3oa3\

E&P ~
Exchange

Identifying VVater-Fio-wProbkm
J.M. Pappas, SPE, Fins Oil& Chemical Co., and P.G. Creel, SPE, and R.J. Croak, SPE,
Halliburton

Energy Services

Summary

Log Analysis

most important element of conformance control in fields

where water injection is used to enhance oil production is identifying the nature and source of the problem. Chemical analysis and
water-flow logging can help operators isolate water-flow, invasion, and annular leaks that destroy casing integrity and decrease
profitability. This article presents a case history that demonstrates
use of analytical techniques to identify conformance-control
problems and solutions.

A water-flow analysis log was mn on Well 3 to determine waterflow velocity and direction behind two strings of casing at Well 3.
TMs log was an oxygen-activation device that uses (1) statistical
variations in isotope decay rates, through measurement of gamma
ray emission counts, and (2) log movement to determine water velocity within several inches of the wellbore. Analysis of the log
showed water entering the annulus at 2,807 ft. exiting at 1,980 ft,
recentering the annulus at 980 ft, exiting below the surface casing
shoe at 306 ft, and rising to the surface (Fig. 2). Water-flow analysis logs appeared to show that water was coming from Well 5 and
takkg a route to the surface through the Well 3 anntdus and a naturally occurring or induced fracture network. The water traveled
through one or more brackish sands, gaining salinity by dissolving
anhydrides along the way.
With a most likely flow pattern established, injection into offset
wells (four) was halted, including injection from Well 5, even
though it helonged to another operator. w]drinniitit.ii~~ d skit-k,
most annular flow had ceased. All wells remained shut in for 3
days. To isolate the source of the flow. injection was temporarily
conducted into each surrounding well, one well at a time. This
pumping method isolated the problem to Well 5. A foam squeeze
cement job was designed and pumped into 10 new perforations between 2,692 and 2.694 ft in Well 3, successfully shutting off injection flow from Well 5. The foam cement also effectively filled and
squeezed the uncemented annulus of Well 3 from 2,700 to = 1,900
ft. which should help prevent future cement-sheath leaks.
The offset producing wells are all back on pump and producing
at presqueeze levels, and no sign of underground water escape to
the surface is evident. Well 5 is now being injected at 1,300 psi,
with no influence on Wells 1 through 4.

The

Conditions

In a west Texas waterflood field, an injection well was being used

to sweep oil toward offsetting wells (Fig. la). Wells 1 and 2 are
producers, Well 3 is the injection well, Well 4 is the water source,
and Well 5 is on an adjacent lease that belongs to another operator.
The waterflood zone for Well 3 is between 4,000 and 4,900 ft and
between 2,500 and 3,100 ft for Wells 1,2, and 5.
Well 3 was drilled and completed to serve as an injecto~ irowever, Well 3 showed 325 psi pressure between its intermediate and
surface strings soon after completion. The pressure could be relieved by opening the surface valve but would recur within 24
hours. Two remedial cement jobs were performed on the well to
halt the gas flow that was causing the pressure.
About 1 month after the squeeze cement job on Well 3, a wet
spot (Fig. lb) appeared on the ground around Well 4, = 150 ft
from Well 3. Chemical analysis of the water showed that it had not
come from Well 3 or from Well 4, the injection-water source. Salt
concentration in the water had increased from 15,000 to 170,000
mg/L chlorides. Additionally, the production annuhrs pressure in
Wells 1 and 2 had increased, and shutting off Well 3 did not affect
the annuhrs pressure of Wells 1 or 2 or the chloride content. The
produced water was routed to tanks and allowed to flow so the
350- to 400-psi shut-in casing pressures could be replaced.

(SPE 30231)

ff X 3.048psi x6.894 757

E-01
E+oO

=m
=kPa

.COnversiOrr factor is exact

:2

30

Wet Spot
on Surface

wet spot
on Surface

n
Cealng

Surfsce

_
TII
30s ft

(a)

(b)

9s0 it
~

Fig. l--(a) Injection into Wall 3 with water from Well 4, waa
intended to enhance oil production from Wells 1 and 2.(b) Wet
spot that appeared on surface around Well 4. Wells 1 and 2 are
ehallow-zone producers; Well 3 is a deeper-zone producer and
eventual squeeze candidate Well 4 provides source water for
injection; and Well 5 is a shallow-zone injection well belonging
to snother operator.

Intermediate
Caeing

Production
Cedng

I ,9s0 n
_

From Well5

,2,S07 ft
5,3ss

Fig. 2Well 3 watar-flow

n
log.

I
JPT

August 1995

699