Beirut Arab University

Faculty of Engineering

Department of Chemical &

Petroleum Engineering

Logging While Drilling - A technology

improving the well logging industry.

Student Name: Mohammed Hatem

ID: 201903047

Presented for Dr. Kamel Bou Hamdan

 1. Abstract:
Logging While Drilling is an important technology in the Oil and Gas
industry for identifying and evaluating petroleum reservoirs. And Oil
Based Mud (OBM) can enhance the drilling efficiency and lower operation
risks and costs. However, the fact that OBM is non-conductive, makes it
challenging to apply LWD while using OBM. This paper studies the
feasibility of a developed LWD instrument to be able to do so. A numerical
simulation using COMSOL Multiphysics software was carried out, and the
resulting data showed that the improved tool has good measurement
accuracy, deep detection depth and high vertical resolution. Moreover,
because fractured formations are so heterogeneous, they have a
complicated logging response mechanism. To investigate further about
this technology, another numerical simulation was conducted to elaborate
more the feasibility of LWD when it comes to quantitatively evaluating
fracture aperture in the reservoir. The aperture is linearly connected to
the maximum current contrast, but the formation resistivity contrast has a
strong exponential relationship with the maximum current contrast,
according to the findings. Because the dip angle of the fracture affects
both of these connections, segmented fitting is necessary when the
fracture dip angles differ. The LWD showed its effectiveness when it
comes to processing and interpreting fractured reservoirs. Finally, LWD is
an effective technology, and the Petroleum Industry will greatly rely on it
due to its effectiveness especially in tripping time reduction, cost
effectiveness, simplicity, speed of real data interpretation, and surely the
whole logging performance.

2. Introduction:
In the exploration and development of oil and gas, reservoir appraisal is
critical. Logging-while-drilling (LWD) technology has become an essential
study component in the well logging area as the number of
unconventional wells in drilling operations, such as high angle wells and
horizontal wells, has increased. While drilling, LWD technology allows
practitioners to measure formation parameters for geological
investigation.

Water-based mud (WBM) is commonly used for reservoir drilling due to its
convenience, low cost, and low environmental impact. WBM, on the other
hand, is no longer a viable option due to the emergence of LWD. On the
one hand, full-hole coring, which is costly and time-consuming, must be
used to achieve fine reservoir evaluation in a WBM context. WBM, on the
other hand, is no longer appropriate as the number of deepwater and
unconventional wells grows, due to the high temperature and pressure
generated by these wells.

Oil-based mud (OBM) is better suitable for most deepwater and

unconventional wells than water-based mud (WBM) due to its advantages
of high temperature resilience, good lubricity, and little reservoir damage.
It has the potential to increase drilling efficiency while lowering
operational hazards. As a result, it is frequently employed in the field of
well logging. However, because the OBM's continuous phase is oil, the
resistivity is high where it usually a million times that of the WBM. This
indicates that in the OBM context, the usual low-frequency measurement
method is no longer viable. Therefore, new solutions for tackling the
electrical insulation problem of the OBM have been proposed in light of
the non-conductive OBM.

In another area of LWD application, the evaluation of fracture aperture

from LWD resistivity imaging data. The new instrument takes advantage
of developments in microsignal detecting technology and employs tiny
buttons to produce higher-resolution images that are comparable to the
Formation MicroImager. Furthermore, it provides real-time borehole
imaging data from underground to aboveground, allowing for real-time
geological guiding and lowering drilling risk. Because of these advantages,
the technique is frequently employed in complicated formations because
it produces good application results, particularly in carbonate and volcanic
formations with high variability, where logging response characteristics
are difficult to forecast.
From the borehole images, a logging interpretation expert may quickly
detect the fractures and determine apertures. This is significant since the
aperture of a natural fracture is used to calculate fractured reservoir
reserves and fracturing.

3. Background Theory:
a. Logging While Drilling (LWD):

The term "logging while drilling" (LWD) is interchangeable and refer to

systems and procedures for collecting down-hole data while drilling
without tripping back the drill pipe from the well. LWD is similar to wireline
logging in terms of functionality, however there are some variances in
data quality, resolution, and/or coverage. Because LWD tools can travel
wherever the bit can go, they are far more successful in horizontal wells
with extended reach. They use either pulses in the mud or signals
superimposed on the drill pipe to deliver data to the surface.

b. The pseudo geometric factor G:

This can be explained as the logging measurement's reaction as a

function of distance from the tool. Normally, the pseudo geometrical
factor is radial, representing a reaction that is perpendicular to the tool. It
can be a differential factor, which represents the contribution to the signal
at a specific distance, but it is most commonly integrated, which
represents the sum of all signals from the tool to a specific distance. The
pseudo geometrical factor evolved from the geometrical factor notion and
is stated similarly. Pseudo geometrical factors are frequently used to
express the response of nuclear and resistivity logs, but they are not
appropriate for acoustic and electromagnetic propagation logs (where the
response is too dependent on property contrast), or nuclear magnetic
resonance logs (where the response is too dependent on the contrast in
properties and where the response is too localized).

This factor is determined by the following equation:

Where:

 Ra is the apparent resistivity of the formation

 Rt is the real resistivity of the formation
 Rx is the apparent resistivity of the formation if the invasion radius
is infinite

c. Fracture aperture

The perpendicular width of an open fracture is known as the fracture

aperture. However, the reality of fracture wall roughness, gouge, mineral
filling degree, and lateral continuity is not captured by this term. Because
of these factors, determining a fracture aperture within a rock body is
challenging. A hydraulic aperture term can be used to quantify flow across
fractures by describing apertures in terms of the flow character of
corresponding parallel plates.
Fracture apertures can be very small or quite enormous in size. Wall
roughness and tortuosity can affect fluid flow when fracture apertures are
very small. It is acceptable to presume that two or more flowing phases
may interact as if they were restricted to the pore space of an unfractured
porous media in this scenario. Whereas if the fracture aperture size is
large, two or more fluid phases can flow in the fracture without
significantly interfering with each other.

4. Methodology:
In the first section of this paper, a numerical simulation will be held to
study the feasibility of a new method of Logging While Drilling for
Resistivity measurement when using Oil Based mud.

The numerical simulation will be run using COMSOL Multiphysics software,

which is a commercial finite element modeling software in the well logging
field, and can analyze the “logging response” of an element.

Conclusions will be conducted upon the simulation results of the following

parameters:

1. Measurement Accuracy of Formation Resistivity

2. Detection Depth and Invasion Radius

3. Influence of Surrounding Rock and Vertical Resolution

Moving to the second section of this paper, also a numerical simulation
will be held to study the feasibility of a new method of Logging While
Drilling to quantitatively evaluate reservoir’s fracture aperture. The
numerical single fracture model will be based on 3D FEM, and it will
consist of a borehole, LWD tool, fracture and formation.

5. Results and Discussion:

5.1. Part 1:
After the setup of the measured formation, the
logging instrument was placed virtually inside
the wellbore, where OBM was flowing between
the logging tool and wellbore vicinity. The
following figure shows the meshing diagram
generated:

a. Measurement Accuracy of Formation Resistivity:

After setting the range of OBM logging instrument between 0.2 and
10,000 Ω•m, the relative error was implemented in the results to study
the accuracy of the logging tool when it comes to “measurement”.
The following graph was generated:

It was found that at the range between 0.2 Ω•m to 2000 Ω•m, the relative
error was low at a maximum rate of 0.56%, but this number reaches its
maximum at 6.37% afterwards. This clearly ensures that this method has
relatively good accuracy when measuring the wellbore resistivity at a
range of 0.2 Ω•m to 10,000 Ω•m.

b. Detection Depth and invasion radius:

The first term refers to the horizontal range inside the formation, where
measurement parameters can be detected, while the invasion radius term
refers to the degree at which OBM invaded the formation while drilling. By
plotting on the software the pseudo geometric factor G and the invasion
radius data, the following graph was created:

From the previous graph, it is obvious that the relation between the
pseudo geometric factor G and the invasion radius is proportional, due the
fact that the higher was the invasion radius, the greater was the pseudo
geometric factor. However, at high rates of e invasion radius, the pseudo
geometric factor G became almost constant with few variance.

c. Influence of Surrounding Rock and Vertical Resolution:

This term is related to the influence of upper and lower surrounding rock
resistivity (Rs) on the target formation resistivity (Rt), as it can be seen in
the following figure:
To present this influence, the correction coefficient Rt /Ra is generally
used, and the run of numerical simulation results with the following graph:

As it can be easily seen, the relation between the correction coefficient

Rt /Ra and the thickness of the target formation is inversely proportional
whereas that between the correction coefficient Rt /Rs and the thickness
of the target formation is the opposite, (proportional).

5.2. Part 2:
The first step in this experiment was to check the relationship between
the fracture aperture (represented with W in mm) and the maximum
current contrast (represented with Imax/Imin).
It can be said that when working with a single fracture and different dip
angles, the bigger the fracture aperture, the stronger linear relationship
appears. At aperture values less than 0.2 mm, the change in the
maximum current contrast corresponding to different dip angles was
small. But as the aperture increases progressively, the effect of the
fracture dip angles on the maximum current contrast increases in parallel.
Even though the button electrode of the LWD resistivity imaging
equipment was quite close to the borehole wall, there was still mud in the
wellbore. Mud infiltrated the fracture at the same moment, filling it within
the measuring range. As a result, a single fracture model was created to
explore the impact of mud resistivity and formation resistivity
quantitatively and compare the results. Mud and fracture resistivity were
varied from 0.1 to 20 m-1, formation resistivity was 100 m-1, and the
fracture aperture was 1 mm in the model.
From the following figure, it can be seen that for a single fracture with
different dip angles, the relation between the fracture to formation
resistivity ratio and Imax∕Imin is inversely proportional, with a gradual
degree. This mean that as the fracture to formation resistivity ratio
increases, the Imax∕Imin gradually decreases, showing a power
exponential relationship. At the same token, if the resistivity ration
between the fracture and formation increases, the maximum current
contrast difference under different dip angles decreases.
 6. Conclusion:
This paper focuses mainly on showing the importance of Logging While
Drilling, especially when it comes to situations where other conventional
well logs fail to do so. Starting with the investigation of the new method to
apply the LWD technique while using non-conductive mud, the OBM. This
technique showed its effectiveness when it comes to the applicability of
formation resistivity measurement. The results generated from the
numerical simulation, show that this technique in LWD, has an acceptable
good measurement accuracy, along a wide range of resistivity values.
According to the simulation results, 0.56% is the maximum relative error
of resistivity measurement between 0.2 Ω•m and 2000 Ω•m.
Furthermore, the LWD instrument has deep depth of investigation with a
respectively high vertical resolution.

Moreover, a 3D FEM model was used to evaluate the logging response

characteristics of the LWD resistivity imaging tool in a fractured formation
with various dip angles. The results reveal that the maximum current
contrast and the fracture aperture have a linear relationship, and that the
fitting coefficients differ depending on the fracture dip angle. The
maximum current contrast has a superior power exponential relationship
with the fracture and formation resistivity contrast, however when the
fracture dip angles change, the fitting error is considerable when using
just one formula. Overall, LWD thus can be relied on and considered as a
good tool for evaluating fracture aperture.

Compared with conventional well logs, according to the previous

experiments, LWD technology has the advantages of low cost, simple
setup construction, and the most important is the better real-time
performance.
7. References:

 Wu, Y., Lu, B., Zhang, W., Jiang, Y., Wang, B., & Huang, Z.
(2020, February 16). A new logging-while-drilling method for
resistivity measurement in oil-based mud. MDPI. Retrieved October
17, 2021, from [Link]

 Kang, Zhengming & Li, Xin & Ni, Weining & Li, Fei & Hao, Xiao.
(2021). Using logging while drilling resistivity imaging data to
quantitatively evaluate fracture aperture based on numerical
simulation. Journal of Geophysics and Engineering. 18. 1-11.
10.1093/jge/gxab016.

 Glossary, S. (n.d.). Pseudogeometrical_factor. pseudogeometrical

factor | Oilfield Glossary. Retrieved October 17, 2021, from
[Link]
r.