Revitalizing Production Logging

Thousands of high-angle and

horizontal wells have been

drilled in the last ten years.

Steve Bamforth Gilbert Conort As a result, there are many
BP Exploration Operating Co. Ltd. Montrouge, France
Poole, England mature fields with complex
Chris Lenn
Christian Besson Dubai, United Arab Emirates well production problems.
Ken Stephenson
Brad Roscoe Today, new technology and
Colin Whittaker
Ridgefield, Connecticut, USA
Cambridge, England better understanding of fluid
George Brown For help in preparation of this article, thanks to Ashok flow in wellbores have
BP Exploration Operating Co. Ltd. Belani, Schlumberger Wireline & Testing, Montrouge,
Sunbury on Thames, England France; John Ferguson, Schlumberger Cambridge revived production logging
Research, Cambridge, England; Yves Manin,
Gérard Catala Schlumberger Riboud Product Center, Clamart, France; methods for all types of wells.
Jean-Rémy Olesen, Beijing, China; DeWayne Schnorr,
Gilles Rouault Anchorage, Alaska, USA; Antonio Jorge Torre, Technical
Bernard Théron Editing Services, Houston, Texas, USA; and Amal
Clamart, France Vittachi, GeoQuest, Dallas, Texas.
BorFlo, CPLT (Combinable Production Logging Tool),
FloView, FloView Plus, PLT (Production Logging Tool),
PL Flagship, PVL (Phase Velocity Log), RST (Reservoir
Saturation Tool), TDT (Thermal Decay Time) and
WFL (Water Flow Log) are marks of Schlumberger.

44 Oilfield Review














,,,,,


■The challenges facing production log-
Fault ging in horizontal wells. Trapped fluids


,,,,,





,


can directly affect production and influ-
ence the data from a production log, espe-
Stagnant gas Failed external Formation
casing packer instability cially sensors such as spinners and capac-
Gas
itance tools. Because horizontal wells
inevitably have doglegs and undulations,
stagnant water may lie either inside or out-
side the casing in low areas at the bottom
of the well; stagnant gas may accumulate


,,,,,





,,,




,,
on the high side of drainhole undulations.
These nonflowing fluids distort measure-
ments. Changes in the flowing cross-sec-
tional area have a direct impact on spin-
Oil layer ner response (inset, left). Horizontal wells
are frequently completed uncemented,
using prepacked screens or slotted liners
with external casing packers (ECPs). An
Cuttings

,,,




Fractures
ECP that fails to set properly or formation
collapse create volume changes that
Water affect flow velocities. Faults, fractures and
formation instabilities may cause fluid
crossflow. Cuttings on the low side of the
borehole may alter fluid velocities and
result in erroneous readings.



For decades, production logs have been
used in new wells to optimize ultimate
recovery and to help avoid potential pro-
duction problems. In older wells, these logs
aid in diagnosing declining production and
planning remedial work.1
From the outset, production logging (PL)
has been used to determine the dynamic pat-
terns of flow rates of water, oil and gas under
stable producing or injecting conditions by
answering the following questions: How
much of the well is flowing? Which zones are
producing oil, water and gas? How much of
each type of fluid is flowing from each zone?
Ideally, PL techniques should identify each
fluid, measure the volume fraction of each
fluid in the pipe—called the holdup—and
its velocity, and from these compute flow
rates.2 Traditional PL measurements use tur-
bine flowmeters called spinners for velocity,
gradiomanometers for density, capacitance
for holdup, manometers for pressure and
thermometers for temperature. Of these five
measurements, only velocity and density
tend to be used in traditional quantitative
PL analysis.
The reliability of the data generated by
traditional PL logging depends almost
exclusively on the type of well being
logged. In vertical wells with high flow
rates—usually from 200 to 5000 B/D [30 to
800 m3/d], depending on the tool used and
the pipe diameter—these PL measurements
and their analysis usually produce reliable
results. However, in some wells, phenom-
ena such as flow behind casing or inter-
zone flow make traditional PL difficult.
The upsurge in deviated and horizontal
wells creates boreholes with very different
fluid flow characteristics from vertical wells,
adding further complexity to multiphase
flow and radically changing the physics and
technology of fluid-flow measurement
(above). In gas-and-liquid or oil-and-water
flow, the lighter phase moves rapidly along
the high side of the borehole, establishing a
circulating current that often causes a back-
flow along the lower side (see “Fluid Flow
Fundamentals,” page 61).
Depending on the borehole deviation, the
velocity and holdup of the different phases
can change dramatically for any given flow
rate. In these circumstances, traditional PL
measurements may become unreliable. 3
This article looks at how new techniques are
helping to shed light on flow in complex
vertical wells, and to deliver PL measure-
ments in deviated and horizontal wells.
1. Wade RT, Cantrell RC, Poupon A and Moulin J: “Pro-
duction Logging (The Key to Optimum Well Perfor-
mance,” Journal of Petroleum Technology 17 (Febru-
ary 1965): 137-144.
2. For an authoritative treatment of multiphase flow: Hill
AD: ”Production Logging-Theoretical and Interpreta-
tive Elements,” SPE Monograph 14, 1990.
3. Brown G: ”Using Production-Log Data From Horizon-
tal Wells,” Transactions of the SPWLA 36th Annual
Logging Symposium, Paris, June 26-29, 1995, paper SS.

Winter 1996 45
When to Run Production Logs
Generally, PL has two important applica-
tions: measuring well performance with
respect to reservoir dynamics and analyzing
X25
mechanical problems in the borehole.
Although decisions to run production logs
usually depend on specific reservoir eco-
nomics, there are general guidelines.
First, PL may be used in new wells to eval- Zone
uate initial production and verify the
integrity of the completion—for example,
indicating where there is flow behind cas- 4
ing. When initial performance does not
meet expectations, information from PL may
often point to remedial work to optimize
production and suggest different completion
techniques for future wells. 3
A special use of PL in horizontal, high-rate
wells is to verify friction-induced production
loss in long drainholes. This friction loss
sometimes negates any extra productivity 2
expected from the long drainhole, and a
better choice would be to drill multiple,
shorter lateral sections in a stacked or fan- X50
shaped pattern.4
Second, PL should be considered for any
well that shows sudden decreases in pro- 1
duction or increases in gas/oil ratio (GOR)
or water cut.
Third, just as a yearly checkup by a physi-
cian is prudent, PL may be used periodically
to detect problems such as water or gas con- 1:200 m Radius of Bit Openhole Sw Openhole Porosity Openhole Porosity
0 10 1993 50 p.u. 0 50 p.u. 0
ing, or fingering before extensive production
100 p.u. 0
loss occurs. This is particularly important for GR (C.H.)-GR (O.H.) Openhole Fluid Volume Shale 1
dump-flood wells, where PL is the only 10 0 Openhole Sw 1993 Shale 2
monitoring method.5 1996 50 p.u. 0
Borehole Water Feldspar
Fourth, injection wells may be initially Borehole Oil
100 p.u. 0
RST Fluid Volume Quartz
analyzed and then monitored with PL. 1996
Casing Wall Calcite
Knowledge of where injected fluids are 50 p.u. 0
going is critical for avoiding undesired Assumed Cement RST Oil 1996
Sheath Downhole Flow Rate Water
flooding that leads to serious problems such
0 B/D 10000
as casing-annulus crossflow, the creation of Formation
unswept and trapped hydrocarbons, and Perforated Zone RST Oil
water-wet damaged formations. Scales 1996
Nonmovable Oil (O.H.)
Water
Oil
Gas

■Openhole CPLT-RST evaluation from South China Sea. Track 1 (left) contains a well
sketch with casing (black) and a cemented casing-formation annulus (gray hatching).
Uranium scale was indicated by the difference in natural gamma ray activity between
the openhole and most recent cased-hole gamma ray survey. Track 2 contains the open-
hole log and the latest RST water saturation analysis. Track 3 shows the production logs
and static-fluid volume analysis in the formation. The top of Zone 3 at X41 and the top
half of Zone 2 at X47 still shows some unproduced oil. Zones 1 and 4 are completely
depleted. The production logs shows most of the water production coming from the top of
Zone 2 at X46 m.

46 Oilfield Review
 The ability to carry out downhole PL mea-
surements in a stabilized well under
dynamic conditions is the key to successful
production management. The resulting
downhole flow-rate determination may be
compared with stabilized surface flow rates.
This quantitative comparison between
downhole and surface flow rates allows
detection of any surface-to-downhole dis-
crepancies caused by such factors as tubing
leaks, thief zones, unwanted fluid entries or
other hydraulic malfunctions.
Production Logging in Vertical Wells
Increasingly, operators incorporate PL into
their reservoir monitoring programs. Today,
this often includes cased-hole saturation
logging techniques—such as thermal-neu-
tron decay time or carbon-oxygen measure-
ments—run in combination with traditional
PL tools to provide an enhanced under-
standing of reservoir dynamics.6
The RST Reservoir Saturation Tool can be
used to make a snapshot of reservoir satura-
tion. Repeating these measurements over
time helps monitor changes in reservoir sat-
uration. But the dynamic description of
flow conditions obtained from production
log profiles is absolutely necessary to
unravel complex commingled production
in a many wells.
For example, to gain a clear picture of pro-
duction dynamics in a declining reservoir, the
CPLT Combinable Production Logging Tool
log and the RST technique were used in com-
bination in a reservoir located in the Pearl
River Mouth basin in the South China Sea.
The reservoir, a sand-shale sequence, was
producing from four commingled sand-
stone formations, and the operator needed
to understand current reservoir production
on a layer-by-layer basis. The CPLT-RST
reservoir monitoring suite was deployed in
Winter 1996
a well located at the top of the reservoir
(previous page). Openhole well evalua-
tions, with the latest hydrocarbon volume
from RST C/O monitoring, showed the
changes in reservoir saturations.
The lowest zone had been completely
depleted, as had about half of the next
zone. A cased-hole versus openhole gamma
ray comparison revealed evidence of sub-
stantial scale buildup in the lowest perfo-
rated zones. This indicated that large vol-
umes of water had been produced from the
lower zones, and scale could potentially
plug perforations.
The production logs provided the key to
understanding what was happening in the
well. The flowmeter and gradiomanometer
profiles showed that there was only a little
fluid production, mostly water, coming from
the lowest perforations. About 60% of the
total water production came from the sec-
ond lowest set of perforations, and most of
that from just 2 m [6.5 ft] of the upper sec-
tion of perforations.
Surprisingly, the RST monitor log indicated
that water production was coming from a
fully oil-bearing part of the formation. It was
suspected that the water was coning up
from the bottom part of the zone, now com-
pletely depleted of hydrocarbons. Logs from
other wells, downdip in the reservoir, con-
firmed this conclusion. Reducing the draw-
down pressures may allow production of the
bypassed hydrocarbons, still contained in
this zone, to continue.
In the well’s second highest perforated
zone, the RST monitor logs showed a signif-
icant oil-water contact (OWC). The lowest
half of the zone was fully depleted, whereas
the upper half was untouched by produc-
tion. Unexpectedly, production log profiles
indicated greater hydrocarbon production
than water, perhaps because scale had
plugged the lower perforations in the
watered-out part of the zone. The upper per-
forations in this zone did not appear to be
plugged by scale, yet the production profiles
showed minimal contribution over the
entire interval. This result confirmed the
diagnosis from RST monitoring logs that the
upper formation layer had been swept of all
movable hydrocarbons.
Another example, this time in a vertical
well with a thief zone and borehole water
entry, occurred in India’s offshore Bombay
High field, operated by Indian Oil and Nat-
ural Gas Commission (ONGC). The reser-
voir was under waterflood, and the operator
needed to identify zones of water entry and
to determine whether flow was occurring
behind the casing. It was also suspected
that injection water had broken through
and was being produced from one of five
sets of perforations.
A WFL Water Flow Log tool was com-
bined with the PLT Production Logging Tool
log to distinguish between flow inside and
outside the casing (see “Fluid-Flow Logging
Using Time-of-Flight,” page 50). The down-
hole flow rates were complex. The top of
the lowest set of perforations, Zone 5, pro-
duced only small quantities of water. There
was a large increase in water flow coming
from the second lowest set of perforations.
A modest amount of oil, 400 BOPD
[63 m 3/d], was also produced from this
zone. The middle set of perforations, Zone
3, also produced 1000 BWPD [160 m3/d]
with only a small amount of oil. The second
highest set of perforations showed no fluid
production (next page).
4. Hill D, Neme E, Ehlig-Economides C and Mollinedo
M: ”Reentry Drilling Gives New Life to Aging Fields,”
Oilfield Review 8, no. 3 (Autumn 1996): 4-17.
5. In dump-flood wells, water is produced from an
aquifer and injected into a producing formation in the
same well.
6. Albertin, I, Darling, H, Mahdavi, M, Plasek R, Cedeño
I, Hemingway J, Richter P, Markley M, Olesen J-R,
Roscoe B and Zeng W: “The Many Facets of Pulsed
Neutron Cased Hole Logging,” Oilfield Review 8,
no. 2 (Summer 1996): 28-41.
An essential input for RST-A C/O monitoring logging is
the oil holdup in the borehole. The PL gradiomanome-
ter provides this measurement.
47
 200 GR
Gas

Oil 160
Water
200
Downhole Far 120
Flow Rate
160
Reconstructed Reconstructed B/D 80
GR
Fluid Velocity Fluid Density 0.0 6000.0
0 60
ft/min gm/cm3 1500 Near
API 120
40
0 125 0 125
1200
Measured WFL 80
0

Count rate, cps

Measured Fluid Measured Fluid Temperature Water Flow Rate 0 12 24 36 48 60
Velocity ft/min Density gm/cm3 °F BWPD 900
40
0 125 0 125 243 245 0.0 6000.0
1:200 600
0
0 12 24 36 48 60
Zone 300

1 0
0 12 24 36 48 60
Time, sec
X370
2

50
GR

40
3

X380 30

4 200 Far
20
160
10
120
5
0
X390
80 0 12 24 36 48 60

500 40
Near

■Thief zone in vertical well. The PLT-WFL interpretation 400

0
analysis indicated that Zone 1 is removing more than 0 12 24 36 48 60
Count rate, cps

120 BOPD and 2200 BWPD from the well. Crossflow had 300
been set up by the injection and production schemes.
At X354, the WFL decay-time distributions showed a 200
flow rate over 2000 BWPD inside the casing (inset,
above right). At X393 m, the WFL decay-time distribu- 100
tions showed that no flow was detected (inset, right).
0
0 12 24 36 48 60
Time, sec

With the top set of perforations—Zone 1—

the picture changed dramatically. Here,
more than half of the production from the
four zones below disappeared into the for-
mation. Zone 1 was acting as a major thief
zone, consuming 120 BOPD [19 m3/d] and
about 2200 BWPD [350 m 3/d] from the
well. This unusual crossflow, verified by
WFL results, indicates a pressure differential
between the two formation layers, which
was not present when the well was initially
put on production. The WFL survey also
indicated that there was no channeling
behind the casing.
Armed with this knowledge, the operator
had two choices for remediation—squeeze
the perforations in the lowest zones (3 to 5)
to prevent water production, or isolate
Zones 1 and 2 using a dual-completion
scheme, putting the long string on gas lift,
and allowing continued production of 400
BOPD [64 m3/d] from Zone 4.
Nonvertical Production Logging Other phenomena affect PL measurements
Once a well substantially deviates from in deviated and horizontal wells. For exam-
vertical and multiphase flow becomes ple stagnant fluids may confuse sensors;
complex, spinner tools often indicate only fractures and faults may allow crossflow;
reverse flow—especially when the spinner and failed external packers may introduce
is not centralized in the borehole, but lying variable flow regimes (see page 45).
near the bottom where the reverse flow is Horizontal and many deviated wells are
found (next page, right).7 Capacitance tools often completed either open hole, with
may also measure the lower, denser phase uncemented slotted liners or with
of the fluid giving misleading holdup data. prepacked screens. 8 Such completions
As the well’s angle increases to horizontal, introduce other special fluid-flow and pro-
flow becomes entirely stratified, and the duction problems that usually are not
averaged mixture velocity from a flowmeter encountered in vertical, cased wells—such
spinner alone is meaningless. as flow restrictions due to the logging tool in
the pipe forcing fluids to channel through
the liner-formation annulus. Furthermore, a

48 Oilfield Review





,,,,
400
Flow Outside Pipe


,,,,
 Water flow
■Backflow as drain-
hole moves towards


,,,,

Gas flow vertical. In highly
320 Velocity = 8.5 ft/min
deviated or horizon-

Count rate, cps

Rate = 439 BWPD
tal wells and at low
240 fluid velocities,
Total count rate
Background buoyancy forces
160
tend to segregate
fluids. The lighter
80
phase flows in the







,,,,

0
upper part of the
12 24 36 48 60 pipe dragging
Time, sec along with it some
of the heavier
Flow Inside Pipe phase. Sometimes
2200 part of the heavier
Velocity = 8.8 ft/min phase moves down-
1760
wards due to grav-
Count rate, cps

Rate = 850 BWPD

,,,,







ity, causing a circu-
1320
Total count rate lation within the
880
Background pipe. Badly central-
ized flowmeters in
440 the lower portion of
the deviated pipe
0 will respond to this
12 24 36 48 60 downward flow.
Time, sec

■Distinguishing between water flow inside

and outside casing. Time-of-flight gamma
ray time-decay distributions indicated
whether the flow is inside or outside the
casing. The lower graph shows the
response when water is flowing inside the
casing. The blue shaded area reflects the
final time-decay response to flowing water
after the background and standing water
signals have been removed. The blue area
had a sharply peaked response, which
indicated that the slug of activated water
flow occurred in a smooth cross-sectional
pipe area without dispersion. The top
graph indicates the magnitude and shape
of the time-decay response when flow is
outside casing. Here the time distribution
was much broader, reflecting slug disper-
sion as it flowed around the outside of cas-
ing. Lower total counting rates are due to
gamma ray attenuation in the casing.
special problem occurs near the uphole end
of a slotted liner. Here, annular fluids are
forced out of the annulus back into the liner
or casing, resulting in significant turbulence
that tends to mix the fluids. This turbulence
can encourage backflow to develop on the
low side of the hole, which can seriously
affect flowmeter readings.
In horizontal wells completed with con-
ventional cemented liners, flowmeter spin-
ner profiles look more like their vertical
counterparts, often showing smooth, distinct
evenly-separated profiles when recorded at
different speeds.9 However, cementing in
horizontal wells is usually not as successful
as in vertical wells because the liner is
decentralized within the borehole, often
leading to cement voids and channels with
accompanying annular production.
Other problems in horizontal completions
include acceleration of fluids due to gravity
when undulations in the well profile are suf-
ficiently large. If peaks of the flowmeter mea-
surements are taken as representative of the
full mixture velocity, the trend is an increase
in velocity where the well turns downward
and a decrease as the flow reaches the
trough of the undulation. Backflow always
appears to occur in inverted, undulating
wells where the heavy phase falls down the
low side of the drainhole. In many cases, the
heavy phase (usually water) simply circulates
in the sump and is not produced.
Delivering Data from Deviated Wells
Success in isolating crossflow problems in
the offshore Bombay well convinced the
operator to try a combined WFL-PLT
approach in a cased-hole, deviated well that
was producing oil, water and gas. The oper-
ator was unsure of the exact location of the
water entry zones and whether these could
be sealed off using cement squeezes to
reduce water cut.
Again, channeling behind casing was sus-
pected. This time, the WFL measurements
showed this, and confirmed the PLT measure-
ments in a difficult environment. The spinner
tool data below X050 indicated downflow,
the temperature gradient suggested possible
upward fluid movement and the gra-
diomanometer tool showed a single-phase
fluid below X050—a very confusing picture.
The spinner measurement was presumed
unreliable in this zone, as it had insufficient
resolution to measure low apparent flow.
The thermometer was affected by fluid
movement inside and outside the casing,
but could not differentiate between the two
flow regions. The WFL data helped resolve
the dilemma, by distinguishing between
flows inside and outside the casing (above
left). In this case, water was flowing outside
(continued on page 52)
7. In this article, the range of deviated wells will include
moderate to the so-called “high angle” 30° to 85°
from vertical; horizontal wells range from 85° to 95°.
8. Brown G, reference 3.
9. Spinner turn rates are calibrated by logging at different
cable speeds.

Winter 1996 49
 Fluid-Flow Logging Using Time-of-Flight

Several years ago, the WFL Water Flow Log tech- Near count Far count GR count
nique was introduced using the TDT-P Thermal rate rate rate
Decay Time tool to provide water-velocity data,
first in vertical wells, then later in deviated and
horizontal wells.1 Today, the RST Reservoir Satu-
ration Tool log provides water-velocity information
with more precision.2 A burst of fast neutrons from
Casing
the RST tool activates oxygen atoms in a small
Minitron Oil
region surrounding the neutron source in the tool.
This includes any oxygen in the water flowing in
the pipe. Oil does not contain oxygen and there-
Water
fore is not affected. Activated oxygen atoms, in a
process like fluorescence, give off radiation, in the
form of gamma rays, radiating for a short time
after the neutron burst. ■WFL Water Flow Log Measurements. A short burst of neutrons activates oxygen
in the surrounding water, and flowing water carries the activated cloud at the water
Moving water in the pipe will carry a cloud of velocity. Source-detector distances and time-of-flight are used to determine the
activated oxygen with it past the detectors in the water velocity.
tool (above right). The time between the neutron
burst and the detection of the activated water cloud
will be a time-of-flight for the water flow in the
Marker signal Near detector borehole sigma indicator
pipe, and is used to compute water velocity. The
half-life of the oxygen activation is only seven sec-
onds, so after a few minutes, the activation radia-
tion has subsided to an undetectable level, making
the measurement environmentally safe.
There are two detectors in the RST tool.The tool
can use a variable neutron burst width from 0.1 to 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Time, sec
3 sec with delays from 3.5 to 20 sec to measure
water-flow rates from as low as 6 ft/min [1.8 m/min]
Oil-miscible marker RST tool
to as high as 500 ft/min [152 m/min]. The RST tool
may be inverted to measure downward water flow. Casing
Oil
An additional gamma ray (GR) detector may be
incorporated in the logging tool string to measure
higher velocities. Water
The RST-WFL technique may be used to mea-
sure other parameters. The total activation count
PVL Phase Velocity Log sonde
rate is proportional to the volume of water acti-
vated by the neutron burst, and therefore is a mea- ■ PVL Phase Velocity Log technique. A slug of oil-miscible marker fluid is injected
into the flowing oil phase, and is detected by the RST tool. The time-of-flight
sure of the water holdup in the pipe. The time pro- between injection and slug detection along with the distance between the injector
file, or shape, of the activation count rate tool and RST detector gives the oil velocity. The same process is used for water
phase-velocity measurements except a water-miscible marker compound is injected
distribution carries information about whether the
into the heavier phase.
activated water is flowing near the tool in the bore-
hole or behind the casing pipe in the annulus.

50 Oilfield Review
 144
300 Raw Data
142 490 ft/min

Borehole sigma indicator

ft/min 200 100 50 Filtered Data
ft/min ft/min ft/min
140

138
12 ft/min

136

134

132
Oil
130 200 750 BOPD
0 5 10 15 20 25 60 80 100 120
Water
Time, sec
100
■Typical marker slug time-of-flight distributions for a variety of fluid-flow velocities.
0
For horizontal wells, fluid flows are stratified,
500
with the light phase moving rapidly in the upflow 200 1500 BOPD
sections of the well along the high side of the

PVL measurements, ft/min

400
borehole. Slight changes in borehole deviation 100
cause large changes in fluid holdup and the veloci-
300
ties of different phases, making it necessary to 0
know all fluid velocities. Spinners are usually not 200
applicable in stratified flow, and radioactive trac-

Velocity, ft/min
200 2300 BOPD
ers are useful useful only for water-velocity mea- 100
surements, because there are no oil-miscible 100
forms available. Radioactive tracers also have 0
0 100 200 300 400 500
strict procurement and safety issues. 0
Actual water velocity, ft/min
The PVL Phase Velocity log also uses a time-of-
flight method to measure both oil and water veloc- ■PVL water velocity measurements in the flow-loop. 200 3000 BOPD
ities.3 This technique uses a chemical marker that Water velocity measurements made using the PVL
technique for horizontal stratified two-phase flow (oil
is injected into either the oil or water stream. The and water), where the water holdup was kept at 50%, 100
time the marker takes to reach the detector is a show good agreement with actual controlled flow
rates. The error bars are dominated by the sampling
measure of fluid velocity (previous page, bottom). frequency of the borehole absorption measurement.
0

The chemical marker contains a high concentra-

tion of the element gadolinium, which has a large
thermal neutron absorption cross section. The RST
tool senses the large increase in the borehole
absorption cross section caused by the passage of
the gadolinium slug (above).
A high concentration of gadolinium chloride
[GdCl3] in water is used as a water-miscible
marker. It has the high density and low viscosity
necessary for the water-phase measurements. For
the oil-phase measurements, a new, gadolinium-
rich compound, with low density and viscosity is
used. These markers are safe to handle, even in
concentrated form, and pose no environmental
threat when injected into borehole fluids.
Flow-loop experiments at Schlumberger Cam- 200
bridge Research, Cambridge, England have vali-
dated the PVL measurements under a large variety 100
of flow conditions. Both single-phase oil and water 3800 BOPD
measurements show excellent agreement between 0
85 87 89 91 93
PVL-measured and actual flow rates (above). Two- Deviation, degree
phase measurements, using oil and water or gas
and water, demonstrate the ability to measure sep- ■Two-phase velocity measurements in the
Schlumberger Cambridge Research flow loop. Oil and
arately each phase in a segregated flow (right). water velocity measurements made using the PVL
1. Lenn C, Kimminau S and Young P: “Logging of Water technique in a laboratory flow loop with two-phase
Mass Entry in Deviated Well Oil/Water Flows,” paper flow where the water flow rate was maintained con-
SPE 26449, presented at the 68th SPE Annual Techni- stant at 1500 BWPD. The loop was tilted from 85 to
cal Conference and Exhibition, Houston, Texas, USA, 92 degrees and the water and oil velocities measured
October 3-6, 1993. for oil flow rates ranging from 750 to 3800 BOPD.
2. Albertin et al, reference 6, main text. The results show that small deviations from horizon-
3. Roscoe BA and Lenn C: ”Oil and Water-velocity Log- tal can cause large changes in the measured fluid
ging in Horizontal Wells Using Chemical Markers,” velocities.
paper SPE 37153, presented the 1996 SPE Interna-
tional Conference on Horizontal Well Technology,
Calgary, Alberta, Canada, November 18-20, 1996.

Winter 1996 51
the casing below X050 m causing the tem- WFL GR red WFL Water Rates
perature to change faster than the local Shale -25 ft/min 100 Gas
geothermal gradient. Above X050 m, the Perforations WFL Far blue Theor.Dens Theor. Temp Theor. Pres Oil
WFL data revealed flow inside the casing, in Production -25 ft/min 100 6.6 1.10 235 240 1010 1090 Water
good agreement with the production log- Cement WFL Near green gm/cm3 °C psi WFL Water Rate
ging interpretation (right). Matrix -25 ft/min 100 Fluid density Temperature Pressure 0 B/D 4000
The WFL interpretation helped pinpoint Well Sketch Fluid Vel 0.6 1.10 235 240 1010 1090 Downhole Flow Rate
the three-phase production to Zones 2 and 15 in. -15 -25 ft/min 100 gm/cm3 °C psi 0 B/D 4000
3. Only gas and oil enter the well from
Zone 1. The WFL data show that water, from
below Zone 5, flowed behind the casing.
With a clear understanding of the produc-
1
tion problems in the well, the operator
could choose between two remedial treat-
ments—eliminating all water production by
closing Zones 2 and 3, simultaneously cut- X025
ting potential oil production by a third; or
simply decreasing water cut by repairing the
cement below X050 m.
The next field example shows how a new
PL holdup and velocity imaging tool
helped determine the correct remedial
action for a well on the North Slope,
2
Alaska, USA operated by ARCO Alaska Inc.
and BP Exploration (next page, left).10
The 49° deviated well, was flowing at
1141 BOPD [181 m3/d] with 82% water cut 3
at surface and a GOR of 2583 ft3/bbl. Four
zones were originally perforated, and tradi- X050
tional PL interpretation based on density,
velocity and temperature indicated mixed
water and oil production in the lower three
zones, and gas in the top two. For example,
in the lowest perforated zone, the gra-
diomanometer showed a reduction in fluid
density, usually interpreted as first hydrocar-
bon entry. Based on traditional PL measure- 4 Ou Flo
wo
vel tside uts
ments and interpretation, only this lowest oci
ties
ide
zone would be produced, and all upper
zones would have been plugged. X075
A completely different picture emerged
using the recently introduced FloView imag- 5
ing tool (see, “Advantages of Holdup and
Bubble Imaging in Production Logging,”
page 54). The FloView water holdup curve
remained at 100% in the lower zone. The
density drop measured by the traditional gra-
diomanometer probably occurred when the
■Water flow logs at different depths in a deviated well. Track 1 (left) shows a well sketch
tool moved from a dense sump fluid lying and perforations at each zone. Track 2 shows WFL velocity results. The next three tracks
below the lowest perforated zone into lighter show PL density, temperature and pressure measurements. Results of flow model analysis
water produced from the first set of perfora- are shown in Track 6 (right). The reconstruction of PL measurements (dashed red) based
tions. Next, the FloView holdup detected a on the flow model analysis is shown along with the original (solid black) PL measure-
ments in Track 5. Three detectors were used by the WFL to cover a wide range of flows.
small hydrocarbon entry in Zone 2, and a
Water velocities inside the casing, derived from the near detector are shown as green cir-
large entry in Zone 3, as seen in the FloView cular tadpoles, while the far detector readings are shown in blue and the gamma ray
holdup map. readings in red. The triangular-shaped tadpoles represent readings for flow outside the
casing. In this display, the 45° angle of the tadpole tails show an upflow in the well.
10. Vittachi A and North RJ: ”Application of a New Downward flow would be indicated by tails pointing 45° downward.
Radial Borehole Fluid Imaging Tool in Production
Logging Highly Deviated Wells,” paper SPE 36565,
presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition, Denver, Colorado, USA, October
6-9, 1996.

52 Oilfield Review
 FloView Conventional PL Results
Casing FloView Gas
Holdup Velocity (up)
Oil 4 Gas
Perfs 0.5 v/v 1
FloView Oil
Hydrcarb. Water
GR Temperature FloView FloView 3
Velocity (down) Water

Zone
Holdup Map Velocity Map
Downhole Flow
0 150 218 °F 223 0 ft/min 350
Profile 2
API Gradio Density 0.6 1.0 Spinner Velocity 0 350
0 10,000
1:600 ft 0.6 gm/cm3 1.1 v/v 25 ft/min 375 ft/min B/D 1

0 1000 2000 3000 4000

Production, B/D

X800
PL Results with FloView

4 Gas
4
Oil
3 Water

Zone
2
X900

0 1000 2000 3000 4000

Production, B/D

■Comparing production logging tech-

niques. Downhole production from each
3 zone was measured using conventional
X1000 PL techniques and compared with those
from the new FloView imaging technique.
The new technique showed that only
2 Zone 3 had significant oil production.

Farther up the well, the opposite occurred.

Starting at Zone 4, the upgoing FloView
pass had a lower hydrocarbon velocity than
the downgoing pass. This occurs because
■Identifying fluid entry. The holdup map in Track 2 and the hydrocarbon velocity map hydrocarbon bubbles, carried by the
in Track 4, from an Alaskan well show the first hydrocarbon entry in Zone 3. The center
upward flowing water, were moving along
of each map track represents the high-side of the casing. The difference between the up
(dashed red) and down (solid red) passes of the FloView imaging tool in Track 3 indicates with the upward moving tool—a sign of sig-
backflow (shaded grey area where curves cross over) at X900, and hydrocarbon nificant hydrocarbon entry in Zone 4.
production (unshaded crossover) in Zones 3 and 4. The downhole flow rates and profiles com-
puted from the imaging measurements were
In addition, the FloView bubble (or hydro- and higher bubble velocity throughout the significantly different from those determined
carbon) velocity map pinpointed the first top section of the casing. This zone using traditional PL measurements alone.
significant hydrocarbon entry midway up appeared to have water backflow shown by Flow rates calculated using data from this
Zone 3. The caliper readings, shown as a comparing an overlay of two passes of the new technique were within 8% of actual
casing cross-section profile, supported the FloView velocity, one going up the well and production rates (above). Based on these
idea that the gradiomanometer interpreta- a second traveling downhole. A large sepa- results, the recommendation to the operator
tion was adversely influenced by changes in ration between the up and down passes was was to plug off all the zones except Zone 3,
casing diameter between Zones 1 and 3. A seen in the region experiencing the water the only significant oil producer.
restriction in the casing at X900 ft caused an backflow. The upgoing FloView pass read The overlay techniques shown in this
increase in both spinner and FloView veloc- higher hydrocarbon velocity than the down- example can be used as a qualitative
ity measurements. going pass. This occurred because water method of identifying zones of hydrocarbon
Just above X900 ft, between Zones 3 and was flowing backwards down the pipe, car- entry and water backflow.
4, there was a reduction in average FloView rying hydrocarbon bubbles down with it
bubble velocity. The FloView images against the upward motion of the tool. This
showed a narrow band of hydrocarbon in abnormal separation in FloView velocities is
this section of the well—low water holdup an easily recognized flag to spot reverse
flow in the well.

Winter 1996 53
 Advantages of Holdup and Bubble Imaging in Production Logging

The 111⁄16-in. FloView production logging tool

makes four independent measurements of bore-
Probe
hole fluids, distributed in different quadrants of the Ceramic Connector
pipe cross section (right). insulator
The self-centralized device uses matchstick- Casing
sized, electrical probes to measure the resistivity Conductive Probe holding
of the wellbore fluid—high for hydrocarbons and tip bracket

low for water. The probes are located inside of Probe

each of the tool’s four centralizer blades to protect Probe
them from damage, and their azimuthal position
within the pipe cross section is measured.
The FloView imager may be run in up to 95⁄8-in.
casing. Each probe is sensitive to the local resis-
tivity of the fluid within the pipe and generates a
binary output when their sharp leading edges
FloView images
Water holdup
impinge on droplets of oil or gas in a water-contin-
0
uous phase, or conversely, water in an oil-continu-
ous phase (next page, left). Assuming the fluids 0.5
are distinct and not in an emulsion form, and that
Flow rate
the bubble size is larger than the tip of the probe 1500 B/D 1
0.71 0.58 0.48 0.44
(less than 1 mm), both water holdup and bubble
count measurements may be obtained from the Flow loop photos
binary output of the probe.1
Water holdup is computed from the fraction of
Deviation
the time that the probe is conducting, and bubble 80º 89º 90º 91º from vertical
count comes from the average frequency of the out-
put. In a water-continuous phase, an increasing
■Flow-imaging tool and holdup images. The FloView imaging tool has four probes, which map the local water
bubble count means an increasing hydrocarbon holdup in the borehole (inset above). FloView images show increasing water holdup as deviation decreases
velocity, and vice versa in an oil-continuous phase. and correlate well with flow loop photos.
In biphasic fluid flow, the oil or gas holdup may be
obtained from a closure relationship with the water
In a typical two-phase environment, the FloView cult in highly deviated wells and are impossible in
holdup—the closure relation simply states that the
tool has many advantages over the gradiomano- horizontal wells because the vertical separation
sum of the holdups of all the phases equals unity.
meter (next page, right). Jetting of producing fluid between sensor measure points is reduced and the
The probes cannot discriminate oil from gas.
in front of perforated zones or changes in pipe measurement loses resolution. Finally, if the flow
Even in three-phase fluid flow, this device still
diameter because of scale or restrictions have a velocity is sufficiently high, friction will affect the
yields an accurate water holdup measurement.
venturi pressure effect on gradiomanometer gradiomanometer response.
Averaged local outputs for holdup and bubble
response. The gradiomanometer does not mea-
count are determined for each of the four individ- 1. During most field tests, bubble sizes vary between 1
sure density directly, but measures the gravitation and 5 mm, within the requirements of the probes. Only
ual probes. The outputs from each of these probes at high flow rates (in excess of 2 m/sec [6.5 ft/sec]) are
pressure gradient with differential sensors over a
are combined to map local stratified holdup. smaller bubble sizes experienced that might affect the
known vertical height difference. For this reason, holdup and bubble-count measurements.
gradiomanometer measurements are more diffi-

54 Oilfield Review
 Probe Probe output
Not
Conducting conducting Friction
effects
Third oil
entry

Jetting,
Second venturi
oil effects
entry

First oil
entry

Water
entry
Flow

Stagnant
FloView
water
bubble FloView
count holdup
Gradio
Mud

Oil
■FloView tool and gradiomanometer comparison in two-phase flow. At the bottom
Time Gas of the well (middle), there is frequently some mud and dense stagnant water. The
gradiomanometer (right) responds to density change, and will detect the density
■ Principle of local probe measurement. Oil and gas do not conduct electric decrease above the stagnant fluid, which in many cases might be mistaken for oil
current, but water does. Water holdup is determined by the fraction of time entry. FloView probes do not respond to the water change since both water and
the probe tip is conducting. Bubble count is determined by counting the stagnant water are conductive. Therefore, the holdup (left) remains at 100% and
nonconducting cycles. the bubble count stays at zero. The next zone is producing water, typically opposite
perforations. The gradiomanometer detects another density change, and as before,
this change may be misinterpreted as an oil entry, because the produced water is
invariably less dense than the stagnant water. Once again, FloView probes do not
respond to this water change since both waters are conductive. At the first oil entry
in the next zone, the outputs of the FloView probes will indicate less than 100%
water holdup, and the bubble count will start to increase. The gradiomanometer
density will also record the change, if enough oil enters, and the oil density is suffi-
ciently different from the produced water. As the tool passes across additional oil
entries, FloView water holdup will continue to decrease and the bubble count will
increase. The gradiomanometer will also register these oil entries with a decreasing
density, if the oil entries change the mixture density significantly.

Winter 1996 55
 CPLT Combinable
Production Logging Tool RST Reservoir Saturation Tool FloView tools Fluid marker Total flow rate
Pressure and temperature Oil holdup Bubble velocity injector
Gas indicator Water holdup
Gamma ray
detector

CPLT GR RST
FloView Plus tool Spinner

WFL Water Flow Log PVL Phase Velocity Log

Water velocity Marker injection for oil
Water holdup and/or water velocity
Water flow-rate index

■The PL Flagship tool string. This composite string consists of the CPLT Combinable Production Logging Tool, an RST module with an
extra gamma ray tool, used for water flow logging and PVL Phase Velocity Logging, a FloView Plus fluid imaging tool, a fluid marker
injector tool used with the PVL, and a total flow rate spinner tool. The two imaging FloView tools are mounted with their probes aligned
for enhanced coverage of the borehole cross section.

Horizontal Wells: The Flagship Project

During 1994, British Petroleum Exploration
Operating Co. Ltd. and Schlumberger Oil- Water holdup
field Services established a joint initiative—
“The Flagship Project”—to develop new Above 0.94
techniques for the diagnosis and treatment 0.88 - 0.93
of high-angle and horizontal well produc- 0.82 - 0.87
tion problems. 0.76 - 0.81
The diagnosis part of this project involved
0.71 - 0.75
development of new PL tools. First, a novel
0.65 - 0.70
tool string incorporating sensors targeted at
0.59 - 0.64
the stratified flow regimes encountered in
horizontal and near-horizontal wells was 0.53 - 0.58
developed—combining the CPLT tool, an 0.47 - 0.52
extra gamma ray detector, the RST tool, 0.41 - 0.46
FloView Plus tool, fluid marker injector and 0.35 - 0.40
a total flow rate spinner tool (above).11 This 0.29 - 0.34
equipment is now being used in the North 0.24 - 0.28
Sea and the Middle East to make quantitative
0.18 - 0.23
flow-rate measurements of oil and water in
0.12 - 0.17
cemented and perforated liners, with a long-
term goal of being able to measure three- 0.06 - 0.11

phase flow in uncemented liners. Below 0.5

The first application of this tool string was
to resolve flow profiles and monitor move-
ment of OWCs in the Sherwood sandstone
reservoir, in the Wytch Farm field that strad-
dles the coastline of southern England. Using
extended-reach drilling technology, at least
ten onshore wells were drilled with stepouts
of up to 8000 m [26,248 ft] and having
reservoir sections of up to 2700 m [8858 ft].
The wells have electrically submersible
pumps (ESPs) and produce up to 20,000
BOPD [3178 m3/d]. To manage the field, BP
employs production logging on selected
wells to assess flow profiles with respect to
Average holdup = 0.261
■Holdup image from Wytch Farm 1F-18SP well. Multiple positions of the imaging probes
provide a detailed local holdup image. From this image, the local holdup profile is com-
bined with the different phase velocities to determine multiphase fluid-flow rates.
reservoir zones and to monitor the move- 11. Lenn C, Bamforth S and Jariwala H: ”Flow Diagnosis
ment of OWCs. This information is used to in an Extended Reach Well at the Wytch Farm Oil-
determine future well trajectories, optimize field Using a New Tool string Combination Incorpo-
rating Novel Production Technology,” paper SPE
standoff from the OWC and target future 36580, presented at the SPE Annual Technology Con-
well intervention needs, such as to shut off ference and Exhibition, Denver, Colorado, USA,
October 6-9, 1996.
water and add secondary perforations.
12. Roscoe B: ”Three-Phase Holdup Determination in
Horizontal Wells Using a Pulsed Neutron Source,”
paper SPE 37147, presented at the 1996 SPE Interna-
tional Conference on Horizontal Well Technology,
Calgary, Alberta, Canada, November 18-20, 1996.

56 Oilfield Review
 Three Wytch Farm wells were chosen to
evaluate the new Flagship tool string—two
with water cut and one a dry-oil producer.
The first water-cut well 1F-18SP was drilled
to a 4450 m [14,600 ft] total depth, with a
horizontal displacement of nearly 3800
m [12,468 ft]. Once the main drainhole was
drilled through the productive section, the
well trajectory was dropped to penetrate the
OWC. This permits future logging of the
OWC as it moves. The reservoir was perfo-
rated 33 m [106 ft] above the initial OWC,
giving an initial estimated productivity index
(PI) of 100 B/D/psi.
Production started at 15,000 B/D
[2384 m3/d] dry oil, declining after three
years to a rate of 13,000 B/D [2066 m3/d]
fluid with a 9 to 14% water cut at the time
of logging. This well was selected to test the
new tool string because it had the highest
water cut in the field, penetrated the OWC
and presented the best opportunity for
coiled tubing intervention.
Despite using a revolutionary tool string
for this trial, the logging objectives were typ-
ical of any PL job: To determine the source
of water production, identify the oil and
water profile in the well and assess each
zone’s contribution, and determine any
movement of the OWC in the reservoir.
Analysis of the PL data revealed that the
well was producing fluid along the entire
length of its perforated section. Water pro-
duction was occurring only in the lowest
perforations—in the toe of the well—possi-
bly due to coning in a zone of high vertical
permeability, rather than a general move-
ment of the OWC.
The RST-Sigma saturation monitor logs
showed that the OWC had moved up only
10.8 m [35 ft] from its original position. The
independent WFL velocity and the PVL
water-velocity measurements both showed
good agreement with the PL results. In addi-
tion, oil-velocity measurements were
obtained from the PVL tool.
Local probes on the FloView tool provided
holdup distribution images of the fluids,
confirming that the flow was stratified (previ-
ous page, bottom). In addition, RST-C/O
ratio and borehole salinity from the RST-
Sigma logs were used for holdup analysis
(see “Multiphase Holdup Measurements,”
right). 12 All three methods—FloView
Images, C/O ratio, and borehole salinity—
provided similar results, confirming trends
or conclusions about holdup analysis. Flow
profiles were computed from the velocity
and holdup measurements for both oil and
water phases.
Winter 1996
Multiphase Holdup Measurements
Gas Holdup Response
Near and Far count rate
YG = 0.00
Inelastic N/F ratio
YG = 0.33
Casing YG = 0.67
Inelastic Spectrum Gas YG
YG = 1.00
Porosity
YG
Counts
RST
Carbon Tool
YO
Oxygen C/O Model Response
Water YW
oil
oil
Far C/O ratio
Energy ole
tion
eh
or
ma
B
wa matio
For
ter
For
r
ate
le w
Near and Far C/O ratio re ho
Bo
Near C/O ratio
■Multiphase holdup from RST tool. Inelastic spectra (left) lead to carbon-oxygen ratios and near-and-far
detector count rates. The crossplot of near and far C/O ratio responses are determined primarily by oil holdup
YO in the borehole (lower right plot) and oil volume in the formation. The near-to-far inelastic count rate ratio
(upper right plot) primarily depends on the overall borehole density which is related to the borehole gas
holdup, YG.
Multiphase holdup measurements are made with The RST C/O crossplot response and RST-A
the basic RST C/O measurement, which is usually inelastic near-to-far count rate ratios are used
used to determine the volume of oil in the forma- together to determine multiphase fluid holdup.
tion. The carbon and oxygen signals are generated The inelastic spectra give carbon-oxygen ratios and
by fast neutron inelastic scattering, which leaves detector count rates. The crossplot near detector
these elements in high-energy excited states that C/O ratio response is determined primarily by the
decay immediately by gamma ray emission. oil holdup in the borehole and the far detector C/O
Most carbon-oxygen excitations take place within response by the oil volume in the formation. The
15 to 23 cm [6 to 9 in.] of the tool. This means all near-to-far inelastic count rate ratio primarily
C/O measurements are sensitive to the local ele- depends on the overall borehole density, which is
mental concentrations, and therefore to the relative related to the borehole gas holdup.2 Two-phase (oil
amount of oil and water holdup in the borehole as and water) holdup is determined using the crossplot
well as the saturations in the formation (above). C/O response, while both crossplot and count rate
The RST-A tool has two detectors with one more ratios are used simultaneously for holdup determi-
and one less sensitive to the borehole environ- nation in three-phase (oil, water and gas) solutions.
ment by virtue of their spacing from the source. 1. Roscoe B: ”Three-Phase Holdup Determination in
Gamma ray spectra from both detectors lead to Horizontal Wells Using a Pulsed Neutron Source,”
paper SPE 37147, presented at the 1996 SPE Interna-
relative elemental carbon and oxygen yields, tional Conference on Horizontal Well Technology,
Calgary, Alberta, Canada, November 18-20, 1996.
which are used to solve simultaneously for the vol-
2. An approach to measure borehole gas holdup with a
ume of formation oil and the borehole oil holdup.1 fullbore backscatter gamma ray density tool can be
found in: Kessler C and Frisch G: “New Fullbore Pro-
duction Logging Sensor Improves the Evaluation of
Production in Deviated and Horizontal Wells,” paper
SPE 29815, presented at the 1995 Middle East Oil
Technical Conference, Manama, Bahrain, March
11-14, 1995.
57
 The data acquisition capability of the tool
string allows most critical parameters to be
Log Inputs Inputs Well and Fluid
determined by alternative independent Characteristics
methods—for example, C/O and imaging
holdup data, or WFL and PVL velocity data
Depth Matching
supported by spinner measurements— Data Editing
instilling greater confidence in the results. 7600
The new tool string clearly identified all
the water entry points in the well, confirmed Depth Matching 7700
that the downhole flow was stratified, and
proved that water and oil flow rates could
7800
be accurately determined using the new
phase velocity and C/O-based holdup mea- Fluid Velocity
Calibrations
surements. The upper perforations were pro- Spin - rpm
ducing oil. Oil flow rates derived from the
PVL velocity and C/O holdup, within 500 Stacking
B/D [80 m 3 /d], were 12,500 B/D Cable
Speed
[1986 m3/d]. The water-flow rates derived
Bot. Top Slope Intercept
from the PVL and WFL measurements, 7750 7700 .21 .02
within 500 B/D, were 3500 B/D [556 m3/d]. 7800 7750 .22 .03 Calibrations
In the second water-cut well to be logged Initialization
with the PL Flagship tool string, water entry
was found to be not from the toe as before, Reconstruction Blocking
but from a nonsealing intersecting fault. The Flow Velocity Temp Flow Model
S
logs showed that water was being drawn up o
7600
through the fault from the OWC. Tool Model l
Flow Rate v
In the third well—a dry-oil producer—the Solution e
7700
PVL oil-velocity measurements were tested Tool r
against a fullbore spinner flowmeter in the Incoherence
7800
horizontal drainhole completed with sand
screens. The PVL data matched the spinner Final Results
velocity, which functioned effectively in Tool
Incoherence
monophasic production.
Report and Well Sketch
Tying It All Together—Interpretation
Traditional PL interpretation for vertical 7600 Gas Upper
wells primarily uses density from the gra- Oil perfs
Water
diomanometer to compute oil and water 7700
holdup, and the averaged measured Lower
flowmeter velocity from the spinner to com- perfs
7800
pute fluid-flow rates using the slip velocity
computed from a fluid model.13 Pressure,
temperature and other data are largely
■BorFlo overview. The PL interpretation program allows the engineer to do log stacking,
ignored by conventional PL analysis. calibrations and define well and fluid characteristics interactively. The interpretation
However, such a limited approach is inad- matches the PL measurements with those determined by a fluid-flow model based on dif-
equate for most wells. By using all available ferent flow conditions occurring at each interval.
production logging data, more complete
answers may be delivered with greater confi- Multiple measurement of production 13. Slip velocity is the difference between the two-phase
dence. The BorFlo production logging ana- parameters—such as fluid velocities from average velocities. For discussion of traditional pro-
lyzer is being introduced to do this (above spinners, WFL and PVL logging runs, as well duction log interpretation: Hill AD, reference 2.
14. For example, the Duckler analytical model is used to
right). This single interpretation package uses as holdup measurements from imaging tools determine parameters of the gas/liquid flow regime,
physical models based on fluid dynamics in and RST logs—enable delivery of optimized and the volumetric model developed by Choquette
deviated and horizontal boreholes, relating solutions to the fluid-flow dynamics. Knowl- and Piers separates the oil/water regime. For more on
the development and use of the constrained solver
the physics of fluid flow to the parameters edge of sensor responses allows the opti- PL interpretation models such as PLGLOB: Torre J,
measured by the PL tools (see “Interpreting mization to be based on the confidence lev- Roy MM, Suryanarayana G and Crossoaurd P: ”Go
Multiphase Flow Measurements in Horizon- els of each logging measurement. with the Flow,” Middle East Well Evaluation Review
13 (1992): 26-37.
tal Wells,” next page). With this interactive This forward-modeling program tests the
PL interpretation tool, measurements may be results of different flow conditions, based on
stacked, tool responses calibrated and flow- many iterations, to determine the most likely
rate solutions determined. downhole fluid-flow regime that is consis-
tent with all the borehole geometries, well-
bore environment, and observed production
logging and surface measurements.14

58 Oilfield Review
 Interpreting Multiphase Flow Measurements in Horizontal Wells
A new fluid dynamics-based interpretation model
called the Stratflo model has been developed to
compute oil-water flow rates from logging mea-
surements in high-angle and horizontal wells.1 The
model depends on basic flow equations, which, in
turn, depend on dynamic parameters such as fluid
velocities and holdup, and static parameters such
as well diameter, borehole deviation, and fluid
densities and viscosities. Frictional terms at the
casing wall are based on monophasic results
(right). At the phase interface a simple flat inter-
face frictional model is assumed. A correlation for
the frictional factor between the two phases has
been developed from flow-loop measurements.
The model is based on the principle that the
pressure variation ∆P along the axis of the well in
each phase is equal. In steady state, the pressure
variation in each phase has a hydrostatic compo-
nent, which depends on density and the borehole
deviation (the difference in height of the vertical
positions), and a frictional component, which can
be divided into two parts: the shear stress on the
wall for oil Tow and water Tww, and the shear stress
on the fluid interface Ti.
The steady-state model simply sets the pres-
sure in the oil ∆Po equal to the pressure drop in
the water ∆Pw, by defining a function
F = ∆Po – ∆Pw = 0.
In this model, the function F depends on dynamic
parameters such as flow rates and holdup, as
well as static parameters, such as flowing diam-
Winter 1996
eter D, deviation angle, θ, fluid densities ρo and
θ
ρw, and viscosities, µo and µw. For example, in
terms of the dynamic parameters Vw water veloc- Tow
ity and Vo oil velocity and Yw water holdup, the Vo
Ti
function can be expressed as Vw ρo ∆h
ρw
∆P Tww
F(Vw, Vo, Yw) = 0.
∆P in water = ∆P in oil
This function is a nonlinear algebraic equation Pressure Drop
Wall friction (Tw)
and a function of three independent variables. Interfacial friction (Ti)
To use the model, readily-measured parameters ∆P
Gravity (ρ,devi)
such as local holdup and velocity measurements
may be used for two of the necessary input
dynamic parameters. With the mass conservation ■Stratified flow model. The flow model for two-
equations, which relate flow rates, velocities and phase flow equates the pressure difference due to the
hydrostatic head (which depends on borehole devia-
water holdup, the model can be solved for other tion angle θ), ∆h, and the wall, Tw, and interfacial, Ti,
combinations of inputs, depending on available friction components for each of the two fluids.
data. Outputs are computed from the flow model
and mass-conservation equations using a root-
finding technique. Flow model
The flow model gives good results up to about 1.0 Flow model
Flow=800 B/D
6000 B/D [953 m3/d] for each phase—the limit
Flow=7000 B/D
0.8
where the simple flat interface starts to degener-
Water holdup
ate as the mixing layer grows. The model accu-
0.6
rately accounts for the variation in holdup at differ-
ent borehole angles and flow rates (right).
0.4
1. Theron BE and Unwin T: ”Stratified Flow Model and
Interpretation in Horizontal Wells,” paper SPE 36560,
presented at the 1996 SPE Annual Technical Confer- 0.2
ence and Exhibition, Denver, Colorado, USA, October
6-9 1996.
0
87 88 89 90 91 92
Deviation, deg
■Measured and predicted holdup variation. Holdup
was measured at different deviations and flow rates
in the Schlumberger Cambridge Research flow loop
and compared with results predicted by the stratified
flow model StratFlo. The results show the rapid vari-
ation in holdup with borehole deviation at low flow
rates (red curve), as well as the reduced holdup sen-
sitivity at a high flow rate (yellow curve). The results
are shown for a water cut of 50%.
59
The Outlook
The ongoing development effort in under-
standing three-phase flow is delivering
results—including detailed gas holdup and
velocity measurements—that are reshaping
PL services. However, there is still an impor-
tant flow domain not adequately covered by
today’s technology—environments where
there is low water holdup and significant
drainhole deviation. Work is under way at
SCR to understand the complex fluid
dynamics, flow instabilities and phase mix-
ing in all regions. This experimentation
together with hydrodynamic modeling will
lead to better future understanding and
management of flow in the borehole (right).
Improved instrumentation and tool tech-
nology are also promising faster, more effi-
cient and lower-cost services—some using
slickline. Other applications will see per-
manent downhole sensors used for produc-
tion monitoring. 15 These devices are
rapidly becoming more sophisticated, mea-
suring properties other than temperature
and pressure—such as hydrocarbons and
phase mixing.
The outlook for production logging is cer-
tainly brighter now that it has been at any
time during the last decade. Operators can
look forward not only to a better under-
standing of their reservoirs, but also to use
of this knowledge for more effectively man- ■Computed 3D droplet-averaged simulations of two-phase flow showing the effects of
aging their assets. shear instabilities. Mapped projections of fluid holdup are shown for horizontal (top) and
—RH vertical (middle) lateral cross section of the borehole and at four positions cutting vertically
across a borehole (bottom). Oil (red) rises due to buoyancy forming an emulsified layer of
15. Baker A, Gaskell J, Jeffery J, Thomas A, Veneruso T, oil on the high side of the pipe. The lighter, upper layer flows at a higher velocity than does
and Unneland T: ”Permanent Monitoring—Looking the water (blue). This shear flow becomes unstable and an instability occurs that causes
at Lifetime Reservoir Dynamics,” Oilfield Review 7, the emulsion of oil to disperse in the water: large eddies mix the two phases up. Then the
no. 4 (Winter 1995): 32-46. process repeats farther up the pipe. Such fluid simulations help scientists test fluid-flow
models under many conditions and design better methods to measure their properties.

Technology Forum

In conjunction with the Schlumberger ClientLink initiative,

Oilfield Review announces its first online technology discussion.

The Production Logging Web-Forum

is an interactive site for comments on this article, inquiries about technology, or open
discussions concerning production logging tools, interpretation and applications.

To access this forum, point your browser to the following URL:

www.connect.slb.com/forums/pl/

If you have problems making the connection, please E-mail:

skipton@slb.com

60 Oilfield Review