IBP2034_12 LANDING A WELL WITHOUT A PILOT WELL USING THE NEW DEEP ELECTROMAGNETIC DIRECTION LWD TOOL 1 Paulo

Netto , Antonio Mainieri Vierira da Cunha2, Ana Augusta Gonalves Meira3, Gustavo Henrique Schmitt4, Jean Seydoux5, Rajeev Samaroo6, Diogo Salim7, Charles Silva8, Emmanuel Legendre9, Ettore Mirto10
Copyright 2012, Brazilian Petroleum, Gas and Biofuels Institute - IBP
This Technical Paper was prepared for presentation at the Rio Oil & Gas Expo and Conference 2012, held between September, 1720, 2012, in Rio de Janeiro. This Technical Paper was selected for presentation by the Technical Committee of the event according to the information contained in the final paper submitted by the author(s). The organizers are not supposed to translate or correct the submitted papers. The material as it is presented, does not necessarily represent Brazilian Petroleum, Gas and Biofuels Institute opinion, or that of its Members or Representatives. Authors consent to the publication of this Technical Paper in the Rio Oil & Gas Expo and Conference 2012 Proceedings.

Abstract
Successful placement of horizontal wells requires accurate landing of the well in the desired position in the reservoir. Operators face operational and economic challenges in achieving accurate landing because of limited seismic resolution, in addition to uncertainty in the reservoir position, orientation, and overall geological structure. The current industry practice for landing a well is to use real-time logging-while-drilling (LWD) measurements with shallow depth of investigation to detect expected signatures or markers before entrance into the reservoir. As the target interval is not mapped directly, the well trajectory adjustments may not result in optimal placement of the well in the horizontal production/injection section. Operators frequently drill pilot wells to delineate the local reservoir features and structure, and the same time, collect petrophysical data to facilitate reservoir characterization. A sidetrack is then drilled to land the well based on the assumption that the reservoir structure will not show significant lateral changes from the pilot well. Drilling a pilot well is both costly and risky, especially when drilling in deeper water environments. A new 8.25-in. directional electromagnetic (EM) LWD service with a radial depth of investigation in the order of 30 m has been introduced in Brazil for landing applications to allow early detection of the approaching reservoir with sharper resolution than obtained with seismic measurements. Results from field tests executed in deepwater offshore Brazil for Petrobras are presented in this paper clearly demonstrating that deep directional EM measurements can be used to reduce the number of pilot wells and provide a higher degree of confidence in the landing process in comparison to using the classical pilot well and sidetrack technique. In addition, the deep mapping capabilities of the service provide improved reservoir delineation resulting in more accurate geological models, reserve estimates, and potential improvements to the completion design.

______________________________ 1 Bachelor, Geologist/Petrophysicist Petrobras 2 Bachelor, Geologist Petrobras 3 Bachelor, Geologist Petrobras 4 Bachelor, Geologist Petrobras 5 Ph.D., Well Placement Domain Champion Schlumberger 6 Master, Well Placement Engineer & Team Lead Schlumberger 7 Bachelor, Well Placement Engineer Schlumberger 8 Master, Well Placement Engineer Schlumberger 9 Ecole Centrale, Physicist Schlumberger 10 Master, Geologist - Schlumberger

Rio Oil & Gas Expo and Conference 2012

1. Introduction
Successfully landing a well at the right location and inclination is necessary for optimal planning and placement of the horizontal section of the well. Landing and staying in pay must be performed with respect to geology and, at the same time, must minimize drilling and completion risks (reduced drilling time and smaller dogleg). The most basic issues faced in well landing are to approach a reservoir that could be structurally either shallower or deeper than expected. In both situations, extra drilling may be necessary, with the potential for a reduced horizontal section length (less exposed reservoir), additional completion risks (increased dogleg due to overcorrection), and increased or early water production (trajectory sump). The economic impact of an unsuccessful well landing can be substantial, especially offshore where the cost of a well is significantly above tens of millions of dollars. In preparation for the execution of a well plan, the best knowledge of the nearby reservoir structure (formation model properties) is obtained through integration of the big-picture low resolution surface seismic data with high-resolution information based on wells drilled at different locations in the reservoir usually kilometers apart. A well plan is developed to optimize the well path entry point into the reservoir with alternate trajectories based on different geological scenarios (Figure 1). During landing operation, well placement decisions to modify the well path are based on correlations of markers using shallow LWD measurements such as resistivity, gamma ray, borehole images, and nuclear logs (Figure 1). While reasonably successful, these real-time decisions rely on the assumption that the formation markers are reliable. In practice, real-time decisions are reactive at best because of the limited radius of investigation of LWD tools and because of the significant measurement sensor offset with respect to the drill bit. A standard industry approach to improve the odds of landing is to drill a pilot well. In Brazil, until recently, more than 90% of the horizontal wells drilled have involved an initial pilot well. The typical pilot well is S-shaped or slanted and is designed to Figure 1: Landing a well. The very deep but low resolution approach the reservoir as close as possible to the seismic data provides the big-picture of the reservoir upon intended landing point location to intersect the main which the landing trajectory is designed. Uncertainty in the reservoir features including possible fluid contacts. reservoir structure is significantly reduced using the Moreover, important petrophysical information can information of nearby pilot wells. A formation model is also be estimated from formation evaluation logs. generated and updated in real-time based on LWD While a pilot well significantly reduces the risks measurements. Assuming a continuity of the formation and geological uncertainty in landing operation, this structure, correlations of formation markers and local method still faces limitations especially when the structural dip are used to modify the landing trajectory. reservoir is not laterally continuous and when the structural and stratigraphic features of the formation are complex. Also, in the offshore environment, pilot wells are expensive to drill as they commonly represent one-third of the total footage drilled with additional drilling risks. Can we improve the landing process while reducing the number of pilot wells altogether? Having access in real time to an updated structural map of the reservoir around the borehole with deep depth of investigation and resolution ten times smaller than seismic data would provide a new and real opportunity to address some of the inherent shortcomings related to both the drilling of pilot wells and the successful landing of production and injection wells into the reservoir.

Rio Oil & Gas Expo and Conference 2012

2. WELL LANDING USING THE NEW DEEP DIRECTIONAL EM LWD TOOL

The conventional LWD nuclear and resistivity imaging tools currently provide near-wellbore measurements with a depth of investigation (DOI) of a few centimeters from the borehole wall. Electromagnetic propagation resistivity, another industry standard measurement offers a deeper non-azimuthal DOI extending up to 1 m beyond the wellbore for data acquired in real-time while drilling (Clark et al. 1998). The deployment of a directional (azimuthal) resistivity tool in 2005 provided for the first time the capability to map bed boundaries up to 5 m away from the borehole (Li et al. 2005). In 2008, the reservoir geo-steering capability in horizontal wells was further extended with the introduction of the deep electromagnetic directional (EM) which could resolve for multiple resistivity boundaries up to 30 m laterally away from the wellbore (Beer et al. 2010). In 2010 and 2011, an 8.25-in. version of the deep EM directional tool was field tested in Brazil specifically for landing applications (12 - to 14-in. hole sizes) with similar DOI configurable up to 30 m away from the borehole. With a range of investigation extending beyond the resolution of seismic measurement, the tool offers for the first time a game-changing approach to well landing with resolution sharper than seismic data. Four successful field tests were performed of which three case studies are presented in details in the following sections. For the evaluation of well placement decisions, based on the tool capabilities, the main objectives of the field tests were: 1. While approaching the reservoir, detect and remotely map any reservoir markers and the main reservoir top. Adjust the trajectory in real time. 2. After intersection of the reservoir top, map contrasting layers within the main reservoir structure and identify the sweet zone or target zone. 3. Based on the landing information, optimize the trajectory design for the horizontal section of the reservoir. During the execution phase, a real-time inversion of the formation resistivity structure was performed using a set of relevant measurements established based in pre-job simulations. In general, the experience has been that when using the same measurement inputs, real-time and recorded-mode inversions consistently show the same results when estimating distance-to-boundary, layer thickness, and dip changes, thus confirming that the data acquired in real time offers sufficient information for proactive decision making and trajectory optimization.

Rio Oil & Gas Expo and Conference 2012

2. Case Studies
2.1. Case study 1: Landing in a thin sand reservoir The main objective of this field test was to land the well in a challenging thin sand environment (high uncertainty in the reservoir exact location in depth) to sequentially access in the subsequent horizontal reservoir section two individual reservoir sand bodies (second sand and third sand). Pre-job simulations of the tool responses suggested that the target top of the reservoir could be detected up to 20 m true vertical depth (TVD) below the sensor measure point, with a depth uncertainty of approximately 1 m in TVD (Figure 2, upper right). The section was landed within the middle sand body while mapping the top of the third reservoir 4 m TVD below the sensor measure point. The real-time results also provided a mapping of all three sand channels and the intermediate shale thicknesses, each of them in the range of 2 m to 4 m TVD (Figure 2). In addition to determining the structural dip and the depth distribution of these layers, the base of the reservoir was also detected 3 m TVD higher than expected, prompting a crucial model and trajectory update for the planning of the horizontal injector section. During drilling of the subsequent 8.5-in. horizontal section, the first 70-m measured depth (MD) interval after the landing point was drilled in the second sand, while the remaining interval of the production section was drilled in the lower third sand; both were accessed in a single run.

Deep Directional EM Pre-job simulation

Deep Directional EM Landing in Real-time Figure 2: Real-time landing results showing the detection and mapping of three sand bodies. The sand bodies are clearly not continuous and thinner than expected, as indicated by the deep directional EM tool map. Pre-job simulation of the tool capability is shown in the insert, upper right. The second sand body was detected 9m below the sensor measure point and the first sand body was intercepted later. The well was successfully landed in the second sand body while as the same time the thinner 3 m thick third sand body could be delineated approximately 4 m below the sensor point.

Rio Oil & Gas Expo and Conference 2012 2.2. Case study 2: Landing in the main section of a reservoir The main objective of this field test was to land the well in the section into the main reservoir C and D, after crossing two younger 3 to 4 m thick reservoir sands, A and B, with the A reservoir either non-existent, or present with a very low resistivity contrast. When performing the pre-job simulation (Figure 3, lower left insert), in which the A reservoir was assumed to be absent, the tool simulations showed that the B reservoir top location could be potentially confirmed at approximately 12 m TVD below the well path sensor measure point, 15 m MD before intersection of the bit with the reservoir, and at an inclination of 81. Additionally, the top of the main reservoir C could be potentially detected at approximately 14 m TVD below the sensor measure point and 20 m MD before reservoir penetration by the bit at an inclination of 83. During drilling (Figure 3), the inversion showed first tracking of the resistive reservoir B 23 m below the sensor measure point. The 8 m thickness of reservoir B could be estimated 12 m TVD below the measure point. Correlation with offset well data suggested that this was indeed the reservoir B layer. Deep Directional EM Landing in Real-time

Landing

Deep Directional EM Pre-job simulation

Figure 3: Real-time landing. Reservoir A was not detected and reservoir B was detected 23 m TVD below the sensor measure point (with the bit 100 m MD from reservoir B intersection). Reservoir B thickness could also be estimated when closer. With the drillstring still in reservoir B, the top of reservoir C could be detected 20 m TVD below. The base of reservoir C could be seen more than 32 m TVD away while the top section of reservoir D could be sketched remotely. The deep directional EM tool provides a layered formation structure (in resistivity) on a section (ribbon), the orientation of which is perpendicular to the structure orientation plane. In this example, the section of the formation structure, 11 off vertical, is shown combined with the 3D borehole image obtained from a nuclear tool. Correlation with the shale and sand zone is clearly demonstrated. 5

Rio Oil & Gas Expo and Conference 2012 When entering reservoir B, as drilling progressed, the first detection of the C target reservoir was observed 12 m TVD below the base of the B target and 20 m below the measure point. Both reservoirs appeared approximately 16 m TVD shallower than initially expected. At this point, the trajectory was changed to build and turn more aggressively so as not to compromise the eventual landing point within the main reservoir D target. In the final part of the landing section, the tool also delineated the thickness of reservoir C (approximately 32 m TVD) and an indication of the presence of a conductive marker immediately above reservoir layer D below. The reduced range of investigation shown at the trajectory end (shown as a staircase in Figure 3) is to highlight the result of higher resolution measurements used in the inversion acquired earlier with smaller bit offsets. As illustrated in Figure 4, further investigation of the seismic data showed that the trajectory as far had been placed in an up-thrown block. The formation structural model for the horizontal section was updated accordingly and further confirmed when drilling the horizontal section. In this case, using the deep directional EM measurements allowed a more optimal and proactive landing and better planning of the horizontal section. Besides providing a map of the formation structure based on resistivity properties, the tool also measured the orientation of this structure in 3D space. In Figure 3, the final landing map from the tool is shown combined with a borehole image obtained from a nuclear tool illustrating the tool 3D capability. The directional capability of the measurements provided the opportunity to characterize and update the geometrical and resistivity structure of the reservoir at distances five to six times farther away from the borehole than is possible with the conventional directional resistivity measurements available in the industry (Li et al. 2005).

Figure 4: Final interpretation of the overall reservoir structure based on the deep directional EM tool landing mapping with a re-adjustment of the seismic background 16 m TVD upwards to match the tool inversion of the structure and the LWD logs. The interpretation of a fault ahead of the landing point was based on the data from a vertical well near the horizontal section. The fault was later confirmed during the execution of the horizontal section where the deep directional EM tool was not used.

Rio Oil & Gas Expo and Conference 2012 2.3. Case study 3: Landing in the main section of a reservoir in 3D The objectives in this case study were similar to those in case study #2. Pre-job simulations (Figure 5) showed that the reservoir A top could be detected at approximately 17 m TVD below the sensor measure point and that both the intermediary B section and main reservoir section C could also be detected with a DOI. Moreover, the simulation also suggested that the base of the main reservoir C could be detected 30 m TVD below the sensor measure point even before entry into that specific reservoir section. The definition of the three reservoir sections A, B, and C was based on an offset vertical well drilled more than 400 m away (Figure 6). During the execution of the landing phase, 1400 m MD was drilled before encountering the reservoir. The deep directional EM tool inversion indicated that the top of the reservoir A section was not detected at the expected TVD depth as Figure 5: Pre-job modeling of a landing in the reservoir with the deep defined by model built on seismic directional EM tool in the expected formation model structure which includes interpretation, (Figure 6). three reservoir layers (A, B, C). The mapping of the reservoir 30 m away is possible.

Figure 6: The real-time landing to the reservoir with the deep directional EM LWD tool with approximately 1400 m MD drilled in about 12 days. The A layer was not detected at the expected depth.

Rio Oil & Gas Expo and Conference 2012 In the final landing approach, (Figure 7), reservoir A was detected 16 m TVD deeper than expected, 8 m TVD below the sensor measure point, and 25 m MD prior to intersection of the bit with the reservoir. The reservoir A was also much thinner than expected with less than 2 m in thickness. Based on this early, but deeper in TVD, detection, the trajectory inclination was dropped from the planned 81.6 to 80. Even before reaching reservoir A, an indication of the presence of another reservoir could be seen at 26 m TVD below the well path with 20 m TVD separation. This reservoir was identified as reservoir C because of its higher distance from reservoir A (There was a high probability that reservoir B would not be present and, if reservoir B were present, it was expected to be 15 m TVD closer based on the nearby well log information.) Upon penetration of the main reservoir C, the formation structure below could also be mapped to show both the base of reservoir C at 35 m TVD below and a thin shaly conductive layer in the upper part as expected from nearby well log information. The trajectory inclination was further adjusted to land in the higher resistive part of this structure. Optimization of the well trajectory in the horizontal section could then proceed with the adjustment of the seismic map down by 16 m TVD based on the deep directional EM tool map. The horizontal section was subsequently successfully drilled with a standard LWD tool string including a directional resistivity tool (Li et al. 2005).

Figure 7: The final section showing that A was detected 16 m TVD lower than expected while the C top could also be detected 26 m TVD below. The B layer was absent. Note that the reservoir structure is delineated remotely and that the C bottom base is also detected 35 m TVD below. The landing trajectory could then be adjusted downwards when C top was clearly identified.

Rio Oil & Gas Expo and Conference 2012

3. Summary and Conclusions

The new deep directional EM LWD service with reservoir mapping capability has been successfully field tested in Brazil for landing application. This service was capable of detecting in real-time, from conductive shale, an approaching reservoir up to 25 m TVD away. Before entry, target reservoir thicknesses could be estimated for sand layers thinner than 2 m and up to thicknesses in excess of 30 m TVD. Moreover, simultaneous detection of separate reservoir structures was also possible. Proactive well placement decisions during landing are now possible in which the planning of the horizontal section can include the adjustment of the trajectory in real time and can be based on the reservoir structure at the landing point. The service significantly reduced the geological uncertainty while landing. No pilot wells were drilled in any of the three case studies presented. With the combination of the tools deeper depth of investigation, the extra geological knowledge, and the integrated work of a multidisciplinary team, two planned pilot wells were avoided. With its mapping capability, in all tests, a better understanding of the reservoir structure and resistivity profile across this structure was achieved locally around the landing point. This in turn improved the confidence of the reservoir geological model for subsequent drilling of horizontal production and injection sections. With its directional and deeper range of investigation, the service opens new possibilities in landing applications. By opening a new and enhanced window on the reservoir, the service is setting the stage for a more integrated approach with seismic measurement. The results of the field test campaign have provided a reliable experience to justify reducing the number of planned pilot wells, helping to reduce costs without jeopardizing the drilling efficiency. Furthermore, the enhanced reservoir structure can then be used to significantly refine the geological and structural models deeper into the formation, and helping to optimize production management.

4. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Petrobras for permission to publish this paper.

5. References
BEER, R., CLUDIO, L., DIAS, T., VIEIRA DA CUNHA, A., COUTINHO, M., SCHMITT, G., SEYDOUX, J., MORRISS, C., LEGENDRE, E., YANG, J., LI, Q., CARVALHO DA SILVA A., FERRARIS, P., BARBOSA, E., GUEDES, A. Geosteering and/or Reservoir Characterization - The Prowess of New-Generation LWD Tools. Paper prepared for presentation at the SPWLA 51 st Annual Logging Symposium, Perth, Australia, June 2010. CLARK, B., LULING, M. G., JUNDT, J., ROSS, M., AND BEST, D. A Dual Depth Resistivity Measurement for FEWD. Paper prepared for presentation at the SPWLA 29 th Annual Logging Symposium, San Antonio, TX, June 1998. LI, Q., OMERAGIC, D., CHOU, L., YANG, L., DUONG, K., SMITS, J., YANG, J., LAU, T., LIU, C.B., DWORAK, R., DREUILLAULT, V., AND YE, H. New Directional Electromagnetic Tool for Proactive Geosteering and Accurate Formation Evaluation While Drilling. Paper prepared for presentation at the SPWLA 46 th Annual Logging Symposium, New Orleans, LA, June 2005.