SPE-191338-MS

Out of Zone Injection

A. Galiev and I. Mukhliev, PJSC Tatneft; M. Volkov, TGT Oil & Gas Services; R. M. Gress, A. Zaripova, and A.
Trusov, TGT Oilfield Services

Copyright 2018, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Norway One Day Seminar held in Bergen, Norway, 18 April 2018.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents
of the paper have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect
any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written
consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may
not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
An oil field can be classified as mature when its production rate is significantly declining and/or when
it is close to reaching its economic limit. A field might also be considered mature when it is close to
attaining a recovery factor considered acceptable for its reservoir mechanisms. Strategies and methodologies
to rejuvenate the field, enhancing production and increasing longevity of life will then commence. One of
the most common methods of enhancing oil recovery (EOR) is by means of waterflooding, a device whereby
injector wells are drilled in an oil field to inject water or gas into the reservoir to increase pressure and
stimulate production. This, however, is a complex process posing its own uncertainty in optimally delivering
increased production due to the complexity of reservoir type and well design. Having the ability to listen
behind casing and deducing flow allocation of injection in which to increase the sweep and improving
reservoir production performance becomes vital to enhancing oil recovery.
This paper demonstrates how spectral noise logging has aided in rejuvenating oil fields and enhancing
oil recovery. Three different oil field examples are examined and discussed, illustrating the methodology
and benefits of better understanding flow allocation behind casing to provide much-needed solutions to aid
in field life longevity.

Introduction
Primary oil production tends to refer to oil that is recovered naturally from a producing well which generally
accounts for and recovers anywhere from as low as 10% to as high as 25% of the oil in place. Further
recovery is encouraged by various methods of enhanced oil recovery (EOR) from wells by utilizing some
form of additional engineering technique. In this paper, we will focus on water injection, also known
as waterflood, as a means of a secondary EOR production process to increase further recovery. Water
injection involves drilling injection wells into the reservoir, thereafter introducing water into that reservoir to
encourage oil production. While the injected water helps to increase depleted pressure within the reservoir,
it also facilitates and aids in moving the oil in place. This technique of water injection can occur after
production has already been depleted or before production from the reservoir has been drained with
waterflood sweeping the remaining oil through the reservoir to production wells, where it can be recovered.
2 SPE-191338-MS

It is critical that the water being injected targets and works within the correct formation. This means
that the water needs to be focused and penetrating in the correct hydrocarbon-bearing formation and not
misplaced or re-distributed into an alternative formation. Downhole injection profiling and monitoring
become a vital component in enhanced oil recovery, requiring both borehole and behind casing injection
assessment to maintain effective oil displacement. A proven methodology for investigating and monitoring
injection profiling is through the ability to listen to the injection flow within the borehole and behind casing,
allowing the deduction of actual flow allocation. The main technology enabling this has been the utilisation
of spectral noise logging in combination with temperature profiling to accurately depict source and flow
allocation pathway behind casing and within the targeted formations in the reservoir.

Borehole flow analysis using production logging tools

Water injection rates are required to be monitored to maintain a correct and consistent reservoir pressure
for optimum recovery.
Measuring the injection zones flow traditionally involves the deployment of a production logging tool
(PLT). It is an essential part of reservoir management, as it characterises the distribution of the injected fluid
between targeted (perforated or open hole) sections of the reservoir. Typically the PLT is used for:

• location of wellbore fluid entry points

• location of the leaks in the completion components and downhole completion

• direct measurement of water downhole injection rates at each zone.

All the objectives above are limited to the first barrier (within the borehole) only and do not give any
information on the flow behind the casing. For this reason, in most of the published papers, the downhole
surveys utilizing PLT are called borehole flow analysis [Aliasghar Saadat].
A typical production logging tool schematic is shown in Figure 1, ‘Production Logging Tool Used for
Borehole Flow Analysis’. The tools usually contain gamma ray, collar locator, capacity and resistivity
modules, along with mechanical spinners which can be deployed inline or at the bottom of the tool.

Figure 1—Production Logging Tool Used for Borehole Flow Analysis.

SPE-191338-MS 3

Behind Casing (Reservoir) Flow Analysis Using Spectral Noise Logging and
High Precision Temperature Tools
To maximize the benefits from injection, conditions like out of zone injection, perforations plugging or
fracturing should be accounted for. The integration of spectral noise logging and high precision temperature
with production logging tools helps to track and quantify the flow inside the wellbore and behind casing
and into the formation.
Multiple laboratory and field experiments indicate that the fluid percolation process through pores
induces acoustic noise which can be captured and characterized by noise spectrum [Irina Aslanyan].
Formation fractures, cement-channeling borehole, completion components leaks, produce distinctive
frequency noise and can be categorized by spectral noise analysis. Thus, the spectral noise logging using
sensitive passive hydrophone tools conducted within the targeted injection zone can indicate where and
how the injection travels and highlights any anomalies related to out of zone injections. The noise from
all listed events are not blocked by multiple barriers and there are recently published case studies showing
the noise tracking of the D-annulus behind 7", 9 5/8" and 13 3/8" casings flow in the cement sheath [G.
Ishmukhametova]. The detailed principles of the data recording, pre, and post-processing of the spectral
noise logging data were published earlier. [Yu. S. Maslennikova]

Figure 2—Spectral Noise Logging Module.

The spectral noise logging objectives are listed below, but not limited to:-

• zonal cement and packer isolation assessment

• identifying fluid flow type inside and outside of the wellbore

• assessment of the well completion integrity.

The quantification of the reservoir flow rate or its direction cannot be done by spectral noise logging
alone. The incorporation of temperature response measured downhole under different well regimes contains
the Joule Thompson effect footprint of historical injection profile along with the current injection zones
contribution. It aids in identifying the direction of the flow in complex cases when the flow occurs behind
the tubing or the casing.
The borehole temperature is measured by high precision fast response temperature (HPT) sensors. The
data is acquired by using certain logging speed and well regimes for further temperature modeling.
4 SPE-191338-MS

Figure 3—High Precision Temperature Logging Module.

To assess the flow quantitatively, temperature modeling is performed via temperature simulator
application software. The below explanation is based on the application of Termosim software published
earlier [D.E. Ouzzane]. The simulator computes temperature curve from the surface to below the bottom
hole, utilizing the fine-grid algorithm. It utilizes multiple input parameters, such as injection history, well
completion schematics, well trajectory, thermal rock properties of the surrounding rocks and targeted
reservoir properties. It also requires injection and static HPT downhole logging data.
The temperature simulation software predicts the rock and borehole temperature for any time of injection
and can be employed to match the static, injection and transient temperature logs.
The logging survey can be conducted using multiple injection rates. The injectivity profile may change
from rate to rate and the interpretation data can be used to set the optimum rate for the oil displacement.

Data acquisition
When the objective is set to determine the current and historical injectivity profile and to indicate the zone
of unwanted injection the logging procedure is constructed to account for:

• The injection regimes downhole data acquisition- including the stabilization time, rate and logging
sequence for further borehole (PLT) and reservoir (HPT-SNL) analysis. The data will be used to
indicate the current injection profile in the wellbore and behind the casing.
• The static regime downhole data acquisition. It highlights the time required for the well to be shut-
in prior to the survey, and the survey sequence to identify the possible zones of crossflow and
temperature response from injection in the past. It can be used to build the historical injection
profile by using temperature simulator software.
• Transient regime data acquisition. It describes the time interval between each repeating HPT-SNL
passes. Its logging sequence focuses on capturing the temperature relaxation to the shut-in one.
This data is used to indicate out of zone injection and can be used to verify the behind casing
injection profile.
Typical logging procedure to assess the borehole and reservoir injection profile is shown below.
SPE-191338-MS 5

Figure 4—An example of Logging Procedure for Borehole and Reservoir Flow Assessment

The data acquisition starts from the natural well regime. In case the injector is active, the logging starts
with injection passes at the normal injection rate. In case the well is shut-in, it starts with the background
static data acquisition. In this paper, the example logging procedure is illustrated for the latter case. The
zone of interest is set across the perforation interval (4300-4400 m).
RUN 1 (Shut-in):
– HPT: The well is shut-in for at least 72 hours before the logging. The static survey starts with recording
the borehole temperature with a speed of 15 m/min and the logging speed is reduced across the zone
of interest to 5 m/min.
– PLT: PLT calibration passes are performed with different logging speeds. In this instance: 10, 20, 30
m/min up and down passes.
– SNL: Noise data is collected on the way up with stations taken every 2 m. Depending on conveyance
methodology the station time may vary from 35 to 45 seconds.
– Pulling Out Of Hole: If required the tool may be conveyed to the surface for a data quality check
or the tool may stay downhole.
RUN 2 (Injection – Rate #1/Rate #2/ Rate #3)
– HPT: The injection is active with the planned rate. The stabilization time is required and can be
calculated in advance. In case the tool is pulled out of the hole, the modules are conveyed to be in
the zone of interest with the same as shut-in logging speed.
– PLT: The PLT data is acquired with 10, 20 and 30 m/min logging speed in both directions.
– SNL: The SNL stations are done with the same station intervals as in shut-in mode.
RUN3 (Transient):
– HPT: The temperature relaxation response to its initial shut-in condition is acquired. The up and down
passes are repeated every 30 minutes.
6 SPE-191338-MS

– Pulling Out Of Hole: The tools are run with maximum speed to the surface with a complete rig down.

Applications
A combo toolstring of Spectral Noise Logging (SNL) and High Precision Temperature (HPT) and
Production Logging tool (PLT) have been utilized to identify injection borehole profile, this application is
not only for investigating inside the wellbore but also behind the casing. Several examples of such surveys
are demonstrated below.

Case#1: Vertical water injector with unknown injection distribution

Survey objectives

• Identify borehole and reservoir injection flow profile.

• Examine and identify if there is any integrity failures in the well.

Methodology
A comprehensive survey of SNL, HPT and PLT were performed under shut-in, injection and transient
conditions. Temperature pass across reservoir section was performed during down pass at speed 5m/m and
stationary SNL measurements were taken every 1 m during up pass. PLT passes were performed at different
speeds 5, 15 and 25 m/ min in order to determine the current injection rate.

Results
Based on the survey results, intervals of out of zone injection and casing leak were observed.
Maximum absorption of injected water – 77% of the entire injection volume - occurs in overlying
unperforated intervals through leakage in 9 5/8" casing.
According to the PLT data the significant injection loss occurs across the wireline entry guide (WEG),
suggesting casing or packer integrity issues. Only 22 % of all injected fluid is distributed to the main targeted
zone.
The detailed reservoir injectivity flow profile was constructed based on analysis of SNL-HPT and
temperature modeling (Figure 1, Table 1). Borehole injectivity profile was constructed according to the PLT
results (Figure 1, Table 1).

Table 1—Injection distribution

SPE-191338-MS 7

Figure 5—Case study well#1 - Injection through the leak in casing above perforated interval.

Client actions
Based on the survey results, extensive non-target injection through the leakage in the casing and upward
behind casing cross-flow to the undeveloped formations were observed (77%). After the workover was
performed based on SNL data recommendations, behind casing channeling was resolved by cement
squeezing. The injectivity of the well after workover was significantly decreased to 50% which confirmed
initial existence of out of zone injection. Furthermore the total fluid production of six nearby producing
wells was also increased by an average of 10% over the following 10 months as a result.

Case#2: Vertical water injector with suspected channeling

Survey objectives

• Identify borehole and reservoir injection flow profile.

• Identify any integrity failures in the well.

8 SPE-191338-MS

Methodology
A comprehensive survey of SNL combined with HPT and PLT in well#2 was conducted under shut-in,
transient (short term shut-in for 1hr, 5hrs and 7hrs) and injection conditions.

Results
According to the borehole injectivity profile, constructed based on PLT data, the main injection zone was
identified in the upper part of the perforation interval across the Unit 1 reservoir, which is 90% (546 m3 /
day) of the total volume of injected fluid.
According to the reservoir injection profile, constructed based on Spectral Noise Logging data analysis
and temperature modeling results, the target formation takes the injected fluid partially, approximately 15%
of the total volume. The maximum amount of injected water – 85% (510 m3 / day) of the total injection
volume occurs in overlying unperforated intervals by upward channeling (Figure 6). Based on noise data
analysis under injection condition, intensive wide frequency noise was observed in that particular interval.
According to the temperature data analysis, the interval of the maximum liquid absorption has the maximum
cooling anomaly on the temperature profile when the well was shut-in (Figure 2). A full analysis of the
history of well operation and measured curves indicates a potential occurrence of a fracture post fracking.
The detailed reservoir injectivity profile was constructed based on analysis of Spectral Noise Logging
(SNL) and temperature modeling (Figure 6, Table 2). Borehole injectivity profile was constructed according
to the PLT results (Figure 2, Table 3).

Table 2—Injection distribution based on SNL-HPT results (temperature modeling)

Table 3—Injection distribution based on PLT results

SPE-191338-MS 9

Figure 6—Case study well#2 - Injection above perforated interval.

Client actions
Due to detected out of zone injection of approximately 81%, the Operator decided to shut-in the well and
planned for sidetrack in 2018. Post shut-in it was deduced that adjacent producing wells did not suffer from
a drop of reservoir pressure further confirming the unproductive injection and weak well support in the
current well.

Case#3 Horizontal water injector with suspected out of zone injection through fracture
Survey objectives.

• Identify reservoir injection flow profile.

• Identify crossflows/channelings, if any.

Methodology. A comprehensive survey of SNL, HPT and PLT in well#3 was carried out under shut-in,
transient (short term shut-in for 1hr, 5hrs and 7hrs) and injection conditions.
Results. Based on PLT data analysis at least 91% of the injected fluid went into the top of the slotted liner
(X789 - X822 m), and the remaining 9% distributes over the remaining reservoir intervals.
10 SPE-191338-MS

The detailed reservoir injectivity profile was constructed based on SNL data analysis and temperature
modeling (Figure 7, Table 4). SNL-HPT survey results indicate out of zone injection intervals, upward fluid
movement behind casing and crossflows. In the targeted formation only partial injection was observed. Most
of the injected fluid (85%) went to the Unit1 behind the casing shoe. The nature of noise in the interval of
the main injection as well as the intensity of the flow in that interval indicates the likely presence of an open
fracture system, which has potentially developed post frac job. (See Table 4).

Table 4—Injection distribution

Figure 7—Case study well#3 - Non target injection through fracture.

SPE-191338-MS 11

Client actions. The actual injectivity of the well after drilling was 2.5 times lower than prognosed. Based
on the survey results it was recommended to drill the next injection well 20 m above that of the current
well#3 trajectory. The new drilled well injector performed as prognosed.

Discussion and Conclusion

Even though waterflooding is one of the most proven methods for enhanced oil recovery, it still remains
to be one that varies in degrees of complexity, posing challenges relating to understanding the reservoir
properties, pressure regimes to the actual well design and cement quality. Water injection may be focused
into targeted zones, however the actual target maybe less than what is initially perceived. Conventional
production logging such as PLT enables insight into the behaviour of fluid within the borehole however it
is incapable of validating fluid flow behind casing and cement. Utilising a more robust and further depth of
investigation methodology of spectral noise and high precision temperature logging provides the ability to
verify the fluid flow allocation and pathway behind casing and cement to insure injectivity is in the chosen
target formations.
The three examples in this paper aid in the validation of water injection via spectral noise and temperature
modelling to verify their contribution to enhancing oil recovery and highlighting the potential of out of
zone injectivity. In these examples the successful actions to ensure the sustainable injectivity and reservoir
pressure to enhance oil recovery were taken.

Acknowledgement
The authors express their gratitude to the PJSC Tatneft for their permission to publish the survey results.
Special thanks to Bulat Ganiev, Azat Lutfullin for contribution to this paper and Steve Peddie for valuable
comments.

References
1. Aliasghar Saadat, M. Redzuan A. Rahman, Rahim Masoudi, Sharina M Salim and Mohamad
Othman (PETRONAS), Fathi Younis Shnaib and Radhakrishnan Karantharath (TGT), "Integrated
Wellbore Suveillance Techniques for Effective Reservoir Management Plan", Offshore
technology conference, Kuala Lumpur, 22-25 March 2016
2. Irina Aslanyan, Sergey Matveev, Artur Giniyatullin, Yulia Maslennikova, Roza Minakhmetova,
Alexander Frolov, Maxim Volkov, "WLA Handbook", 2016, https://tgtoil.com/open_pdf.php?
site=team&docid=0cdb7332dfd0b4bd690d6d30dd4b609ea&authkey=AdFsDzFBdx5F6EcAHHcknVQ.
3. G. Ishmukhametova, E. Fokkema and O. Kelder NAM - Nederlandse Aardolie Maatschappij BV,
Assen, The Netherlands; C. Rodger, A. Yurchenko, TGT Oilfield Services, Aberdeen, UK, "The
Sound of Silence’ : Innovative Approach to Confirm Barriers Using Spectral Noise logging",
2017, SPE Offshore Europe Conference & Exhibition, Aberdeen, 5-8 September 2017.
4. Yu.S. Maslennikova, V.V. Bochkarev, A.V. Savinkov and D.A. Davydov, TGT Prime, 2012,
"Spectral Noise Logging Data Processing Technology", SPE Russian Oil & Gas exploration &
Production, Moscow, 16-18 October 2012.
5. D. E. Ouzzane, A. R. Al Marzouqi, A. Keshka, J. N. Bahamaish (ADCO); A. Aslanyan, I.
Aslanyan, M. Filenev, J. Barghouti, V. Sudakov, A. Andreev, (TGT OIL&GAS SERVICES),
Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition & Conference, Abu Dhabi, UAE, 11-14
November 2012