Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Outline
Common Terms
Sonic
Ultrasonic
Log Example
Conclusions 1
Tool Overview
Analysis Results
MIPSPro
Conclusions 2
Mud
Common Terms
Formation
Cement Sheath
Casing
Free Pipe
Cement
Channels
Cement to
Pipe Bond
Cement to
Microannulus Formation Bond
Displacement Efficiency
No Cement to Formation bond
Formation
Casing
64%
Mud
97%
Formation
Cement
TRANSMITTER
TRAVEL
SIGNALTIME
AMPLITUDE
3 FT CASING
RECEIVER
CBL MSG
5 FT
RECEIVER
Free Pipe
GAMMA RAY
0
AMPLITUDE
150
TRAVEL TIME
200
0
CCL
300
100
AMPLIFIED AMPLITUDE
CBL WAVEFORM
0
10 -20
Y50
Y75
Straight WMSG waveforms
= free pipe
20
GAMMA RAY
Free to
Bonded Pipe
AMPLITUDE
150
TRAVEL TIME
200
0
CCL
300
X75
10
10
100
AMPLIFIED AMPLITUDE
CBL WAVEFORM
0
10 -20
20
GAMMA RAY
0
Excellent
Cement Bond
AMPLITUDE
150
TRAVEL TIME
200
0
CCL
300
100
AMPLIFIED AMPLITUDE
CBL WAVEFORM
0
10 -20
Z075
P-waves
Amplified amplitude =
cemented pipe
S-waves
WMSG waveforms = cement all the
way from pipe to formation
Changes in waveform
response correspond to
changes in gamma ray,
indicating good cement all
the way to the formation
Z100
Stoneley
waves
11
11
20
12
12
(CAST-F)
is an ultrasonic tool with a transducer acting as both transmitter and
receiver located in the rotating head that, fires an ultrasonic signal that
excites the casing and borehole wall and reflects back to the transducer
(which acts as a receiver)
13
Casing Wall
First Reflection
First Arrival
Amplitude
Casing
Thickness
Casing
Radius
Travel time
c
t
2 fo
2014 HALLIBURTON. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
ID
Window
Resonance
Window
Impedance
Window
14
14
Impedance Calculations
15
15
Impedance
Values
Black
Z V
Dark
Brown
4
Z ( ppg / T sec/ ft ) 36.5
Light
Brown
Tan
Cement
2
Water
Blue
Foam
Cement
Red
0
Free Gas
Drilling
Mud
16
16
Green
17
17
18
18
TRAVEL TIME
180
280
GAMMA
0
150
AVZ
10
0
ECEN
0
1
CAST
and CBL
AMPLIFIED
AMPLITUDE
0
10
AMPLITUDE
0
70
FCBI
1
0 -20
X600
Channel
19
19
CBL WAVEFORM
IMPEDANCE IMAGE
WMSG
ZP
20 0
6.15
20
20
22
22
Foam Cement
23
23
Nearly
Free Pipe
TRAVEL TIME
180
280
GAMMA
0
150
AVZ
10
0
ECEN
0
1
AMPLIFIED
AMPLITUDE
0
10
AMPLITUDE
0
70
FCBI
1
0 -20
High amplitude,
Straight lines on wmsg
Impedance map < 2.3
X000
indicates
fluid
24
24
CBL WAVEFORM
IMPEDANCE IMAGE
WMSG
ZP
20 0
6.15
Bonded
Pipe
TRAVEL TIME
180
280
GAMMA
0
150
AVZ
10
0
ECEN
0
1
AMPLIFIED
AMPLITUDE
0
10
AMPLITUDE
0
70
FCBI
1
0 -20
CBL WAVEFORM
IMPEDANCE IMAGE
WMSG
ZP
20 0
Low amplitude,
Changes on the on the wmsg
indicate cement from casing to formation
Impedance map > 2.7, browns indicates cement
Some vugs of fluids indicated by higher amplitude
and lower impedance values
X200
25
25
6.15
Well-Bore Section
Section
I
Section
A
Section
H
Section
B
Section
G
Section
C
Section
F
Section
E
Section
D
Center Of Map
Nearly
Free Pipe
Segmented
Curves
GAMMA
0
150
AVG. Z
10
1
ECEN
0
1
IMPEDANCE MAP
0
6.15 0
A2
A4
A6
A8
A10
B14
B16
B18
B20
B22
5 0
C24
C26
C28
C30
C32
5 0
D36
D38
D40
D42
D44
5 0
E46
E48
E50
E52
E54
5 0
F58
F60
F62
F64
F66
5 0
G68
G70
G72
G74
G76
5 0
X000
27
27
H80
H82
H84
H86
H88
5 0
5 0
I90
I92
I94
I96
I98
5
Bonded
Pipe
Segmented
Curves
GAMMA
0
150
AVG. Z
10
1
ECEN
0
1
IMPEDANCE MAP
0
6.15 0
A2
A4
A6
A8
A10
B14
B16
B18
B20
B22
5 0
C24
C26
C28
C30
C32
5 0
D36
D38
D40
D42
D44
5 0
E46
E48
E50
E52
E54
5 0
F58
F60
F62
F64
F66
5 0
G68
G70
G72
G74
G76
5 0
H80
H82
H84
H86
H88
5 0
Casing centralizer
X200
28
5 0
I90
I92
I94
I96
I98
5
Impedance
Responses
Free Pipe
GAMMA
0
100
AVG. Z
10
0
ECEN
0
1
A2
A4
A6
IMPEDANCE A8
0
6.15 A10
Bonded Pipe
29
29
ACE Analysis
in Nearly
Free Pipe
CEMT image is a combination
of the ZP and DZ images.
AMPLIFIED
CBL
IMPEDANCE
DERIVATIVE
AMPLITUDE
WAVEFORM
IMAGE
IMAGE
0
10
AMPLITUDE
0
70
FCBI
1
0
ZP
DZ
FCEMBI
WMSG
0
6.15
0
0.60 0
1
0 -20
20
GAMMA
0
150
ECEN
0
1.0
AVZ
10
0
CEMENT
IMAGE
X000
30
30
CEMT
1.0
ACE Analysis in
Bonded Pipe
AMPLIFIED
CBL
IMPEDANCE
DERIVATIVE
AMPLITUDE
WAVEFORM
IMAGE
IMAGE
0
10
AMPLITUDE
0
70
FCBI
1
0
ZP
DZ
FCEMBI
WMSG
6.15 0
0.60 0
1
0 -20
20 0
GAMMA
0
150
ECEN
0
1.0
AVZ
10
0
Vug
X200
2014 HALLIBURTON. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
CEMENT
IMAGE
31
31
CEMT
1.0
New CBL
Waveform
Processing
CBL Variance is the
derivative of the CBL
waveform
AMPLIFIED
GAMMA
AMPLITUDE
0
150
0
10
TT
CCL AMPLITUDE
250
150
0
70 -15
CBL MSG
Variance of wiggle
lines should be high
X200
Lack of Chevrons
= Bonded Pipe
X300
CBL TOTAL
16 -1
Variance of a straight
line should be zero
CBL VARIANCE
15 0
32
32
15
Collar
Responses
Free Pipe
GAMMA
0
150
ECEN
0
1
AMPLIFIED
AMPLITUDE
10
AMPLITUDE
70
CBL WAVEFORM
-20
20 0
CBL DERIVITIVE OR
VARIANCE
10 0
CBL TOTAL
20
Microannulus
33
Log Example
8 - lb/gal cement
What does the CBL data
suggest?
Bonding or no
bonding?
What does the CAST data
suggest?
Bonding or no
bonding?
TRAVEL TIME
180
280
GAMMA
0
150
AVZ
10
0
ECEN
0
1
AMPLIFIED
AMPLITUDE
0
10
AMPLITUDE
0
70
FCBI
1
0 0
IMPEDANCE IMAGE
WMSG
ZP
20
6.15
Disagree
Y100
Why?
Is the answer here?
2014 HALLIBURTON. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
CBL WAVEFORM
34
34
ACE Curve
Segmentation
(8 - lb/gal)
GAMMA
0
150
AVG. Z
10
1
ECEN
0
1
IMPEDANCE MAP
0
6.15 0
A2
A4
A6
A8
A10
B14
B16
B18
B20
B22
5 0
C24
C26
C28
C30
C32
5 0
D36
D38
D40
D42
D44
5 0
E46
E48
E50
E52
E54
5 0
F58
F60
F62
F64
F66
5 0
G68
G70
G72
G74
G76
5 0
H80
H82
H84
H86
H88
5 0
5 0
35
35
I90
I92
I94
I96
I98
5
ACE Analysis
(8 - lb/gal)
What does the ACE on the
CBL curves tell us?
AMPLIFIED
AMPLITUDE
0
10
CBL
TOTAL
IMPEDANCE DERIVATIVE
CEMENT
AMPLITUDE WAVEFORM
CBL
IMAGE
IMAGE
IMAGE
0
70
WAVEFORM
FCBI
1
0
FCBIDZ
1
0
FCEMBI
WMSG
WMSGT
ZP
DZ
CEMT
1
0 -20
20 -1
15 0
6.15 0
0.6 0
1
GAMMA
0
150
AVZ
10
0
DZAVG
1
0
Do we have good
bonding?
Why does the Amplitude
and FCEMBI curves
overlay most of the log?
Is there anywhere we
need to be concerned
about?
2014 HALLIBURTON. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
36
36
Conclusions
Improved interpretation technique
Uses available logging data
Allows interpretation of complex cement
Use of activity for solid/liquid determination
Determination of Zonal Isolation
Squeeze no squeeze decisions
Reduce Unnecessary Remedial Operations
Associated Costs Savings
37
37
Conclusions Continued
Interpretation of ALL Cement Evaluation Data
Conventional Cement Slurries
Foam and Complex Cement Slurries
Interpretation of Other Service Companies Data
38
38
Glossary
Displacement efficiency is a measument of how much of the mud is replaced by cementing operation.
Acoustic impedance is the ability of a material to transmit or reflect acoustic energy
Eccentricity - distance from center axis of tool to the center of the borehole (less than 0.25desired)
MicroSeismicGram (MSG) or Variable Display Log (VDL)
Relative bearing - angle measured between tool reference and high side of hole
39
40
40
Number of Arms
1 11/16
24
2.75
40
3.9
60
41
41
42
42
43
43
3D Visualization
Provides graphical 3D and 2D
displays
Displays cross-section images of
tubular
ReadyView software version for
customer
Video of 3D and 2D images
44
Well XX-01
Water Injector
Well Completed in 1997
Background: An MPL survey indicated a leak in the
tubing at ~X834ft MD.
Survey Objectives:
Verify the size and exact location of the hole
causing the leak.
Investigate overall tubing integrity and identify
any corrosion problems.
Tubing OD: 3.5 (OR = 1.75)
Tubing ID: 2.992 (IR = 1.496)
45
XX-01
MIT CASE
Possible
Hole in
Tubing
@
X840.4ft
46
CASE
MIT - MTT
Joint Number
Average radius
from MIT
Interior
corrosion (%)
10
47
CASE
MIT - MTT
Radius image map
Average ,
minimum and
maximum radius
from MIT
Red is maximum
radius,
indicating the
maximum loss
of tubing metal
Blue is minimum
radius, green is
average radius
11
48
CASE
MIT - MTT
Normalized average ,
minimum and
maximum radius from
MIT
12
49
< 20 %
< 40 %
< 60 %
< 80 %
(GRADE 1)
(GRADE 2)
(GRADE 3)
(GRADE 4)
(GRADE 4+)
CYAN is where the collars are. The cyan shows were the data is
NOT used in determining the joint values for GRADING. The size of
the collar band is adjustable depending upon the collar makeup etc.
13
50
Possible
Hole in
Tubing
@
X840.4ft
14
51
15
52
16
53
172
173
174
175
TOP
FEET
X750.7
X886.2
X816.2
X848.9
BOTTOM JLENGTH AVERADJ MAXRADJ DMAXRAD MINRADJ DMINRAD BODYLOSS INTDAMGJ EXTDAMGJ TOTDAMGJ GRADE
FEET
FEET
INCHES INCHES
FEET
INCHES FEET
%
%
%
%
X786.2
X816.2
X848.9
X881.6
35.5
30
32.7
32.7
1.5071
1.5254
1.5149
1.4858
1.6799
1.5753
1.8603
1.5623
X758.6
X814.3
X840.4
X858.6
1.374
1.4743
1.3872
1.3703
17
54
X762.2
X804.5
X843.9
X870.5
4.03
10.76
6.91
-3.7
72.4
31.22
100
26.1
0
0
0
0
72.4
31.22
100
26.1
4
2
5
2
Interior
Joint
Damage
18
55
Joint Summation
1956
57
57
MIPSPro
High quality 3D image
processing of calliper data.
Detailed cross sections
Statistical analysis
Data corrections
Joint-by-Joint analysis
58
Conclusions
Mechanical Calipers (MIT) and Ultrasonic Tool (CASTF)
59
59
Glossary
BOTTOM = BOTTOM OF JOINT
JLENGTH = LENGTH OF JOINT
AVERADJ = AVERAGE INTERNAL RADIUS OF JOINT
AVETHKJ = AVERAGE INTERNAL THICKNESS OF JOINT
BODYLOS = PERCENT OF BODY METAL LOST BY COMPARING AVERADJ AND KNOWN ID AND OD
60
Thank You
61