碳/氧光谱数据处理,其与闪烁探测器选择性的关系及其对油藏饱和度监测的影响,经验教训和推荐的工作流程

Y. Eltaher, S. Ma
{"title":"碳/氧光谱数据处理,其与闪烁探测器选择性的关系及其对油藏饱和度监测的影响,经验教训和推荐的工作流程","authors":"Y. Eltaher, S. Ma","doi":"10.2118/212613-ms","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n For decades, it has been affirmed that pulsed neutron (PN) spectral Carbon/Oxygen (C/O) logging is the industry's most robust salinity-independent means for reservoir saturation monitoring (RSM); yet C/O logging still comes with considerable uncertainty that has to be identified and handled with ultimate care. In this paper we investigate two main aspects of such uncertainties and showcase some recommendations to enhance the accuracy of the measurement for improved reservoir saturation monitoring.\n Two fundamental factors affecting C/O measurement are the type of gamma ray (GR) scintillation detector crystals used and the method for C/O spectral data processing. Currently, there are mostly six types of crystals used as GR detectors in commercial PN logging tools for routine operations. Each detector type has its advantages and limitations. With respect to data processing, the most commonly adopted method is the Windows method, due to its simplicity and statistical robustness. Whereas the Yields method is much more complicated to develop and prone to statistical variation, though it tends to provide more accurate results. Similarly, each of these two methods has its own set of advantages and disadvantages.\n A comprehensive study involved different logging instruments and datasets acquired under various logging environments showed that both the physical properties of the detector, as well as the characteristics of the data processing method, have to be fully considered for optimum results. The Windows method, for instance, can be adequate for detectors of statistical nature. Unlike the Yields method, which requires an optimized set of detector and tool specifications. Where for certain GR detectors, significant differences in C/O data and consequently the calculated fluid saturation were observed when processed by using the Windows and the Yields methods. C/O data processing method selection is commonly fit for purpose; yet with the continuous advancement in GR detection technology, standardization is recommended for accurate and precise log measurement.\n Accuracy and precision are keys to C/O logging and consequently successful reservoir surveillance and oil field management. Accordingly, a new standard RSM workflow is recommended where all available elements are properly tailored, to enhance the quality of the answer product.","PeriodicalId":215106,"journal":{"name":"Day 2 Wed, January 25, 2023","volume":"36 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Carbon/Oxygen Spectral Data Processing, its Affiliation to Scintillation Detector Selectivity & their Impact on Reservoir Saturation Monitoring, Lessons Learnt and Recommended Workflow\",\"authors\":\"Y. Eltaher, S. Ma\",\"doi\":\"10.2118/212613-ms\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n For decades, it has been affirmed that pulsed neutron (PN) spectral Carbon/Oxygen (C/O) logging is the industry's most robust salinity-independent means for reservoir saturation monitoring (RSM); yet C/O logging still comes with considerable uncertainty that has to be identified and handled with ultimate care. In this paper we investigate two main aspects of such uncertainties and showcase some recommendations to enhance the accuracy of the measurement for improved reservoir saturation monitoring.\\n Two fundamental factors affecting C/O measurement are the type of gamma ray (GR) scintillation detector crystals used and the method for C/O spectral data processing. Currently, there are mostly six types of crystals used as GR detectors in commercial PN logging tools for routine operations. Each detector type has its advantages and limitations. With respect to data processing, the most commonly adopted method is the Windows method, due to its simplicity and statistical robustness. Whereas the Yields method is much more complicated to develop and prone to statistical variation, though it tends to provide more accurate results. Similarly, each of these two methods has its own set of advantages and disadvantages.\\n A comprehensive study involved different logging instruments and datasets acquired under various logging environments showed that both the physical properties of the detector, as well as the characteristics of the data processing method, have to be fully considered for optimum results. The Windows method, for instance, can be adequate for detectors of statistical nature. Unlike the Yields method, which requires an optimized set of detector and tool specifications. Where for certain GR detectors, significant differences in C/O data and consequently the calculated fluid saturation were observed when processed by using the Windows and the Yields methods. C/O data processing method selection is commonly fit for purpose; yet with the continuous advancement in GR detection technology, standardization is recommended for accurate and precise log measurement.\\n Accuracy and precision are keys to C/O logging and consequently successful reservoir surveillance and oil field management. Accordingly, a new standard RSM workflow is recommended where all available elements are properly tailored, to enhance the quality of the answer product.\",\"PeriodicalId\":215106,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Day 2 Wed, January 25, 2023\",\"volume\":\"36 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Day 2 Wed, January 25, 2023\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2118/212613-ms\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Day 2 Wed, January 25, 2023","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2118/212613-ms","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

几十年来,人们一直认为脉冲中子(PN)光谱碳/氧(C/O)测井是业内最可靠的不依赖于盐度的储层饱和度监测(RSM)手段;然而,C/O日志记录仍然有相当大的不确定性,必须非常小心地识别和处理。在本文中,我们研究了这种不确定性的两个主要方面,并提出了一些建议,以提高测量的准确性,以改进油藏饱和度监测。影响C/O测量的两个基本因素是所使用的伽玛射线(GR)闪烁探测器晶体的类型和C/O光谱数据处理方法。目前,在商业PN测井工具的常规作业中,主要有六种类型的晶体用作GR探测器。每种检测器都有其优点和局限性。在数据处理方面,最常用的方法是Windows方法,因为它简单且具有统计稳健性。而yield方法开发起来要复杂得多,而且容易出现统计变化,尽管它往往能提供更准确的结果。同样,这两种方法都有自己的优点和缺点。通过对不同测井仪器和不同测井环境下采集的数据集的综合研究表明,为了获得最佳结果,必须充分考虑探测器的物理性质和数据处理方法的特点。例如,Windows方法对于统计性质的检测器就足够了。不像yield方法,它需要一套优化的检测器和工具规格。其中,对于某些GR检测器,在使用Windows和yield方法处理时,观察到C/O数据以及因此计算的流体饱和度存在显着差异。C/O数据处理方法的选择通常是符合目的的;然而,随着GR检测技术的不断进步,为了准确、精确地测量测井数据,需要标准化。准确性和精密度是C/O测井的关键,因此也是油藏监测和油田管理成功的关键。因此,建议使用一个新的标准RSM工作流,其中所有可用的元素都经过适当的裁剪,以提高答案产品的质量。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Carbon/Oxygen Spectral Data Processing, its Affiliation to Scintillation Detector Selectivity & their Impact on Reservoir Saturation Monitoring, Lessons Learnt and Recommended Workflow
For decades, it has been affirmed that pulsed neutron (PN) spectral Carbon/Oxygen (C/O) logging is the industry's most robust salinity-independent means for reservoir saturation monitoring (RSM); yet C/O logging still comes with considerable uncertainty that has to be identified and handled with ultimate care. In this paper we investigate two main aspects of such uncertainties and showcase some recommendations to enhance the accuracy of the measurement for improved reservoir saturation monitoring. Two fundamental factors affecting C/O measurement are the type of gamma ray (GR) scintillation detector crystals used and the method for C/O spectral data processing. Currently, there are mostly six types of crystals used as GR detectors in commercial PN logging tools for routine operations. Each detector type has its advantages and limitations. With respect to data processing, the most commonly adopted method is the Windows method, due to its simplicity and statistical robustness. Whereas the Yields method is much more complicated to develop and prone to statistical variation, though it tends to provide more accurate results. Similarly, each of these two methods has its own set of advantages and disadvantages. A comprehensive study involved different logging instruments and datasets acquired under various logging environments showed that both the physical properties of the detector, as well as the characteristics of the data processing method, have to be fully considered for optimum results. The Windows method, for instance, can be adequate for detectors of statistical nature. Unlike the Yields method, which requires an optimized set of detector and tool specifications. Where for certain GR detectors, significant differences in C/O data and consequently the calculated fluid saturation were observed when processed by using the Windows and the Yields methods. C/O data processing method selection is commonly fit for purpose; yet with the continuous advancement in GR detection technology, standardization is recommended for accurate and precise log measurement. Accuracy and precision are keys to C/O logging and consequently successful reservoir surveillance and oil field management. Accordingly, a new standard RSM workflow is recommended where all available elements are properly tailored, to enhance the quality of the answer product.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信