustic and electrical imaging

To some extent, the ultrasonic and electrical images are complementary because the ultrasonic

measurements are influenced more by rock properties, whereas the electrical measurements respond

primarily to fluid properties. Another difference is that the ultrasonic image covers 360°, whereas the

electrical image is somewhat less than 80% of the surface of an 8-in. [203-mm] wellbore. Ultrasonic

measurements can be made using the same tool in all types of drilling mud, and this can facilitate

interwell comparisons. On the other hand, most microresistivity imaging devices require a water-based

mud; otherwise, an alternative tool, such as the OBMI, has to be used.

These differences can be accommodated through the combined use of electrical and acoustic imaging. As an example, Baker Atlas’ Simultaneous Acoustic and Resistivity Imager (STAR™) uses a combination

of a CBIL and a six-pad resistivity imager with 12 electrodes per pad. The tool delivers a more complete

data set than is achievable using either of the components separately. The combined tool is 86 ft [26.2 m]

in length with a diameter of 5.70 in. [145 mm]. It is rated to 20,000 psi [138 MPa] and 350°F [177°C].

Documents

Borehole Imaging