PETROLEUM EXPLORATION AND DEVELOPMENT

Volume 37, Issue 4, August 2010

Online English edition of the Chinese language journal

Cite this article as: PETROL. EXPLOR. DEVELOP., 2010, 37(4): 430–437. RESEARCH PAPER

Resistivity correction for drilling fluid invasion using LWD

and wire-line logging data: A case from high-porosity and
low-permeability carbonate reservoirs, DLL Oilfield, Oman
Tian Zhongyuan1,*, Jiang Aming2, Yan Weilin3, Liu Yingming1, Guo Shuangsheng4
1. PetroChina Research Institute of Petroleum Exploration & Development, Beijing 100083, China;
2. Geologic Science Institute, Jiangsu Oilfield Company, Sinopec, Yangzhou 225009, China;
3. Research Institute of Petroleum Exploration & Development, PetroChina Daqing Oilfield Company Ltd., Daqing 163712, China;
4. CNPC West Drilling and Logging Company, Karamay 834000, China

Abstract: The effect of drilling fluid invasion on the resistivity of oil-bearing zones during the period from penetrating the zone to
completion well logging was studied using intergraded logging while drilling (LWD) and wire-line log data. The results indicate that re-
sistivity change during invasion responds to some important factors such as porosity, oil saturation, pressure differential between drilling
mud column and formation, mud filtrate salinity and invasion time. It increases as an exponential function of porosity, a logarithmic func-
tion of pressure differential, and a power function of invasion time and oil saturation. Based on the LWD and MDT data, the corrected re-
sistivity equation subject to the drilling fluid invasion was acquired. With the equation, the oil saturation (So) increases by 6.3%−20.0%,
averaging at 10.2%.

Key words: drilling fluid invasion; resistivity decrease degree; horizontal well; LWD; wire-line logging; high-porosity and low-per-
meability reservoir; carbonate rock

Introduction [3–5] reported the impacts of invasion by drilling fluids with

different salinities on lateral and induction resistivity in theory
During the conventional drilling, since the pressure of mud
and the correction methods thereof. Reference [6] introduced
column is higher than that of the reservoir, it leads to the in-
numerical simulation and correction method for array
vasion of drilling fluid (mud filtrate) into oil or gas-bearing
induction resistivity logs invaded by mud-filtrate, and
zones. Such invasion is a complicated physical process, which
involves the properties of drilling fluid loss, the pressure dif- proposed a chart reflecting relationship between resistivity
ference between mud column and the formation, oil/water index and invasion time and porosity-permeability exponent.
relative permeability, density and salinity differences between References [7,8] gave the following conclusion by theory
drilling fluid and formation water, invasion time and so on[1]. analysis and core experimental data: in the condition of fresh
Drilling fluid displaces the original formation fluids (oil, gas drilling mud invasion, when the salinity ratio of mud filtrate
& water) near well-bore in 3 dynamic ways, including dis- to formation water is suitable, both oil zone and water zone
placement, mixing and diffusion. In some cases, the signifi- have shown resistivity increase and invasion, and also dis-
cant resistivity decrease caused by the invasion of drilling cussed the low-resistivity annulus in oil zones near the bore-
fluid into reservoirs leads to difficulties in identification of hole. Reference [9] proposed that the deep investigation resis-
hydrocarbon/water-bearing zones and quantitative evaluation tivity might reduce by 30% in case of invasion by saline drill-
of fluid saturation, even erroneous results. Therefore, it is very ing mud through the study of time-shift logs; the reserves
important to study the influence on resistivity caused by drill- increased 20% by re-evaluation of reservoir parameters after
ing fluid invasion for both identification of reservoir fluid and resistivity correction. All the above conclusions were obtained
quantitative evaluation of reservoir parameters, especially oil from log data of vertical wells after completion when the
saturation. zones have been contaminated by drilling fluid invasion for
Many previous studies were related to the influence on re- several or dozens of days, and resistivity correction is based
sistivity caused by drilling fluid invasion[2−16]. References on time-shift log data after completion or the theoretical

Received date: 04 Feb. 2009; Revised date: 10 Mar. 2010.

* Corresponding author. E-mail: tianzy@petrochina.com.cn
Copyright © 2010, Research Institute of Petroleum Exploration and Development, PetroChina. Published by Elsevier BV. All rights reserved.
 Tian Zhongyuan et al. / Petroleum Exploration and Development, 2010, 37(4): 430–437

model. Therefore, the uncertainty exists in the resistivity cor- terval transit time (DT). Logs measured by Vision475 consist
rection, which can not be verified with practical data. of GR, ROP5_RM, RPM_ADN, 5 attenuation resistivity
In contrast to the previous studies, this paper focuses on the curves at 2 MHz (A10H, A16H, A22H, A28H, and A34H) and
effect of drilling fluid invasion on the resistivity of oil-bearing 5 phase-shift resistivity curves at 2 MHz (P10H, P16H, P22H,
zones in the period from penetrating the zone to completion P28H, and P34H), 4 orientation density curves (ROBB,
well logging by using array induction resistivity, LWD and ROBL, ROBR and ROBU), 4 photoelectric factors (PEL,
MDT (Modular Formation Dynamics Tester) data, and pro- PER, PEB, and PEU), and 1 thermal neutron porosity (TRNP)
vides a reasonable correction method of log resistivity for curve.
vertical wells. According to the log responses and detective depth of
down-hole tools, it is found that the log value of phase-shift
1 Characteristics of the high-porosity and
resistivity P34H from LWD is close to that of deep investiga-
low-permeability carbonate reservoir, DLL Oilfield
tion resistivity AHT90 from array induction log. Therefore,
DLL Oilfield, with area of 992 km2, is located in the P34H and AHT90 curves are adopted for comparison in the
northwestern part of Oman Basin and 450 km to the south- study.
western part from capital Muscat. It is a fault block-lithology Fig. 1 indicates log response comparison of LWD and
carbonate reservoir under the background of monoclinal wire-line logging for the same reservoir in two adjacent verti-
structure (with strata dip of 2–5º), and mainly consists of nine cal wells which are X1PH and X2PH. LWD real-time logging
fault blocks: A, AB, B, C, D, DE, E, EF, and F. The reservoir is used in Well X1PH, and wire-line logging is used in Well
mainly contains bioclastic packstones and granular car- X2PH. The measured intervals consist mainly of pure shale,
bonatites. The porosity ranges from 8.0% to 36.0%, or 30.0% shaly limestone, and pure limestone. According into log re-
on average, and the permeability ranges from 0.18×10−3– sponses, pure limestone intervals were subdivided to tight and
250×10–3 μm2 or 7.3×10–3 μm2 on average, thus it is a typical high-porosity intervals. Since LWD runs real-timely during
high porosity and low permeability carbonate reservoir char- drilling and the drilled zones are hardly invaded by mud fil-
acterized by thin stratum, high heterogeneity and poor devel- trate, the attenuation and phase-shift resistivity curves from
oped fractures. The reservoir has the same OWC which has different investigation ranges are coincident. However,
been proved from log, DST and production data. The initial wire-line logging runs after completion and the drilled zones
reservoir pressure ranges from 17.3 MPa to 18.3 MPa and the are invaded severely by mud filtrate, therefore, the array in-
reservoir temperature is about 90 °C. The formation water is duction resistivity curves from different investigation ranges
dominated by NaCl, with salinity of 170 000 mg/L– 190 000 are distinct (water zone shows clear resistivity increase and
mg/L. invasion). In addition, P34H curve of Well X1PH is close to
DLL Oilfield was found in 1986 and the blocks were put AHT90 curve of Well X2PH for log value.
into development successively from 1990. Horizontal wells For Well X3, the responses of wire-line logging and LWD
and multi-branch horizontal wells were mainly adopted during logging are compared. Well X3 consists of one vertical well
development considering the key reservoir features of thin and two horizontal branch wells. LWD runs in the vertical
formations and high heterogeneity. In order to effectively well and horizontal branch well of Zone 2 (X3-H2), and
control the borehole track of horizontal well, a vertical well wire-line logging runs in the horizontal branch well of Zone 1
was drilled firstly to unveil the structure, reservoir quality and (X3-H1). Log data from Well X3 are used to compare the log
OWC distribution of horizontal section. Schlumberger’s Vi- responses between LWD and wire-line logging, which are
sion475 LWD was run real-timely during side tracking and shown in Fig. 2 and listed in Tables 1 and 2. It is revealed that:
drilling of horizontal section. For vertical wells, resistivity log (1) Deep phase-shift resistivity P34H of the horizontal branch
was mainly array induction log, except one well by LWD. For well H1 in Zone 1 is obviously higher than deep investigation
horizontal wells, LWD real-time log was used in drilling, in resistivity AHT90 of the same zone of vertical Well X3 (Table
particular, repeated LWD logging were run in 10 horizontal 1), indicating that the deep investigation resistivity declines
wells after completion, only one well by array induction log sharply due to the drilling fluid invasion; (2) AHT90 log val-
after completion. The effect of drilling fluid invasion on the ues of Zone 2 of horizontal branch Well H2 is lower than that
resistivity of oil-bearing zones has been effectively studied of the same zone of vertical Well X3 (Table 2), demonstrating
through resistivity comparison for different wells, or at the that Zone 2 of horizontal branch Well H2 is much more dam-
different periods. aged by drilling fluid invasion. As a result, LWD data of
horizontal wells can be used to study resistivity change caused
2 Response characteristics of LWD and wire-line
by such invasion.
logging
Logs measured in wire-line logging include natural gamma
3 Influence of drilling fluid invasion on reservoir
ray (GR), caliper (CALI), spontaneous potential (SP), array
resistivity
induction resistivities (AHT10, AHT20, AHT30, AHT60 and Analysis results show that resistivity change caused by
AHT90), density (RHOB), neutron porosity (NPHI), and in- drilling fluid invasion corresponds to some factors such as
 Tian Zhongyuan et al. / Petroleum Exploration and Development, 2010, 37(4): 430–437

Fig. 1 Log response comparison between LWD and wire-line logging of vertical wells

porosity, oil saturation, pressure difference between mud resistivity changes of tracks 3 and 4, and track 6 shows the
column and formation, invasion time and salinity of drilling density and neutron porosity curves. According to pressure
fluid. data from MDT, the mean pressures of drilling mud column
Assuming that resistivity change caused by drilling fluid and formation are 18.7 MPa and 17.7 MPa respectively.
invasion is expressed by resistivity decrease degree, namely, Therefore, the pressure difference is 1.0 MPa. It indicates that
the ratio of the resistivity difference between the un-invaded the resistivity decrease degree reduces with the porosity de-
and the invaded reservoir to the resistivity of the un-invaded crease as shown in Fig. 4 if the pressure difference between
reservoir, the phase-shit resistivity decrease degree can be drilling mud column and formation is constant, demonstrating
expressed as: that resistivity change of oil-bearing zones with higher poros-
RPH 0 − RPH 1 ity caused by drilling fluid invasion is larger than that with
rPH = (1)
RPH 0 lower porosity, and the mud cake does not form at once dur-
ing the early drilling.
Where, rPH is the phase-shift resistivity decrease degree after
the drilling fluid invades into the reservoir, f; RPH0 is the 3.2 Relationship between resistivity decrease degree and
phase-shift resistivity of initial reservoir, Ω·m; RPH1 is the oil saturation
phase-shift resistivity after the drilling fluid invades into the
Fig. 5 indicates the influence of drilling fluid invasion on
reservoir, Ω·m.
resistivity of oil-bearing zones with different oil saturation in
3.1 Relationship between resistivity decrease degree and Well X5. According to pressure data from MDT, the mean
reservoir porosity pressures of drilling fluid columns and formations are 17.2
Relationship between the resistivity decrease degree and MPa and 7.4 MPa respectively. Therefore, the pressure dif-
the petro-physical properties in Well X4 is shown in Fig. 3. ference is 9.8 MPa. This curve shows that the porosity is iden-
Track 3 shows three phase-shift resistivity curves (P34H0, tical basically for different intervals, but the resistivity at up-
P22H0 and P10H0) from LWD real-time measurement during per intervals is higher than that at lower intervals, reflecting
drilling; track 4 shows three phase-shift resistivity curves the higher oil saturation at upper intervals than that at lower
(P34H1, P22H0 and P10H1) from repeated LWD measurement intervals. Considering the phase-shift resistivity changes be-
after completion; track 5 shows three phase-shift resistivity fore (in track 3) and after (in track 4) drilling fluid invasion
decrease degree curves (rP34H, rP22H, and rP10H) calculated from and the phase-shift resistivity decrease degree obtained there-
 Tian Zhongyuan et al. / Petroleum Exploration and Development, 2010, 37(4): 430–437

Fig. 2 Log response comparison between wire-line logging from vertical and horizontal branch well (Well X3-H2) and LWD (Well
X3-H1)

Table 1 Parameter comparison between wire-line logging of vertical intervals and LWD of horizontal intervals, Zone 1, Well X3

Vertical well X3 (wire-line logging) Horizontal well X3-H1 (LWD logging)

Zone
No. GR/ RAHT90/ RAHT30/ RAHT10/ ρRHOB/ φNPHI/ GR/ RP34H/ RP22H/ RP10H/ ρROBB/ φTRNP/
API (Ω·m) (Ω·m) (Ω·m) (g·cm−3) % API (Ω·m) (Ω·m) (Ω·m) (g·cm−3) %
1 22.0 7.1 3.6 2.5 2.3 25.0 17.9 9.9 10.2 10.4 2.27 25.9
Note: GR—natural gamma ray; R—resistivity; ρ—density; φ—porosity

Table 2 Parameter comparison of wire-line logging between vertical and horizontal intervals, Zone 2, Well X3

Vertical well X3 (wire-line logging) Horizontal well X3-H2 (wire-line logging)

Zone No. GR/ RAHT90/ RAHT30/ RAHT10/ ρRHOB/ φNPHI/ GR/ RAHT90/ RAHT30/ RAHT10/ ρRHOB/ φNPHI/
API (Ω·m) (Ω·m) (Ω·m) (g·cm−3) % API (Ω·m) (Ω·m) (Ω·m) (g·cm−3) %
upper
2 20.4 12.2 4.8 2.7 2.2 27.6 17.2 5.8 6.5 5.7 2.28 24.7
lower
2 19.6 24.5 5.2 3.1 2.2 27.1 18.0 6.3 7.4 6.6 2.25 26.6
Note: GR—Natural gamma ray; R—resistivity; ρ—density; φ—porosity

from, it reveals that P34H resistivity decrease degree at upper

3.3 Relationship between resistivity decrease degree and
intervals with higher oil saturation (about 0.43) is obvious
the pressure difference between drilling mud column and
larger than that at lower intervals with lower oil saturation
formation
(about 0.30). Drilling fluid invasion has little influences on
resistivity change of water-bearing zones (Fig. 1). Fig. 6 shows the relationship between resistivity decrease
 Tian Zhongyuan et al. / Petroleum Exploration and Development, 2010, 37(4): 430–437

Fig. 3 Relationship between resistivity decrease degree and petro-physical properties, Well X4

3.5 Relationship between resistivity decrease degree and

salinity of drilling fluid

Such influence on resistivity relates not only to the above

factors, but also to salinity of drilling fluid. The resistivity
decrease degree increases with the salinity (Table 3).

4 Correction method for reservoir resistivity

The above analyses demonstrate that the influence of drill-
ing fluid invasion on reservoir resistivity obviously responds
Fig. 4 Relationship between resistivity decrease degree and
to some important factors, such as porosity, oil saturation, the
porosity
pressure difference between drilling mud column and forma-
degree and the pressure difference (Δp) between drilling mud tion, the mud filtrate salinity and invasion time. Therefore, to
column and formation. It can be seen that resistivity decrease obtain actual reservoir resistivity, it is necessary to correct the
degree increases with pressure difference for similar resistivity when drilling fluid invades into the reservoir in
oil-bearing zones with same porosity and drilling fluid inva- practical operations so that the oil saturation can be calculated
sion conditions, indicating that the drilling fluid invasion ex- properly.
pands further in the same time as the pressure difference Based on actual data and by statistic and regression with
augments. The same conclusion can be obtained from Fig. 3 multivariate function, the relation is derived between resistiv-
and Fig. 5 which show the changes of resistivity decrease ity decrease degree (rP34H) and porosity (φ), the pressure dif-
degree for intervals with same porosity. ferential between drilling mud column and formation (Δp),
3.4 Relationship between resistivity decrease degree and water saturation (Sw), and invasion time (t) under the condi-
invasion time tion of drilling mud invasion. It is expressed as the following
formula:
Given the same petrophysical properties, salinity of drilling
rP34H = Aeaφ + B ln(Δp ) + CS wc0 + Dt d + ECwp
e
+F (2)
fluid and pressure difference between drilling mud columns
and formations, the influences of drilling fluid invasion on Where, A, a, B, C, c0, D, d, E, e and F are regression coeffi-
reservoir resistivity increase with the invasion time, as shown cients. With this formula, the reservoir resistivity after mud
in Fig. 7. According to the time sequence of LWD, the upper filtrate invasion can be corrected.
intervals undergo longer invasion than lower parts, so the To calculate easily, the resistivity correction model is es-
resistivity decrease degree of upper intervals is much higher tablished from LWD and wire-line logging data of horizontal
than that of lower intervals (track 5). wells in DLL Oilfield (Fig. 8), which is:
 Tian Zhongyuan et al. / Petroleum Exploration and Development, 2010, 37(4): 430–437

Fig. 5 Influence of drilling fluid invasion on resistivity of oil-bearing zones with different oil saturation, Well X5

Therefore, it is important to correct the resistivity for oil satu-

ration calculation. Table 4 shows the oil saturation of 11 ver-
tical wells in the oilfield calculated with original resistivity
data (obtained by wire-line logging) and corrected resistivity.
It is clear that the oil saturation (So) calculated with corrected
resistivity is 4.6%−10.0% more than that calculated with un-
corrected resistivity, averaging at 6.5%, with relative error of
6.3%−20.0% or 10.2% on average.
Fig. 9 indicates the water saturation comparison based on
Fig. 6 Relationship between phase-shift resistivity decrease resistivity before and after drilling fluid invasion for Well X5.
degree and the pressure difference between drilling mud column It is shown that water saturation calculated from corrected
and formation for reservoir with same porosity
resistivity increases significantly, about 4.0%−10.0%.
RP34H 0 = 0.769 1 × RP34H 11.287 7 R 2 = 0.857 (3) 6 Conclusions
Where, RP34H0 means the phase-shift resistivity measured dur-
The influence on reservoir resistivity by mud filtrate inva-
ing drilling, Ω·m, RP34H1 means the phase-shift resistivity
sion is studied effectively based on the data of LWD of hori-
measured after drilling, Ω·m.
zontal wells, wire-line logging of vertical wells, and MDT.
Eq. (3) can be used directly to correct the resistivity for the
The following conclusions have been obtained:
reservoirs with similar petrophysics, drilling period and drill-
ing fluid density used in drilling. Otherwise, Eq. (2) is appli- Resistivity change during invasion increases with porosity,
cable. oil saturation, the pressure differential between drilling mud
column and formation, the mud filtrate salinity and invasion
5 Effects of application time. It increases as an exponential function of porosity, a
For wire-line logging used in DLL Oilfield, the dual induc- logarithmic function of pressure differential, and a power
tion and array induction resistivity logging methods are used. function of invasion time and oil saturation.
 Tian Zhongyuan et al. / Petroleum Exploration and Development, 2010, 37(4): 430–437

Fig. 7 Relationship between resistivity decrease degree and mud invasion time

Table 3 Relationship between decrease degree of phase-shift

resistivity and mud filtrate salinity

Mud filtrate salinity/

Well No. rP34H/f
(mg·L−1)

K1 15 000 0.040

K2 22 275 0.080

K3 64 350 0.224

K4 90 800 0.492 Fig. 8 Phase-shift resistivity relationship before and after mud
invasion

Table 4 Water saturation comparison from resistivity before and after correction for vertical wells

Resistivity/(Ω·m) Oil saturation/f

Well No. Interval/m ΔSo/f E/%
Before correction After correction Before correction After correction

P1 1 700.0−1 707.5 15.0 25.7 0.764 0.820 0.056 7.3

P2 1 563.0−1 575.0 12.5 20.3 0.654 0.728 0.074 11.3

P3 1 650.0−1 656.0 11.0 17.1 0.499 0.598 0.100 20.0
P4 1 613.0−1 628.0 15.0 25.7 0.742 0.803 0.061 8.2
P5 1 611.0−1 618.0 10.5 16.1 0.722 0.776 0.054 7.5
P6 1 610.0−1 625.0 10.0 15.1 0.649 0.714 0.066 10.2
P7 1 626.0−1 635.0 16.0 28.0 0.746 0.808 0.062 8.3
P8 1 626.0−1 647.0 9.5 14.1 0.655 0.717 0.062 9.5
P9 1 615.0−1 630.0 15.0 25.7 0.790 0.839 0.050 6.3
P10 1 602.0−1 608.0 11.0 17.1 0.573 0.658 0.085 14.8
P11 1 610.0−1 615.0 5.0 6.1 0.515 0.561 0.046 8.9

Average value 0.664 0.729 0.065 10.2

Note: ΔSo—Absolute error of oil saturation; E—Relative error of oil saturation; average value in table is arithmetic mean value
 Tian Zhongyuan et al. / Petroleum Exploration and Development, 2010, 37(4): 430–437

Sw0—water saturation before drilling fluid invasion; Sw1—water saturation from resistivity after drilling fluid invasion
Fig. 9 Water saturation comparison calculated with resistivity before and after drilling fluid invasion for Well X5

Oil saturations of oil-bearing zones are re-calculated with [8] Li Changxi, Ouyang Jian, Zhou Cancan, et al. Forming
corrected resistivity of vertical wells based on the resistivity mechanism and application of low resistivity annulus in oil
correction equation, which are 4.6%−10.0% (or 6.5% on av- reservoirs invaded by fresh drilling mud. Petroleum Explora-
erage) higher than that before correction. tion and Development, 2005, 32(6): 82–86.
[9] Guan Yingchun. Impact of dynamic mud invasion on Sw esti-
References mation in fresh water formations, Sudan Blocks 1/2/4, Muglad
Basin. Petrophysics, 2001, 42(3): 205–221.
[1] Ouyang Jian, Wang Guiwen, Wu Jiyu, et al. An analysis for [10] Zhu Meng, Xia Hongquan, Fan Xiangyu, et al. Automatic
logging geology and evaluation technique for hydrocarbon correction method for LWD resistivity log invaded by
reservoirs. Beijing: Petroleum Industry Press, 1999. 158–169. mud-filtrate. Well Logging & Perforation, 2007, 10(3): 61–64.
[2] Ma Xiangdong, He Yunjun, Wu Yunlong. Influence of drilling [11] Li Changxi, Li Chaoliu, Zhou Cancan, et al. Effects of fresh
fluid on E1fl member gas-bearing sandstone reservoir of ZJD str- drilling mud invasion on logging responses of dual induction
ucture. West-China Exploration Engineering, 2004, 93(2): 62–64. and dual lateral to reservoirs. Petroleum Exploration and De-
[3] Zhang Jianhua, Hu Qi, Liu Zhenhua. On time-lapes induction velopment, 2007, 34(5): 603–608.
logging invaded by mud-filtrate. Well Logging Technology, [12] Li Fangming, Tian Zhongyuan, Jiang Aming, et al. Prediction
1993, 17(4): 239–244, 251. of reservoir depletion degree and production GOR using log-
[4] Ouyang Jian, Zhang Jianhua, Hu Qi, et al. Quantitative study ging-while-drilling data. Petroleum Exploration and Devel-
of dual laterolog response to oil/gas formation invaded by opment, 2009, 36(5): 617–622.
high salinity mud filtrate in Bohai Gulf. Well Logging [13] Sun Jianmeng, Wang Kewen, Li Wei. Development and
Technology, 1998, 22(4): 256–260. analysis of logging saturation interpretation models. Petro-
[5] Zhang Jianhua, Ouyang Jian. Study of multi-solution leum Exploration and Development, 2008, 35(1): 101–107.
characters for inversion of dynamic resistivity logging [14] Song Fan, Xiao Chengwen, Bian Shutao, et al. Origin of low
responses to oil/gas formation invaded by mud-filtrate. Well resistivity reservoirs in low angle drape structure in Lunnan,
Logging Technology, 2000, 24(2): 102–107. Tarim Basin. Petroleum Exploration and Development, 2008,
[6] Ren Hao, Zhang Chengguang, Liu Xiaomei. Numerical simu- 35(1): 108–112.
lation and correction for array induction resistivity logs in- [15] Yang Chunmei, Zhou Cancan, Cheng Xiangzhi. Origin of low
vaded by mud-filtrate. Journal of Oil and Gas Technology resistivity pays and forecasting of favorable prospecting areas.
(J.JPI), 2006, 28(3): 82–84. Petroleum Exploration and Development, 2008, 35(5): 600–605.
[7] Li Wei, Yan Weilin, Bai Jianping. Theoretical and experimen- [16] Zhou Fengming, Si Zhaowei, Ma Yuejiao, et al. Integrated
tal study of invasion influence of fresh drilling mud on oil pay identification method for low-resistivity hydrocarbon layers in
resistivity. Petroleum Exploration and Development, 2004, Nanpu Sag. Petroleum Exploration and Development, 2008,
31(3): 143–145. 35(6): 680–684.