The Essentials of Fiber-Optic

Distributed Temperature Analysis
Links are provided on each page to ease
navigation. This PDF may also be browsed
normally.
From the Contents pages, any of the listed
items may be accessed by clicking either
the entry or page number. This eBook is
also bookmarked and thumbnailed.
Click here for the table of contents.
For help using Adobe Acrobat Reader,
press the F1 key or click here to access
Adobe Acrobat online help.

For optimal viewing of this document,

it is recommended that you install
the latest version of Acrobat Reader
software. Click the icon to download
the appropriate version:

*Mark of Schlumberger © 2016 Schlumberger. All rights reserved.

Other company, product, and service names are the properties of their respective owners.

Contents | Search | Next

The Essentials of Fiber-Optic
Distributed Temperature
Analysis

Second Edition
George Brown

Previous | Main Menu | Contents | Search | Next

Schlumberger
4646 West Sam Houston Parkway North
Houston, Texas 77041
slb.com
Produced by Schlumberger Digital Marketing
Copyright © 2016 Schlumberger. All rights reserved.
Second edition.
No part of this book may be reproduced, stored
in a retrieval system, or transcribed in any
form or by any means, electronic or mechanical,
including photocopying and recording, without
the prior written permission of the publisher.
While the information presented herein is
believed to be accurate, it is provided “as is”
without express or implied warranty.
16-CO-105857
ISBN-13: 978-1-937949-13-6 (print)
ISBN-13: 978-1-937949-14-3 (e-book)
An asterisk (*) is used throughout this document to denote a mark of Schlumberger.
Other company, product, and service names are the properties of their respective owners.

Previous | Main Menu | Contents | Search | Next

 Contents

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v
Fiber-Optic Distributed Temperature Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Single-ended versus double-ended temperature measurements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Thermal resolution and statistics reduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Fiber-Optic Deployment Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Permanently installed with the completion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Slickline deployment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Coiled tubing deployment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Oil Well Thermal Basics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Geothermal gradient . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Joule-Thomson effect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Flow up the well . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Single-Phase Geothermal Flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Multizone geothermal reservoirs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Example: Quicklook interpretation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
THERMA* Thermal Modeling and Analysis DTS Software . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Thermal transient model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
PIPESIM* steady-state multiphase flow simulator model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Coupling the thermal transient and wellbore flow models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Discretization and solution of the finite-difference equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Automatic optimization of parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
DTS data loading and manipulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Multizone Analysis Using Thermal Modeling Software . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Example: Multizone flow analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Reservoir depletion in a multizone reservoir . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Example: Reservoir depletion in a multizone reservoir . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Effect of Fiber Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Example: Reservoir depletion identified by a fiber located on the outside
of sand screens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Multiphase Flow in Multizone Reservoirs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Water breakthrough . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Increasing oil GOR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Example: Increasing GOR on a horizontal ICD and sand screen completion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Gas Wells . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Low-rate gas wells . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Example: Low-rate multizone gas well . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
High-rate gas wells . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

The Essentials of Fiber-Optic Distributed Temperature Analysis iii

Previous | Main Menu | Search | Next

 Velocity string gas wells . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Horizontal Wells . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Wellbore Joule-Thomson effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Reservoir Joule-Thomson effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Example: Horizontal oil well with Joule‑Thomson reservoir flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Hydraulically stage-fractured horizontal shale wells . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Water Injectors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Warmback analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Example: Horizontal hot water injector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Hot and cold interface velocity measurements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Example: Hot and cold interface velocity in a horizontal injector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Multiple thin permeable zones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Water Flow Between Wells . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Example: Cold water breakthrough . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Steamflood and SAGD Well Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Steam monitor wells . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Single huff ‘n’ puff steam wells . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
SAGD bitumen-producing wells . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Acid Stimulation Optimization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Example: Acid stimulation warmback  responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
Gas Lift Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
Example: Unstable gas lift flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
Leak Detection Using Temperature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
Example: Leaks in a casing identified by injection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
Example: Leaks in tubing identified by gas lift . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
Example: Flow behind casing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
Other Oilfield DTS Monitoring Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
Vacuum-insulated tubing monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
Fracture detection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
Cement-top detection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

iv

Previous | Main Menu | Search | Next

 Introduction

Temperature logs have been used to monitor producing wells since the early 1930s (Doll and
Perebinossoff, 1936) and a considerable number of papers have been dedicated to the measurement
and its analysis over the years. The data they generate has been used to calculate the flow
contribution in both oil and gas wells and also to evaluate water injection profiles, determine the
effectiveness of fracture jobs, and identify cement tops, crossflow between zones, flow outside the
casing, and other flow and wellbore-related events.
Normally analysis of the temperature log is viewed as secondary to that of the spinner flowmeter,
which gives flow velocity directly, and temperature is conventionally used only as an indicator of
gas influx with the production logging tool (PLT). The main disadvantage of the PLT temperature
log is that only one thermal profile is obtained at the time the PLT is run, and this makes analysis
difficult on a stand-alone basis.
However, the Schlumberger fiber-optic distributed temperature sensing (DTS) system can
generate many temperature logs (from every two seconds upward) over the life of the well either
preinstalled with the completion or temporarily deployed on slickline or coiled tubing. This
enables well productivity to be evaluated without the need for other log data. In addition, the
system identifies the source of a change in well performance when it occurs, rather than having
to wait for a production log to be run.
In recent years, the cost of PLT logs has increased considerably because many wells are now
drilled horizontally through the reservoir and the PLT tools must be conveyed on coiled tubing or
by well tractors, and in some cases (subsea wells) even this may not be possible. Consequently,
alternative technologies become viable if they can be installed in wells at reasonable cost
and the data generated can be interpreted to give flow and other production information. The
Schlumberger DTS system is just such a technology.
This book, now in its second edition, outlines the current state of the art of distributed time- and
depth-based temperature analysis for use with the Schlumberger DTS system.

George Brown
Schlumberger Advisor
2016

The Essentials of Fiber-Optic Distributed Temperature Analysis v

Previous | Main Menu | Contents | Search | Next

 Fiber-Optic Distributed
Temperature Measurement

Distributed temperature sensing (DTS) is a fiber-optic The algorithm employed to calculate temperature
distributed temperature measurement that uses an from the Stokes (NTS) and anti-Stokes (TTS) Raman
industrial laser to launch 10-ns bursts of light down bands is
an optical fiber. During the passage of each packet of
light, a small amount is backscattered from molecules
in the fiber. This backscattered light can be analyzed
1 1 ln [(TTS/NTS)x /( TTS/NTS)c] ,
= − (1)
to measure the temperature along the fiber (Al-Asimi Tcal Tref SLE
et al., 2002). Because the speed of light is constant, a
spectrum of the backscattered light can be generated where
for each meter of the fiber using time sampling, thus Tcal = calculated temperature (K)
allowing a continuous log of spectra along the fiber to be Tref = reference temperature (K)
generated (Fig. 1). SLE = temperature sensitivity
A physical property of each spectrum of the back-
scattered light is that the ratio of the Stokes Raman to (TTS/NTS)x = anti-Stokes/Stokes ratio at the point of
the anti-Stokes Raman bands is directly proportional interest along the fiber
to the temperature of the length of fiber from which it (TTS/NTS)c = anti-Stokes/Stokes ratio in the reference
is generated. Consequently, temperature can be calcu- coil.
lated every meter along the whole length of the fiber Temperature trace acquisition times can be varied from
using only the laser source, analyzer, and a reference as few as two seconds to several hours, and this frequently
temperature in the surface system; there is no need for determines the accuracy and resolution of the measured
any calibration points along the fiber or to calibrate the temperature log. Typically, a resolution of 0.05 degC is
fiber before installation. required for reservoir surveillance.

DTS box Fiber in well

Reference
coil (Tref)
Laser

Brillouin Incident Rayleigh light

Anti-Stokes Stokes
Raman Raman
band band
Analyzer

Wavelength

Figure 1. Distributed temperature sensing (DTS) measurement.

The Essentials of Fiber-Optic Distributed Temperature Analysis 1

Previous | Main Menu | Contents | Search | Next

 Figure 2 shows NTS and TTS data acquired from both
ends of a 29,000-ft fiber installed in a 14,000-ft well in
a double-ended configuration. The counts decrease
exponentially with depth and there is a noticeable effect
of light loss at the wellhead connections. The bottom of
the well where the fiber turnaround sub is situated is at
14,600 ft.
Usually a measurement interval of 1.0165 m is used,
which allows the measurement of up to 12 km of fiber,
although the data is normally sampled at 0.5-m intervals.
Fibers as long as 30 km can be used but require longer
measurement intervals of up to 10 m.
Single-ended versus double-ended
temperature measurements
A differential-light-loss-compensated temperature
measurement (double-ended) is calculated by sending
pulses of light down the fiber from one end and then
from the other to obtain NTS and TTS traces for
both sets of measurements (Fig. 2). Schlumberger DTS
software then uses those measurements to produce a
temperature trace that is automatically corrected for the
differential light losses that can occur.
In a single-ended temperature measurement, the
differential light loss must also be corrected for; this is
achieved by using a differential loss correction (DLC)
factor that assumes the differential light loss is constant
along the fiber. However, this is not always true as a
result of variations in the manufacture and purity of the
fiber and bends in the control line.
30,000
Wellhead
25,000
TTS 1
20,000
Counts 15,000
10,000
NTS 1
5,000
0
0 5,000
Figure 2. NTS and TTS data along a 29,000-ft fiber.
Previous | Main Menu | Contents | Search | Next
The differential-light-loss-compensated measurement
(double-ended) has several advantages:
■■ The absolute accuracy of a double-ended measure-
ment can be specified whereas the single-ended mea-
surement cannot be specified owing to uncertainties
in the light-loss correction.
■■ Nonuniform light loss can result in apparent thermal
anomalies that could be misinterpreted as flow or
other well events.
■■ Single-ended temperatures may change over time as
the loss characteristic of the fiber changes (e.g., new
connections, reconnected fibers, different DTS, fiber
deterioration).
■■ The fiber can easily be pumped out with a double-ended
control line installation and replaced, if necessary.
For the same acquisition time, a double-ended
measurement has slightly poorer thermal resolution
because of the requirement to make measurements from
both ends of the fiber and the increased computation
time. However, the same thermal resolution can easily
be achieved by increasing the acquisition time.
In wells where thermal changes are small and it is
important to be able to track these changes over time
(e.g., producing oil wells), the compensated (double-
ended) technique is preferred. However, in wells where
the thermal changes are large (e.g., steamflood wells)
or absolute accuracy is not essential, the single-ended
installation is appropriate and more cost effective.
Wellhead
TTS 2
Bottom of well
NTS 2
10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000
Fiber length, ft
 Figure 3 shows a comparison between a single-ended Thermal resolution and statistics reduction
measurement (installed in a J configuration with fiber
The DTS temperature measurement is by its very nature
running partially back up the well beyond the turn-
a statistical one, so the longer the acquisition time the
around sub) and a differential-light-loss-compensated
better the thermal resolution of the measurement. DTS
(double-ended) measurement in a 14,000-ft-deep oil
calibration data in Fig. 4 shows that the rms thermal
well. The value of the single-ended measurement’s DLC
resolution is also dependent on whether the fiber is
value has been adjusted until the temperature from
installed single- or double-ended (i.e., looped back so the
10,000  ft down to the turnaround sub and below the
laser can pulse light alternately from either end).
turnaround sub is same, so that both measurements
The data (red dots) is for a WellWatcher Ultra* DTS
are symmetrical around the turnaround sub. The abso-
acquisition system with a 1-m measurement length and
lute difference between the single- and double-ended
shows that 0.05-degC resolution can be achieved with a
measurements, the loss-induced shift at 10,500  ft, and
10-minute measurement time on a 4-km-deep well with
the change of slope below this depth are a result of
a double-ended installation (8-km fiber total length).
inadequate differential-light-loss correction on the sin-
gle-ended measurement.

180
Double-ended (loss corrected)
Single-ended (constant DLC)

170

178
Temperature, 160 Loss-induced Loss-induced
degF 176
shift slope change

174
150
172 Absolute
error
170
8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000
140
0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000
Depth, ft

Figure 3. Comparison of single-ended and differential-light-loss-corrected (double-ended) measurements’ thermal resolution and statistic reduction.

100
4-km DTS ASE
4-km DTS Ultra SE
8-km DTS Ultra DE

10

Acquisition time,
min
1

0.1
0.01 0.1 1
Root-mean-square resolution, degC

Figure 4. DTS calibration acquisition time versus rms thermal resolution (DE = double-ended, SE = single-ended).

The Essentials of Fiber-Optic Distributed Temperature Analysis ■ Fiber-Optic Distributed Temperature Measurement 3

Previous | Main Menu | Contents | Search | Next

 Data from the WellWatcher Ultra ASE* accurate
single-ended DTS acquisition system is also shown on
Fig. 4. This technology has been specially developed
for steam-assisted gravity drainage (SAGD) applications
where very high temperatures can accelerate the
fiber deterioration and only single-ended installation
is possible. The system uses two lasers running at
slightly different wavelengths to compensate for light
losses. The specifications of the WellWatcher Ultra and
WellWatcher Ultra ASE systems are listed in Table  1.
The WellWatcher Ultra ASE system is limited in range,
has lower accuracy, and takes much longer to achieve
a particular resolution than the WellWatcher Ultra
system.
Also shown in Table 1 are the specifications for the
WellWatcher Hyperion* portable DTS acquisition system.
This small, portable single-well system is installed in
hostile environments and does not require an air-condi-
tioned enclosure.
Acquisition time for the DTS traces depends on the
particular application. The WellWatcher Ultra system
can output two DTS traces at the same time: fast
integrated (INT) traces from every 2 to 60 seconds and
slow integrated and dump-filtered (IDF) traces from
1 minute to several hours. IDF traces are the average of
the INT traces over the IDF time period.
For permanent installations recording over a period
of months or years, an IDF trace every 1 to 2 hours is
usually sufficient. Acquiring data too often (e.g., every
10  minutes in a producing well) increases the chance
to observe any short-term thermal events but results in
a very large database that can become too big for the
analyst to handle.
For temporary deployments where recording is only
for a few hours using slickline or coiled tubing (CT), an
IDF trace every minute is normal.
If longer acquisition times are required for a partic-
ular purpose, the data can easily be postprocessed by
applying either a depth, time, or box (depth and time)
moving average to achieve the required resolution for
Table 1. WellWatcher Ultra, WellWatcher Ultra ASE, and WellWatcher Hyperion System Specifications
DTS System Application Range, Spatial
mi [km] Resolution,
ft [m]
WellWatcher Ultra General oilfield 7.5 [12] 3.28 [1]
WellWatcher Ultra ASE SAGD 3.7 [6] 3.28 [1]
WellWatcher Hyperion Remote wells 2.5 [4] 3.94 [1.2]
Previous | Main Menu | Contents | Search | Next
analysis. A good rule of thumb is to set up the acquisition
box to acquire DTS traces at a faster sampling rate than
is required and average them later to achieve the reso-
lution needed for analysis, because it is not possible to
obtain fast acquisition traces from ones that have been
acquired slowly.
There are some cases where very fast data acquisition
is required (e.g., injection front velocity tracking) and
the INT data should be used for this purpose.
Irrespective of the acquisition time, it is possible to
improve the thermal resolution of the data by applying
depth, time, or box (depth and time) averaging to the
data using points above and below or before and after
the measure point. However, this reduces the vertical or
time-based resolution of the dataset.
If temperature is known to be constant at a particular
depth over time (e.g., below the reservoir), the data can
be normalized to that temperature by block shifting each
trace until it matches the average over the normalization
interval below the reservoir. If a pressure gauge is avail-
able, the normalizing can be done at the gauge depth
using the pressure gauge temperature measurement,
which does not have to remain constant. Both methods
remove statistical temporal noise from the data.
Figure 5 is the reservoir section of a horizontal well
producing oil with cold water from the toe where the
electric submersible pump (ESP) is shut in halfway
through the data acquisition. The raw data is plotted
in 3D and is clearly noisy in both depth and time, so it
is difficult to see what is happening along the reservoir
when the ESP is stopped.
Figure 6 shows the improvement to the dataset by
applying an 11-level depth average (which reduces
depth-based noise) and normalizing the data using the
temperatures below the reservoir (below the plot) where
the temperature does not change over time. Now it is
possible to see that when the ESP is shut in, the well
immediately starts to crossflow from the heel down into
a zone at X+4,000 ft while the reservoir below is warming
back normally toward the geothermal gradient.
Accuracy, Rms Thermal Resolution
degF [degC]
±1.8 [±1] 6.2-mi fiber = 0.72 degF with 12-s acquisition time
[10-km fiber = 0.4 degC with 12-s acquisition time]
±7.2 [±4] 3.7-mi fiber = 0.54 degF with 10-min acquisition time
[6-km fiber = 0.3 degC with 10-min acquisition time]
±5.4 [±3] 2.5-mi fiber = 0.18 degF with 10-min acquisition time
[4-km fiber = 0.1 degC with 10-min acquisition time]
 ESP
Temperature,
degF
157.2–159.2
155.2–159.2
150 153.3–159.2
Temperature, 151.3–153.3
149.3–151.3
degF 140 147.3–149.3
145.4–147.3
130 May 3 143.4–145.4
141.4–143.4
May 2 139.5–141.4
X 137.5–139.5
May 1
X+1,000 135.5–137.5
X+2,000 April 30 133.6–135.5
131.6–133.6
X+3,000 Time 129.6–131.6
Depth, ft X+4,000 April 29
X+5,000
April 28
Figure 5. Raw DTS data over a reservoir interval.

ESP Crossflow on shut-in

Temperature,
degF
155.8–157.7
154.0–155.8
150 152.1–154.0
Temperature, 150.2–152.1
148.4–150.2
degF 140 146.5–148.4
144.7–146.5
130 May 3 142.8–144.7
140.9–142.8
May 2 139.1–140.9
X 137.2–139.1
May 1
X+1,000 135.4–137.2
X+2,000 April 30 133.5–135.4
131.7–133.5
X+3,000 Time 129.8–131.7
Depth, ft X+4,000 April 29
X+5,000
April 28
Figure 6. Depth-averaged and toe-normalized dataset.

The Essentials of Fiber-Optic Distributed Temperature Analysis ■ Fiber-Optic Distributed Temperature Measurement 5

Previous | Main Menu | Contents | Search | Next

 Fiber-Optic Deployment Options

Permanently installed with the completion reduce the possibility of hydrogen in the water causing
the fiber to deteriorate.
Figure 7 shows three options for installing optical fiber
Optical fiber can also be installed in an electrical
permanently with the completion in an oil well. With the
pressure gauge cable using the WellWatcher Neon* DTS,
single- and double-ended pumped system, a ¼-in-diam-
distributed acoustic sensing (DAS), and pressure and
eter control line is first installed with the completion
temperature (PT) gauge system (Fig. 8). The fiber does
and then the fiber is pumped into the control line using
not have to stop at the gauge; an electrical connection
water. A hydraulic control line wet-mate connection can
to the gauge can be split off the cable and the fiber
be used to enable running the completion in two stages.
continued down over the reservoir, if required.
Once in place, the water is backfilled with silicone to

Electric
cable

Hydraulic
control line Gauge
wet-mate
Check valve
Turnaround
sub
Single-ended pumped Double-ended pumped Electric cable
Figure 7. Completion permanently installed fiber options.

0.43-in × 0.43-in [11-mm × 11-mm]

polymeric encapsulation

1/4-in [6.35-mm] cable armor

Polymeric jacket

Binding tape Fiber metal tube

Filler rod

Conductor insulation
Optical fiber
18 AWG stranded conductor

Filler rod

Figure 8. WellWatcher Neon system cable with optical fibers.

The Essentials of Fiber-Optic Distributed Temperature Analysis 7

Previous | Main Menu | Contents | Search | Next

Slickline deployment
The OPTICall* thermal profile and investigation service
on slickline fiber-optic cable (Fig. 9) can be deployed in
the well in the same manner as a conventional slickline
cable, but the weight restriction means that it cannot be
used for jarring operations. However, the cable is strong
enough to carry a production log or a pressure gauge
if required.
Coiled tubing deployment
In horizontal wells, optical fiber can be deployed
as part of ACTive* real-time downhole CT services
(Fig. 10). Four fibers are installed in a 0.071-in-diam-
eter tube located inside the CT. This does not restrict
pumping operations, and two of the fibers can be used
for acquiring DTS data (either single- or double-ended)
while the other two communicate with other sensors
located at the end of the coil.

OD, in
Max. temperature, degF
Weight in air, lbm
Weight in water, lbm
0.125
INCOLOY® 825-clad Carbon fiber composite
strength member strength member
240
32 (per 1,000 ft) SS316 optical-fiber
27 (per 1,000 ft) tube protection

Safe working load, lbf 1,000

Max. cable length, ft 24,000
Max. pressure, psi 10,000 Acrylate-coated,
240-degF rated,
Corrosion H2S resistant 50/125 multimode fiber
Nylon-jacket
composite protection
Figure 9. OPTICall service slickline cable with optical fiber.

Figure 10. ACTive services deployment with optical fiber.

Previous | Main Menu | Contents | Search | Next

 Oil Well Thermal Basics

The key to understanding temperature logs in oil and gas
wells is knowing how the fluids flowing in the well gain
or lose heat due to the external effect of the geothermal
gradient and the internal Joule-Thomson fluid effect.
The combination of these effects creates a characteristic
time-dependent thermal profile that can be recorded
using the Schlumberger DTS system and analyzed to give
the flow in the wellbore.
Geothermal gradient
The center of the Earth is very hot whereas out in space
it is very cold. Through conduction, the Earth is con-
stantly losing heat through its crust (Fig. 11). Because
the Earth’s crust is made up of layers of rock with slightly
different geological, petrophysical, and thermal proper-
ties, the actual geothermal gradient is not necessarily a
straight line.
Accurate definition of the geothermal gradient is
essential for calculation of the heat loss as fluids travel
up the wellbore from the reservoir and heat is lost to
cooler surroundings.
While a well is being drilled, injection or circulation
of fluids changes the temperature of the near-wellbore
region, and sufficient time must be allowed for these
transient effects to dissipate before the real geothermal
gradient can be identified. This may take days or even
weeks to fully dissipate, so knowledge of the near-time
well history is important for defining the geothermal
gradient.
If the well has been producing or injecting for some
time (i.e., weeks or months), it can take a similar time
to return to the true geothermal gradient when it is shut
in. If there is no preproduction geothermal gradient
defined, this can be extrapolated in the nonreservoir
intervals by using a Horner time function at selected
depths during a short shut-in, in the same fashion that
a pressure gauge can be used to determine the reservoir
shut-in pressure.
Typical geothermal gradients vary from 0.6 to
1.6  degF/100 ft [1.0 to 3.0 degC/100 m] with a typical
average value of 1.0 degF/100 ft [2.0 degC/100 m] (Figs.
A-1 and A-2 in the Appendix).

Very cold
0 degC
Layers of rock with different thermal properties
Space
Geothermal
gradient
Surface

Earth

Geothermal
gradient

Very hot Temperature Temperature

Figure 11. The geothermal gradient.

The Essentials of Fiber-Optic Distributed Temperature Analysis 9

Previous | Main Menu | Contents | Search | Next

Joule-Thomson effect What this effect means in an oil well is that as liquid
or gas flows in the reservoir toward the well, due to the
The Joule-Thomson effect is defined as the change in
pressure drop at the wellbore, the liquid or gas is either
temperature of a fluid upon expansion in a steady-flow
heated or cooled, as defined by its Joule-Thomson coef-
process involving no heat transfer or work at constant
ficient. Also, as liquid or gas flows up the wellbore, the
enthalpy. This occurs in “throttling”-type processes such
friction pressure drop there causes heating or cooling
as adiabatic flow through a porous plug or an expansion
to take place. In general, a pressure drop causes oil and
valve and was published by Joule and Thomson (1853).
water to heat whereas larger Joule-Thomson cooling
It also occurs in both flow into the wellbore and flow
can take place with gas. However, in the case of gas, the
up the wellbore where a drop in pressure occurs. Joule-
Joule-Thomson effect is also pressure dependent, and
Thomson heating of a fluid is referred to as “friction
the effect decreases as well pressure increases. At about
heating” because it is due to the viscous dissipation of
5,000  psi, the Joule-Thomson effect is negligible, and
pressure in flow through porous media.
above this value (depending on the specific properties
The temperature change per unit pressure change
of the gas), the gas heats rather than cools.
at constant enthalpy is defined by the Joule-Thomson
Figure 12 shows a calculation of the thermal response
coefficient μJT:
of the Joule-Thomson effect of oil flowing radially from
a reservoir into a wellbore. The largest warming takes
μ JT = (dT/ dP) = (β t T 1)/(ρ c) , (2) place immediately around the wellbore, which is where
H
the largest pressure drop occurs.
where
T = temperature
P = pressure
H = enthalpy
βt = coefficient of thermal expansion
ρ = fluid density
c = specific heat capacity.

Steady-State Conditions (Assumes Radial Flow)

Reservoir pressure, psi 3,000 152 3,050
Reservoir temperature, degF 150
Flow rate, bbl/d 1,000
151 Pressure 3,000
Formation volume factor (Bo) 1.4
Fluid viscosity, cP 4.67
Joule-Thomson coefficient, degF/psi –0.0075 Temperature, 150 Pressure,
2,950
Formation permeability, mD 500 degF Temperature psi
Formation thickness, ft 100
Well diameter, in 7 149 2,900
Reservoir radius, ft 1,000
Joule-Thomson coefficients
Oil –0.0075 148 2,850
Water –0.003 0 200 400 600 800 1,000
Pressure decrease, psi 150.34 Radial distance, ft
Temperature increase, degF 1.13

Figure 12. Joule-Thomson calculator and effect in the reservoir.

10

Previous | Main Menu | Contents | Search | Next

Flow up the well The change in fluid and gas volumes as they travel
up the well means that the fluid and gas velocities also
When oil flows up the well, pressure decreases and gas
change.
comes out of solution once pressure has dropped below
Thus, as oil flows up a well at a constant rate, its prop-
the bubblepoint (Fig. 13). This reduces the flowing
erties and velocity change with depth as gas comes out of
volume of oil as it is produced up the well by the oil
solution and the oil “shrinks.” Heat carried up the well by
formation factor Bo:
the fluid is lost to the surrounding formation through the
v olume of oil (including dissolved gas at downhole conditions) . completion hardware and cement by conduction.
Bo =
volume of oil at 60 degF and 14.7 psi The recorded temperature curve is a result of all of
(3) these effects, which are also time dependent.
Bo has a typical value between 1.2 and 1.4 depending Although this is a complex process, the algorithms
on the gas/oil ratio (GOR). defining it are well understood and can be derived from
The amount of gas produced at the surface depends conventional equations of heat transfer. However, to fully
on the gas formation volume factor Bg which is defined solve the equations mathematically, a nodal analysis
as solution is required to calculate the pressure drop up the
v olume of gas at downhole temperature and pressure . well tubing based on the fluid properties under flowing
Bg = conditions and then calculate the transient temperature
volume of gas at 60 degF and 14.7 psi (4)
distribution depending on how long the well has been
flowing and the conduction of heat into the surrounding
rock.

Gas
Water As oil and water flow
to the surface, the oil
Oil
volume shrinks (Bo)
and gas comes out
of the solution below
the bubblepoint
Bubblepoint pressure Pb.
pressure Pb
This change in volume
and fluid properties
must be accounted for
in thermal modeling.
Water
Oil

Figure 13. Upward flow of oil and gas.

The Essentials of Fiber-Optic Distributed Temperature Analysis ■ Oil Well Thermal Basics 11

Previous | Main Menu | Contents | Search | Next

 Single-Phase Geothermal Flow

Ramey (1961) proposed an approximate solution to

the steady-state wellbore heat transmission problem of (
f ( t ) = ln rce / 2( t )1/2 ) 0.290 (5)
the injection of hot or cold noncompressible fluid due A = 1.66 Q f Cf f ( t ) (6)
to steady radial conduction to the surrounding Earth. z/ A
The solution allowed the calculation of the steady-state T ( z,t ) = Tge gG z + gG A + ( gG A) e , (7)
temperatures by depth and time.
where
This was adapted for use in producing wells by Curtis
and Witterholt (1973) of Schlumberger, although the rce = casing radius (ft)
solution was still only for single-phase noncompressible = formation thermal diffusivity (ft2/d)
flow (i.e., not live oil) and did not account for the change t = time (d)
in fluid thermal properties as the fluids or gas flows up
A = relaxation distance (ft)
the well (Fig. 14).
According to the Curtis-Witterholt equations, the Q = flow rate (bbl/d)
fluid temperature at any point T(z,t) at a height z above f = fluid density (g/cm3)
the producing reservoir (geothermal temperature Tge ) Cf = fluid-specific heat (Btu/lbm in degF)
at any time t after the commencement of production is
given by the following: gG = geothermal gradient (degF/100 ft).

Geothermal gradient
1,000

Temperature profile T (z,t)

Tgz
2,000

Depth,
ft 3,000
z

4,000

5,000 Reservoir
Tge
50 75 100 125 150
Temperature, degF

Figure 14. Temperature response for upward single-phase flow. Tgz = geothermal temperature at height z above the producing reservoir.

The Essentials of Fiber-Optic Distributed Temperature Analysis 13

Previous | Main Menu | Contents | Search | Next

The equations show that for a given flow rate, the
observed temperature profile forms an asymptote to a
line parallel to the geothermal gradient that increases
exponentially with time.
In temperature log analysis, it is important to know
the flowing history of the well and understand that any
changes in flow rate result in a time-dependent change
in the temperature trace. The well warms up rapidly in
the first few days of production and changes increasingly
0
slowly thereafter. Figure 15 shows the effect of changing
flow rate on the steady-state producing temperature log.
Figure 16 shows the effect of time on the temperature
log as the well heats up and achieves thermal equilib-
rium at a constant flow rate of 1,000 bbl/d. The largest
time-dependent effects are near the surface while at the
reservoir depth these can be very small.

250 bbl/d 500 bbl/d

1,000

Ge 1,000 bbl/d
ot
2,000 he
rm
al
gr ad
Depth, ie n
ft 3,000 t

4,000

5,000
Reservoir
50 75 100 125 150
Temperature, degF

Figure 15. The effect of changing flow rate on the temperature log.

0
0.5 day 500 days
1,000

Ge 5 days 50 days
ot
2,000 he
rm
al
gr ad
Depth, ie n
ft 3,000 t

4,000

5,000
Reservoir
50 75 100 125 150
Temperature, degF

Figure 16. The effect of time at constant flow rate on the temperature log.

14

Previous | Main Menu | Contents | Search | Next

Multizone geothermal reservoirs Temperature decrease at the confluence of the two
fluid streams, compared with the difference between
In scenarios where there are two or more producing
the lower reservoir’s flowing temperature and the geo-
reservoirs and the reservoir Joule-Thomson effects are
thermal temperature at the mixing point, reflects the
very small, the flow of oil from the upper reservoir enters
percentage of flow between the lower reservoir and total
the well at its geothermal temperature, which is lower
fluid production.
than that of the deeper reservoir. The addition of this
This can be expressed by a simple quicklook equation:
colder oil to the flowing stream of oil from below causes
a decrease in the stream’s temperature at the mixing
point, allowing identification of the point of fluid entry. lower flow rate Tt Tg
The thermal response of the anomaly is a function of = ,
total flow rate Tl Tg (8)
the combined flow rate above the upper reservoir and
flow rate from the lower reservoir below the anomaly where
(Fig.  17). Thus, given the geothermal gradient and Tt = mixed-flow temperature
the measured temperature profile, the proportional Tg = geothermal temperature
contribution from two or more stacked flowing reservoirs Tl = lower-flow temperature.
can be calculated.

Flow rate, bbl/d

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000
0
Upper flow Lower flow

1,000
Total flow
Ge
oth
2,000 er m
al g
r adi
Depth, en t
ft 3,000
Flow rate
Tt Tl
Upper reservoir
4,000
Tg

5,000 Lower reservoir

50 75 100 125 150

Temperature, degF

Figure 17. Thermal response of multizone flow.

The Essentials of Fiber-Optic Distributed Temperature Analysis ■ Single-Phase Geothermal Flow 15

Previous | Main Menu | Contents | Search | Next

Example: Quicklook interpretation Thus, from Equation 8:
Figure 18 shows the thermal response of the flow from Tt Tg
two reservoirs at depths of 4,000 ft and 5,000 ft calcu- lower flow rate = total flow rate
Tl Tg
lated using a thermal model for which the flow rates per
reservoir are 1,000 bbl/d and 2,000 bbl/d, respectively. 142.5 129.5
lower flow rate = 3,000
Using the red flowing temperature trace in Fig. 18 148.5 129.5
and taking approximate values from the plot together
lower flow rate = 2,052 bbl/d.
with the information that the well is flowing at a surface
rate of 3,000 bbl/d yields the temperature of the flow The accuracy is ±52 bbl/d (or ±3.0%), which is com-
immediately below the 4,000-ft reservoir Tl = 148.5 degF, parable to the accuracy of a PLT spinner log.
temperature of the mixed flow immediately above the This quick-look approach assumes no Joule‑Thomson
4,000-ft zone Tt = 142.5 degF, and geothermal tempera- warming or cooling occurs in the reservoir or up the
ture at the 4,000-ft reservoir = 129.5 degF. wellbore, which is often not the case.
Where a spinner log is available the calculated fluid
velocity from the spinner can be converted to flow rate
for a particular pipe OD and weight for comparison to
the temperature calculation using the data in Table A-1
in the Appendix.
0

1,000

Ge
2,000 oth
er m
al g
r adi
Depth, en t
ft 3,000

Tt
Upper reservoir Tl
4,000
Tg
Lower reservoir
5,000

50 75 100 125 150

Temperature, degF
Figure 18. Thermal model of multizone flow.

16

Previous | Main Menu | Contents | Search | Next

 THERMA*Thermal Modeling
and Analysis DTS Software

A limitation of the Ramey (Curtis and Whitterholt, 1973) relaxation times. Although, in some cases, such as gas- or
equations is that they are valid only for incompressible liquid-level equilibration upon shut-in, this assumption
fluids such as water or diesel, whereas in oil wells, the may be invalid, in general it is adequate for the vast
oil and gas are compressible and this must be taken into majority of cases involving production or injection flows
account to achieve accurate temperature calculations in in the reservoir zone.
the wellbore. In addition, the Ramey equations do not
allow for the effect of Joule-Thomson warming or cooling
of oil or gas flowing from the reservoir, which must also Thermal transient model
be accounted for in any solution.
A 2D radial grid is created to represent the completion
Ideally, any thermal model should account for the
and formation elements. All elements in the model must
transient nature of the temperature response while
satisfy a general energy balance. For all static (i.e., not
also accounting for the transient pressure response at
containing flowing fluids) elements, the basic energy
the same time. The OLGA* dynamic multiphase flow
balance equation relates the rate of change of tempera-
simulator can model fully both transient temperature
ture to the Laplacian of the temperature and thermal
and pressure flow from the reservoir. However, it is not
energy source terms. The application to fluid elements
suited for DTS analysis, which normally requires turn-
relates the thermal properties of a volume element to
around times similar to those of production log analysis.
the density and the thermal heat capacity at constant
To meet this need, Schlumberger developed THERMA*
pressure. In an isotropic medium, the conductivity is
thermal modeling and analysis DTS software, a dedi-
defined for a general element in a completion, and there
cated analysis engine that couples a finite-difference
can be different thermal transfer coefficients across
transient thermal model with the PIPESIM* steady-state
each element boundary.
multiphase flow simulator (Fig. 19). The model assumes
that the time taken to achieve steady-state pressure
flow can be neglected compared with typical thermal

Steady-State Nodal Pressure Transient Axisymmetric

and Flow Model Finite-Element Thermal Model

Surface flowing pressure

Radial heat
loss

Flow

Well flowing pressure

Reservoir pressure

Reservoir layer

Reservoir layer

Figure 19. THERMA software model components.

The Essentials of Fiber-Optic Distributed Temperature Analysis 17

Previous | Main Menu | Contents | Search | Next

 The THERMA software model extends the formation
model to multiple production and injection zones,
which, in addition to thermal conduction, include radial
fluid convection and the Joule-Thomson effect resulting
from radial pressure changes. The current model limits
flow of produced or injected fluids in the formation to
the radial dimension only.
PIPESIM*steady-state multiphase flow
simulator model
The general enthalpy thermal balance equation for 1D
flow in a pipe is valid for single- and multiphase flows. It
is solved as part of the PIPESIM simulator’s general mul-
tiphase flow solution. The PIPESIM simulator equations
are always solved in the direction of flow (e.g., up for
production and down for injection), rather than being
coupled to the iteration direction in the thermal model.
At the start of a model run, the boundary parameters for
the formation-to-well flow of fluids and the calculation
grid points are initialized. The PIPESIM simulator then
calculates the full-pressure-traverse output pressure,
flow rates of phases, and fluid properties at grid points
for the thermal transient calculation.
The reservoir zone model can accommodate horizon-
tal and vertical permeability, reservoir pressure, skin,
formation thermal properties, reservoir thickness, drain-
age radius, geothermal temperature, GOR, and water
cut. Additionally, either vertical (Darcy) or horizontal
(Joshi) options are available. Normally, a black oil model
is used; however, fully compositional and dry gas options
are also available. An example of the reservoir model
parameter input data for a well with seven producing
zones is shown in Table 2.
Coupling the thermal transient and
wellbore flow models
The general approach to couple the thermal transient
and wellbore flow models is to initialize a thermal tran-
sient model at a given initial flow condition and calculate
the thermal response, assuming the flow does not change
during the thermal step. In injection conditions, this
condition is easy to satisfy, with far greater accuracy
than the complete finite-difference model in either flow
or thermal response. In most production conditions, this
is also a good approximation because the pressure effects
on flow are normally one or two orders of magnitude
greater than the temperature effects associated with
the change in flow rates. This approximation is typically
referred to as “quasi-steady” flow.
During a time step, all variables are kept constant
with the exception of temperature. Flow is considered
steady so that acceleration effects (affecting mass
balance of fluids) are neglected. This formulation is also
exactly the same in reservoir simulation models and
could only be generalized by using a fully transient flow
code such as in the OLGA simulator. It is expected that
even fairly large velocity changes, such as due to gas lift,
are treated well by the quasi-steady assumption.

Table 2. THERMA Thermal Modeling and Analysis DTS Software Inputs

Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 Zone 5 Zone 6 Zone 7
Measured depth (MD) top, ft 3,325 3,361 3,399 3,415 3,434 3,446 3,485
MD bottom, ft 3,357 3,396 3,409 3,419 3,441 3,459 3,516
Color
Horizontal permeability, mD 623 623 623 229 229 229 613
Vertical permeability, mD 31.15 31.15 31.15 11.45 11.45 11.45 30.65
Reservoir pressure, psi 4,986 5,020 5,046 5,062 5,082 5,098 5,140
Formation type Sand Sand Sand Sand Sand Sand Sand
Skin 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Drainage radius, ft 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000
Reservoir thickness, ft 30 33 9.4 3.8 6.6 12.3 29.5
Model type Vertical Vertical Vertical Vertical Vertical Vertical Vertical
Geothermal temperature, degF 155.3 156.5 157.3 157.7 158.4 158.9 160.5
Oil type 30 API 30 API 30 API 31 API 32 API 33 API 34 API
GOR, ft3/bbl 870 870 870 870 870 870 870
Water cut, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

18

Previous | Main Menu | Contents | Search | Next

Discretization and solution of the finite-
difference equations
Physically, the ratio of well length or formation producing
interval to radial outer grid boundary is typically greater
than 100 to 1. The radial grid elements are set by the
inner and outer boundaries of completion elements up to
the outermost completion string, whereupon logarithmic
interpolation is used to add a further 10 formation
elements to the outer formation boundary (usually an
additional 50 ft). The axial or well length grids are set
to between 200 (coarse) and 800 (fine) elements along
the length of the well, with a finer grid in the reservoir
interval that typically employs at least 10 elements per
formation layer or a grid element every foot.
The PIPESIM simulator flow model is set up with
one-to-one correspondence between the thermal model
axial grids and PIPESIM simulator calculation nodes.
The flow model is solved by forward propagation of
pressure drop over each flowing grid element. When flow
rates are set as boundary conditions and the pressure
solution is iterated, the convergence criterion is typically
0.1 psi or better. Upon completion of the pressure or flow
solution in the PIPESIM simulator, the thermal-tran-
sient time step solution is started using successive
over-relaxation. The temperature convergence criterion
is typically 0.001  degC summed rms over the complete
grid, with a maximum allowable single-point residual of
0.01 degC. Upon completion of the thermal grid solution,
the temperature field is output and the next flow step
started until the flow- and time-step model is completed.
Automatic optimization of parameters
Where DTS temperature data is available, it is possible
to adjust a zone parameter (e.g., permeability) to fit
the thermal model to the measured data automatically.
This is achieved by employing a genetic algorithm that
can solve for one or two parameters by finding the most
suitable solution that gives the best least-squares fit
between the model and the measured DTS data. Thus
a fit of the thermal model to the measured data can be
achieved for multiple reservoir zones where the output
is the predicted flow profile along the reservoir interval.
Initially, when the well is flowing a single-phase
fluid (oil), the main unknown is reservoir permeability.
Reservoir pressure can be obtained from formation tests
and water cut is assumed to be negligible. Therefore,
the fit to the model is achieved by varying the layer’s
permeability using core or log permeability as the
starting point.
If a good estimate of reservoir permeability is also
available, it is possible to vary the near-wellbore skin to
achieve the fit between the model and the DTS data to
identify zones that have yet to be cleaned up.
The Essentials of Fiber-Optic Distributed Temperature Analysis
Previous | Main Menu | Contents | Search | Next
Assuming a well is still flowing a single-phase fluid,
zone contributions may change over time because the
layer pressures are changing. Using the permeability
obtained earlier, a match to later data can be achieved
by varying reservoir pressure, thus monitoring reservoir
layer pressures with respect to time and their effect on
well production.
If water breakthrough occurs and the DTS data
indicates which layers have flooded (by the change in
layer flow rate correlating with an independent surface
measurement of water cut), then it is possible to model
the scenario by changing the individual layer’s water
cut to an appropriate value to account for the relative
permeability effect. Ideally, relative permeability data is
available and can be used in THERMA software using the
pseudosteady-state option to change the layer permeabil-
ity as a function of water cut and run the model to achieve
fit to the measured DTS temperature data.
Water breakthrough thermal effects may be too
subtle to be observed by the temperature measurement
but still result in an associated change in layer flows.
Consequently, it is not possible to solve reliably for both
pressure and water cut at the same time because the
problem is then undetermined owing to an excessive
number of unknowns.
DTS data loading and manipulation
To compare the thermal model to measured tempera-
ture data, THERMA software can accept DTS data in a
variety of formats, correct it to well depths, and then
apply a range of other functions to help visualize and
understand the data. These functions include depth
and time averaging, application of DLC for single-ended
fibers, differentiation of the data and subtraction of the
first trace in a dataset from the other traces, normaliza-
tion of the dataset either to a fixed value at a given depth
or to an independent measurement of temperature over
time (such as from a pressure gauge), and application
of a simple equation to the data. It is also possible to
resample a large dataset to reduce its size.
In addition, there are other data analysis operations
available in the software that do not require the thermal
model. These include calculation of a geothermal gradi-
ent from the Horner equation using shut-in DTS data and
tracking the injection front velocity during a hot or cold
velocity transient event.
■ THERMA Thermal Modeling Software 19
 Multizone Analysis Using
Thermal Modeling Software

Limitations of the quicklook approach are that it does Table 3. Parameters to Create the THERMA Software Model in Fig. 20
not take into account the Joule-Thomson heating or Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3
cooling of the oil or gas exiting the formation or the MD top, ft 9,100 9,400 9,700
change in fluid properties due to pressure drop as the MD bottom, ft 9,200 9,500 9,800
oil or gas flows up the well and mixes with flow from the Color
higher zone. To achieve this requires a thermal model of Horizontal permeability, mD 200 200 200
the reservoir and wellbore that solves for convection and Vertical permeability, mD 20 20 20
conduction in the near-well reservoir under radial Darcy Reservoir pressure, psi 4,075 4,165 4,255
flow conditions (or, in a horizontal well, Joshi flow) and Formation type Sand Sand Sand
conduction between the wellbore and surrounding rock Skin 0 0 0
in the nonreservoir interval. Drainage radius, ft 1,000 1,000 1,000
Figure 20 shows the THERMA software results of a Reservoir thickness, ft 100 100 100
thermal model that simulates three producing zones, Model type Vertical Vertical Vertical
each with the same permeability and on the same Geothermal temperature, degF 199.75 204.08 208.39
oil-pressure gradient. The parameters used are listed in Oil type 30 API 30 API 30 API
Table 3. The Joule-Thomson inflow temperature (at the GOR, ft3/bbl 300 300 300
sandface) is shown by the thin, dark green trace, and the
Water cut, % 0 0 0
axial mixture temperature (at the center of the well) is
shown by the red trace.
The model highlights the effect of the Joule-Thomson
inflow temperature on the overall axial flowing tempera-
ture, measured with a production log or fiber located at
the center of the wellbore.

Flow rate, bbl/d

0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000
8,500
Ge
oth
er m

Model Base model

al

flow rate temperature

g
r ad

9,000
ie n
t

Depth, ft

9,500
Joule-Thomson
inflow temperature

10,000
180.0 190.0 200.0 210.0 220.0
Temperature, degF
Figure 20. Thermal model of multizone flow.

The Essentials of Fiber-Optic Distributed Temperature Analysis 21

Previous | Main Menu | Contents | Search | Next

Example: Multizone flow analysis of the flow profile can be obtained (brown trace). In
this particular well, the reservoir drawdown is small so
Figure 21 shows the thermal model of a multizone
the Joule-Thomson inflow temperature of the oil is only
reservoir where the measured temperature is shown
slightly higher than the geothermal temperature (the
by the black trace and the thermal model temperature
thin, dark green trace is the Joule-Thomson average
(red line) is fitted to it by modifying the zone’s perme-
temperature per zone).
ability from the log-calculated values (Brown, 2006).
Figure 22 shows a comparison between the model’s
The pressure gradient is known from formation tester
predicted flow profile calculated using THERMA software
measurements and only single-phase oil is flowing.
and input from the temperature trace and spinner log
The geothermal data appears to bend at 9,200 ft. This
response. The comparison is very good.
is because the well deviation increases at this point to
85°. By fitting the model to the measured data, an output

Flow rate, bbl/d

X0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000
Gamma ray
Model temperature
X+400
Model
X+800 geothermal
gradient
X+1,200 Flowing temperature
Depth, ft
Model flow rate
X+1,600

X+2,000
Joule-Thomson inflow temperature
X+2,400
148 152 156 160 164 168
Temperature, degF

0 100 200 300 400 500

Gamma ray, gAPI

Figure 21. Thermal model of multizone well.

Flow rate, bbl/d

X0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000
Gamma ray Model temperature
X+400
Model
X+800 geothermal
gradient
X+1,200 PLT spinner rate Flowing temperature
Depth, ft

X+1,600 Model flow rate

X+2,000
Joule-Thomson inflow temperature
X+2,400
148 152 156 160 164 168
Temperature, degF

0 100 200 300 400 500

Gamma ray, gAPI

Figure 22. Thermal model of multizone well compared with PLT spinner data.

22

Previous | Main Menu | Contents | Search | Next

 As long as the reservoir pressures are understood, Reservoir depletion in a multizone reservoir
fluid properties of each zone are constant, and the
Sometime after production commences, it is likely that
surface rate is known, thermal modeling can be used
the first change in response is due to depletion of one
with assurance to convert flowing temperature traces
or more of the reservoir zones. Figure 23 compares the
into a flow profile by making small adjustments in the
thermal model response of the depleted reservoir zone
zone permeability from an initial point defined by the
in the middle with the original flowing response. With
log or core data.
depletion, the drawdown and thus the Joule-Thomson
It follows that if the DTS system is permanently
inflow temperature are reduced, but because the flow
installed in a new well where the reservoir properties
rate is also reduced due to the lower reservoir pressure,
are well understood and the permeability calibration has
the temperature at the depleted zone increases.
been conducted, any changes in the temperature profile
over time must be due to changes in reservoir zone
pressure (by depletion) and gas or water breakthrough.
Continuous monitoring enables identification of these Example: Reservoir depletion in a
changes when and where they happen when the surface multizone reservoir
rate, GOR, or water cut is observed to change (Wood et This deviated well was drilled from an offshore platform,
al., 2010). and oil is produced by an ESP. The DTS system was
The advantage of employing permanently installed permanently installed across the reservoir by attaching
DTS systems is that when changes occur in the well, for the ¼-in control line that protects the optical fiber to a
whatever reason, data is immediately available to enable 23⁄8 -in tubing stinger hung below the ESP. The reservoir
identifying the problem. The alternative is to run a interval was completed with an expandable sand screen
production log, which can take weeks or even months to (Fryer et al., 2005).
organize, during which the well may have to be shut in.

Flow rate, bbl/d

8,500 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000

Ge
oth

Base model
er m

temperature
al

Depleted
g

Flow rate
r ad

flow rate
ie n

9,000
t

Depth, ft Depleted model

temperature

9,500
Reduced Joule-Thomson
inflow temperature

10,000
180 190 200 210 220
Temperature, degF
Figure 23. Thermal model of multizone well with reservoir depletion.

The Essentials of Fiber-Optic Distributed Temperature Analysis ■ Multizone Analysis Using Thermal Modeling Software 23

Previous | Main Menu | Contents | Search | Next

 Geothermal data was recorded before the well was
brought into production. Figure 24 shows a 3D plot of the
DTS data during the well startup. The reservoir thermal
profiles warm up as the well starts to produce and they
stabilize after a few days of production. To analyze the
data for flow, it is best to use stable flowing temperature
data. Major inflow intervals are identified as tempera-
ture steps versus depth in the thermal profile and are
evident soon after the well is put into production. Given
that the pressure gradient in the well is known, varying
the zone’s permeability until a match to the stable DTS
data is obtained enables calculating the flow profile.
Figure 25 shows the correlation between the flowing
zones identified by the DTS data and the permeable
zones identified on the resisitivity log. Over time, some
zones can deplete preferentially to others, and a second
DTS trace recorded eight months later shows that the
zone at X+640 ft has stopped flowing. The zones below
X+1,040 ft have also stopped flowing; this is attributed to
sand fill at the bottom of the well.
Using the reservoir permeabilities calculated during
well startup, THERMA software calculated the inflow
contribution at later times by fitting the model tem-
perature to the measured temperature by varying the
reservoir pressures.
The calculated zone pressures compared with the
original reservoir pressures are shown in Fig. 26. The
pressure in the thin zone at X+640 ft had to be decreased
significantly to get the model to match the measured DTS
data. There could be two explanations for this reduced
reservoir pressure: Either the sand screen has become
plugged with sand or this reservoir zone is depleting at a
faster rate than the other zones.
In the bottom three zones, the problem is sand fill, so
the pressures were kept the same and permeability was
reduced to stop these zones from flowing.

Well flowing
Inflow zones

64.9–65.6
X+200 64.2–64.9
63.6–64.2
62.9–63.6
X+400 62.2–62.9
61.5–62.2
60.8–61.5
X+600 60.1–60.8
59.4–60.1
Depth, ft 58.7–59.4
X+800 58.0–58.7
57.3–58.0
56.6–57.3
X+1,000 56.0–56.6
55.3–56.0
March 9
March 8
X+1,200 March 7
March 6
Geothermal gradient
60 March 4
Temperature, degC March 3
65
Figure 24. Correlation of major inflows with the resistivity log.

24

Previous | Main Menu | Contents | Search | Next

 Resistivity, ohm.m

X0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Geothermal
gradient March flow profile
X+200

Resistivity Flow increases

X+400
Flow decreases
Depth, ft X+600

Inflow zones
X+800
Flow stops
X+1,000

X+1,200
125 130 135 140 145 150 155
Temperature, degF
Figure 25. Production changes over time.

X+200

X+400
March zone pressures

X+600

Depth, ft X+800 Depletion zone pressures

X+1,000

X+1,200

X+1,400

1,200 1,300 1,400 1,500 1,600 1,700 1,800

Pressure, psi
Figure 26. Reservoir pressure changes over time.

The Essentials of Fiber-Optic Distributed Temperature Analysis ■ Multizone Analysis Using Thermal Modeling Software 25

Previous | Main Menu | Contents | Search | Next

 Upon shut-in, the temperature profile should cool back crossflowing into the permeable zone (Fig. 27). This
to the geothermal gradient. However, this was not the confirms that this zone has a lower reservoir pressure
case in this well because the shut-in temperature profile than the surrounding reservoir layers and explains why it
shows that flow from both above and below X+640 ft is had ceased to flow.

Resistivity, ohm.m

X0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Geothermal
gradient March flow profile
X+200

Resistivity Flow increases

X+400
Flow decreases
Depth, ft X+600

Crossflow on shut-in
X+800
Flow stops
X+1,000

X+1,200
125 130 135 140 145 150 155
Temperature, degF
Figure 27. Crossflow during shut-in.

26

Previous | Main Menu | Contents | Search | Next

 Effect of Fiber Location

Previous examples in this book are for fiber located in
the center of the well either on a stinger in a permanent
completion or on slickline or CT. However, it is possible
to install optical fiber on the outside of the completion
as shown on the outside of gravel-packed sand screens
in Fig. 28.
In this type of installation, the temperature at which
fiber responds to the reservoir intervals is the tem-
perature of the oil exiting the formation (i.e., the
Joule-Thomson inflow temperature).
The purple dashed trace in Fig. 29 shows the tempera-
ture response expected with this installation scenario.
In the reservoir sections, the Joule-Thomson inflow
temperature is measured directly by the fiber. Between
the reservoir sections, the axial flowing temperature is
measured. The Joule-Thomson inflow temperature ΔT
is a function of the drawdown Δ P and Joule-Thomson
coefficient μJT only:
T = μ JT P. (9)

Fiber-encapsulated control line Joule-Thomson

inflow temperature
Shunt tube
Control lines located
Hole in sand screen groove
diameter
Rock
Fluid mixture Optical fiber
temperature

Sand screen
Gravel pack
Screen shroud

Figure 28. Fiber located on the outside of sand screens.

Flow rate, bbl/d

8,500 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000
Ge

Sand screen
oth

DTS temperature
er m
al

Base model
g
r ad

9,000 temperature
ie n
t

Depth, ft
Model flow rate
9,500
Joule-Thomson
inflow temperature

10,000
180 190 200 210 220
Temperature, degF
Figure 29. Expected temperature response with fiber located on the outside of sand screens.

The Essentials of Fiber-Optic Distributed Temperature Analysis 27

Previous | Main Menu | Contents | Search | Next

 This makes the temperature in the reservoir zones
sensitive to both changes in the zone drawdown and
fluid properties (i.e., a change in the GOR).
Example: Reservoir depletion identified by a
fiber located on the outside of sand screens
The well shown in Fig. 30 has fiber installed on the
outside of sand screens and multiple reservoir zones
in three geological intervals, shown in pink, blue, and
green. Given the surface flow rate and zone permeabil-
ities, the zone reservoir pressure and zone drawdown
were adjusted until the Joule-Thomson inflow tempera-
ture (dark green) matched the measured temperature in
the reservoir zones. The axial mixture temperature (red
trace) matched the measured temperature between the
zones and above the reservoir.
In this well, the GOR has not changed since it was
put on production, so the Joule-Thomson effect is a
function of only the reservoir drawdown. The pink zones
and top blue zone require much smaller Joule-Thomson
temperatures and drawdowns than the green and lower
blue zones.
Thus, by fitting the thermal model to the measured
temperature data using both the reservoir Joule-
Thomson and nonreservoir axial temperatures, not only
can the flow profile be determined but also the mag-
nitude of depletion in the pink and top blue reservoir
zones (Brown et al., 2005; Pinzon et al., 2007).

Flow rate, bbl/d

0 25,000 50,000 75,000 100,000
X
Gamma ray DTS trace
X+100
Thermal axial model
X+200
Geothermal gradient
Depth, ft X+300

Flow profile
X+400

X+500 Joule-Thomson
inflow temperature

X+600
65.0 67.5 70.0 72.5 75.0
Temperature, degC

0 25 50 75 100
Gamma ray, gAPI
Figure 30. Depletion from fiber located on the outside of sand screens.

28

Previous | Main Menu | Contents | Search | Next

 Multiphase Flow in
Multizone Reservoirs

In addition to reservoir depletion, two other production
scenarios that need consideration are the breakthrough
of water and that of gas. PLTs have two measurements
that are used to solve for water cut and GOR change—the
spinner log and Gradiomanometer* specific gravity profile
tool and the Digital Entry and Fluid Imaging Tool (DEFT)
or GHOST* gas holdup optical sensor tool—whereas
with DTS there is only one measurement available:
temperature. This makes identification difficult where the
changes are small. Also, a thermal model of the formation
must take into account the change in relative permeabil-
ity when the water saturation increases, so the effective
permeability is no longer a constant.
Water breakthrough
In a typical set of relative permeability curves (Fig. 31),
as the water saturation increases, the permeability to
oil decreases and the permeability to water increases.
However, the effective permeability of the mixture also
varies.
The theoretical model of a three-zone formation in
Fig. 32 shows the effect of increasing the middle-zone
water cut to give 5% surface water cut on the temperature
profile. As the water cut increases, the fluid viscosity can
decrease, but the relative permeability also decreases,
causing a higher zone drawdown. To maintain the upper
and lower zones with the same drawdown for comparison
purposes, reduction of the total flow rate is necessary.
The net effect is to produce less water and oil from the
zone than the base dry oil model. Also, the Joule-Thomson
inflow temperature of the produced fluid decreases
because the Joule-Thomson coefficient of water is less
than that of oil. Consequently, the mixture temperature
does not decrease as much as it does in dry oil.
However, if the water cut of the middle zone is
increased further to give a 20% surface water cut, then
with more water being produced and an even lower Joule-
Thomson temperature, the temperature effect is greater
than that of the dry oil model and the axial temperature is
now to the left to the dry oil model (Fig. 33).
Obviously, there is a water cut where there is no
temperature change between the breakthrough and dry
oil model, and it varies depending on the relative perme-
ability characteristics of the reservoir rock. Consequently,
it is difficult (and occasionally impossible) to determine
the zone of water breakthrough in a producing well from
temperature alone, even where there is good before- and
after-breakthrough DTS data and no great change in the
reservoir pressures over the breakthrough period.

1.2

1.0
Oil relative permeability kro
0.8
Water relative permeability krw
Relative 0.6
permeability

0.4

0.2

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Water saturation
Figure 31. Water and oil relative permeability data.

The Essentials of Fiber-Optic Distributed Temperature Analysis 29

Previous | Main Menu | Contents | Search | Next

 Flow rate, bbl/d

8,500 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000

Water Breakthrough
flow rate flow rate Base model
temperature

Ge
9,000

ot
he
rm
al
g
ra
Depth, ft Breakthrough model

die
Base flow rate

n
temperature

t
9,500
Breakthrough
Joule-Thomson
inflow temperature

10,000
180 190 200 210 220
Temperature, degF
Figure 32. Baseline versus 5% water-cut thermal models.

Flow rate, bbl/d

8,500 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000

Water Breakthrough
flow rate flow rate

Base model
temperature
Ge

9,000
ot
he
rm
al
g
ra

Depth, ft Breakthrough model

die

Base flow rate

n

temperature
t

9,500
Breakthrough
Joule-Thomson
inflow temperature

10,000
180 190 200 210 220
Temperature, degF
Figure 33. Baseline versus 20% water-cut thermal models.

30

Previous | Main Menu | Contents | Search | Next

Increasing oil GOR 1,500, and 5,000. The reason why there is less drawdown
at the top zone (resulting in less flow from that zone)
In the case of an increase in the zone GOR, the viscosity
is because the flowing pressure gradient has changed
change is much more pronounced, requiring an increase
above where the lighter oil enters the wellbore. Gas
in flow rate to maintain the same drawdown at the
breakthrough temperature effects are usually much
lower reservoir zone. The Joule-Thomson coefficient can
larger than water breakthrough effects and always result
change from negative oil to positive gas with an increase
in a decrease in the axial flowing temperature at the gas
in the zone GOR, causing Joule-Thomson cooling below
entry point, so they are much easier to identify.
the geothermal gradient. This is shown in the example
in Fig. 34, where the middle zone has GOR values of 300,

Gas rate, MMcf/d

0 10 20 30 40

Flow rate, bbl/d

0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000
High-GOR
flow rate Base model
Base temperature
gas rate

Ge
9,000
ot
he
rm
al
g
ra
Depth, ft Base High-GOR model
flow rate die
n
temperature
t
9,500
High-GOR High-GOR
gas rate Joule-Thomson
inflow temperature

10,000
180 190 200 210 220
Temperature, degF
Figure 34. Baseline versus gas breakthrough thermal models.

The Essentials of Fiber-Optic Distributed Temperature Analysis ■ Multiphase Flow in Multizone Reservoirs 31

Previous | Main Menu | Contents | Search | Next

Example: Increasing GOR on
a sand screen completion
If the fiber is installed on the outside of a sand screen
completion and is directly measuring the Joule-Thomson
inflow temperature, increasing the oil GOR causes a
large temperature change (Fig. 35). If the fiber is on
the inside of the screen (on a stinger), the temperature
response is much less because the fiber measures the
mixture temperature, rather than the individual zones’
Joule-Thomson inflow temperatures.
Because the Joule-Thomson response of water can be
very similar to that of oil, it is not possible to differen-
tiate between water- and oil-producing intervals in this
scenario.
The 3D plot (Fig. 36) shows the temperature effect
over six months of production with some of the zones
increasing in GOR over the period. The  surface GOR
increased from 560 ft3/bbl to 6,700 ft3/bbl over the same
period; however, the zones that have the GOR increases
have much higher individual GORs (Chertenkov et
al., 2012).

Joule-Thomson inflow
temperature (outside screens) ΔT = μJTΔP

Axial mixture temperature Geothermal

(center of tubing) DTS fiber
Water High-GOR oil Oil

Figure 35. Gas breakthrough a sand screen completion.

Zones of increasing GOR

175.5–175.6
174.6 175.4–175.5
175.4–175.4
174.8 175.3–175.4
Temperature, 175.0 175.2–175.3
degF 175.2 175.1–175.2
175.1–175.1
175.4 175.0–175.0
March 30 175.9–175.9
175.6
February 27 175.8–175.8
175.7–175.7
X+2,000 January 21 175.7–175.7
175.6–175.7
December 15 175.5–175.6
X+1,000
175.4–175.5
Depth, ft November 08
X
October 02

Figure 36. Increasing GOR on a sand screen completion (displayed upside down to show the temperature decreases).

32

Previous | Main Menu | Contents | Search | Next

 Gas Wells

The difference between oil well temperature profiles and
those of gas wells is that gas wells may exhibit large Joule-
Thomson cooling effects as the gas enters the borehole, and
gas does not carry as much heat up the well as oil or water.
However, although the initial wellbore flowing temperature
is lower than the geothermal gradient, the equations
defining the thermal profile from the reservoir up the well
are the same as for oil and water (Fig. 37).
Figure 38 shows the Joule-Thomson cooling effect for
radial flow of gas at steady-state conditions for a flow rate
of 10 MMcf/d in a 50-ft-thick interval of 10-mD rock. This
0 0.5
0
is 13 degF, of which half occurs in the region close to the
wellbore. The effect, however, varies depending on the
gas properties and reservoir pressure because the Joule-
Thomson coefficient of gas is pressure dependent. Below
about 5,000 psi (depending on the gas properties) the ther-
mal and pressure radial responses have a similar character,
at about 5,000 psi the Joule-Thomson coefficient becomes
zero, and above 5,000 psi the Joule-Thomson coefficient
changes sign and increases so gas heats rather than cools
when subject to a pressure drop.
Gas rate, MMcf/d
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0

Calculated temperature
1,000

2,000
Geothermal gradient
Depth, ft 3,000

4,000
Flow profile Joule-Thomson
inflow temperature
5,000

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

Temperature, degF
Figure 37. Gas well thermal profile.

Steady-State Conditions (Assumes Radial Flow) 155 3,100

Reservoir pressure, psi (<5,000 psi) 3,000 Temperature
150 3,000
Reservoir temperature, degF 150
Flow rate, MMcf/d 10
145 2,900
Formation volume factor (Bg ) 0.004
Fluid viscosity, cP 0.03 Pressure
Temperature, 140 2,800 Pressure,
Joule-Thomson coefficient, degF/psi 0.0266 degF psi
Formation permeability, mD 10
135 2,700
Formation thickness, ft 50
Well diameter, in 7
130 2,600
Reservoir radius, ft 1,000
Joule-Thomson coefficient
125 2,500
Gas 0.0266 0 200 400 600 800 1,000
Pressure decrease, psi 491.50
Radial distance, ft
Temperature decrease, degF 13.07

Figure 38. Joule-Thomson cooling in the formation.

The Essentials of Fiber-Optic Distributed Temperature Analysis 33

Previous | Main Menu | Contents | Search | Next

Low-rate gas wells two intervals, but it becomes increasingly less stable
as the flow rate increases and the temperature profile
Kunz and Tixier (1955) of Schlumberger published a
tends toward a straight line of negative slope, as in the
method for the interpretation of temperature logs in gas
upper interval.
wells that is particularly applicable to low-rate gas wells
Kunz and Tixier point out that the constant C is a
(less than 1–2 MMcf/d).
function of the time of production and the gas and for-
They calculated that the flow rate is proportional
mation thermal properties, so the subtangent curve can
to the subtangent of the temperature curve above the
be converted to a flow rate if C is calculated. However, it
inflow interval as defined in Fig. 39.
is normal to identify only the inflow zones and proportion
Figure 40 shows a thermal model of three gas inflow
of flow from each zone, and the subtangent approach
zones contributing 333 Mcf/d each with 26-degF Joule-
appears to be able to perform this satisfactorily with a
Thomson cooling at each inflow.
reasonable degree of accuracy.
In this example, the Kuntz-Tixier function can be
calculated and used to estimate flow rate in the lower

1,000
Q=
(
C Tg Tw ), (10)
dT /dH
2,000
Geothermal dT/dH where
Depth, ft gradient
3,000 Q = flow rate
C = time-dependent constant
Tw Tg Tg = geothermal temperature
4,000 Tw = well temperature
dT/dH = slope of intercept
5,000

50 100 150
Temperature, degF
Figure 39. Kunz and Tixier’s 1995 subtangent method.

Gas rate, MMcf/d

3,000 0 1 2 3 4

3,500
Calculated Geothermal gradient
temperature
4,000
Depth, ft Flow
profile
4,500

5,000
Joule-Thomson
inflow temperature
5,500
80 100 120 140 160
Temperature, degF
Figure 40. Low-rate gas well.

34

Previous | Main Menu | Contents | Search | Next

Example: Low-rate multizone gas well
This vertical gas-producing well has an openhole
3½-in-diameter completion over the reservoir interval
and is producing 1.1 MMcf/d gas. The DTS system was
temporarily installed across the reservoir in a slickline.
Figure 41 shows a comparison of the computed
temperature profile versus the DTS measured values
and the calculated inflow distribution. This is not a new
well, so some of the reservoirs have depleted, resulting
in lower drawdown and Joule-Thomson cooling than
other intervals. The interval at X+2,950 ft in particular
is clearly not cooling as much as the interval below and
it is adding warmer gas to the flow stream coming from
below because it has a lower reservoir pressure. In this
example, reservoir permeability was assumed constant,
and the fit of the calculated profile to the DTS data was
achieved by varying reservoir layer pressures.
Analysis of the DTS data indicates which intervals are
flowing and their percentage of contribution. The data
also indicates which intervals have lowered reservoir
pressures as a result of depletion because the Joule-
Thomson cooling in these zones is reduced.
0 1 2 3
X
Ge
oth
er m
X+1,000
Calculated
flow rate
Depth, ft X+2,000
Joule-Thomson
inflow temperature
X+3,000
270 280 290
Figure 41. Low-rate multizone gas well.
The Essentials of Fiber-Optic Distributed Temperature Analysis ■ Gas Wells 35
Previous | Main Menu | Contents | Search | Next
High-rate gas wells
In high-rate gas wells, it is not possible to use the Kunz-
Tixier approach to determine the percentage of flow
coming from each producing interval because the Kunz-
Tixier subtangent becomes negative. The flow rate is too
high to allow the flowing temperature profile to warm
toward the geothermal temperature anywhere near the
reservoir interval.
Figure 42 shows the effect of three reservoir zones
producing 10 MMcf/d each (red traces); 10, 5, and
15  MMcf/d (black traces); and 10, 15, and 5 MMcf/d
(blue traces), with the same Joule-Thomson cooling
in the reservoir for each zone (i.e., all have the same
drawdown). The temperature profile above each entry
is essentially a straight line because the flow rate is
so high, but there is a difference in the temperature
trace profiles over the reservoir interval because of the
different flow contributions from each zone. Therefore,
it is possible to determine the flow profile from the
temperature profile by using the thermal model.
If the reservoir zones all have the same reservoir
pressure (i.e., the well will not crossflow on shut-in),
a first approximation to the Joule-Thomson cooling for
each zone is a line parallel to the geothermal gradient
Gas rate, MMcf/d
4 5 6 7 8
DTS temperature
al
gr ad
ie n
t
Calculated temperature
300 310 320 330 340 350
Temperature, degF

3,500 0
Flow
distribution
4,000
Depth, ft 4,500
Joule-Thomson
inflow temperature
5,000
5,500
80
Figure 42. High-rate (10 MMcf/d per zone) multizone gas well.
through the inflow temperature of the lowest producing
zone (assuming that the producing zones are close to one
another). Individual zone values can be further defined
by monitoring the zone warmback temperatures during a
well shut-in and extrapolating these temperatures back
to the flowing conditions.
Depletion of a zone over time reduces its flow rate
relative to the other zones. If the initial reservoir
pressures are known and a thermal model is fitted to
this data, later models will require only a change in the
surface flow rate and adjustment of the individual zone
pressures to achieve a flow solution.
Velocity string gas wells
Some low-rate gas wells produce a small amount of
water over time, which eventually fills up the bottom
of the borehole and prevents the gas from flowing. A
solution to this problem is to install a “velocity” string.
This is a small-diameter tubing set down to the bottom
of the reservoir that acts like a vacuum cleaner, sucking
up the water with the gas and thus allowing the well to
flow continually. However, because the tubing extends
below most of the reservoir zones, it is not possible to
run a conventional production log to evaluate the zone
contributions. Also, because the flow from the reservoir
is down the annulus and then up inside the tubing, the
recorded temperature profile is difficult to interpret
because flow down the annulus exchanges heat with the
flow going up inside the tubing. The result is a tempera-
ture profile with greatly reduced temperature character.
36
Previous | Main Menu | Contents | Search | Next
Gas rate, MMcf/d
30 60 90 120
Calculated temperature
Ge
oth
er m
al
g
r ad
ie n
t
100 120 140 160
Temperature, degF
Figure 43 compares a conventional completion and
a velocity string completion. Another feature of velocity
string wells is that there is no need for a packer, so they
can be flowed up the annulus if required. Flowing the
well up the annulus for a short time (e.g., a day) is suf-
ficient to generate a stable temperature profile that can
be analyzed to give the flow profile without the effects of
counterflow degrading the temperature response. This
annular flow period is normally short enough that the
well does not fill up with water. With this scenario, it
is possible to run an optical fiber in a slickline system
down inside the tubing and record both flowing and
shut-in temperature profiles.
Typical velocity string gas wells in the Deep basin
in Western Canada are produced from multiple zones
in low-permeability rock that has been hydraulically
fractured. It is important for the operator to know which
zones are flowing and by how much, and the only way
to do this with conventional PLTs is to pull the tubing
above the reservoir and flow it conventionally, which is
cost prohibitive. The cost-efficient solution is to convert
the well to annular flow for 24 hours before the logging
job and then record DTS for a few hours of steady flow
and 6 to 12 hours of shut-in using fiber deployed inside
slickline, with a pressure gauge attached to the end of
the slickline.
Analysis is then performed using a conventional gas
thermal model. Because these wells have been producing
for some time and different zones have depleted at
different rates, a uniform gas pressure gradient cannot
be normally used for the reservoir pressures. However,
the magnitude of the Joule-Thomson cooling required for
each individual zone can be obtained from the shut-in
data where the flowing zones remain cold for some time
after shut-in at the Joule-Thomson inflow temperature.
This enables using the correct Joule-Thomson cooling in
each zone and also provides an understanding of which
zones have higher depletion than others.
Figure 44 shows the results of a thermal analysis (red
trace) fit to the measured flowing temperature (black
trace) requiring a larger Joule-Thomson cooling in the
top reservoir zone than the lower ones (and thus higher
drawdown). This was a blind test with the PLT spinner
provided later by the operator, and it is obvious that the
thermal analysis corresponds well with the spinner data
(Heubsch et al., 2008, 2012).

Packer

Conventional Velocity string Velocity string plus annular flow

Figure 43. The velocity string problem and solution.

Gas rate, m³/d

0 40,000 80,000 120,000 160,000 200,000

X Geothermal gradient

Spinner Thermal model fit

X+200 flow rate

Depth, m
X+400
Calculated
gas rate
Flowing temperature
X+600

X+800
70 80 90 100 110 120
Temperature, degC

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
Spinner, rpm
Figure 44. Velocity string analysis compared with a PLT spinner log.

The Essentials of Fiber-Optic Distributed Temperature Analysis ■ Gas Wells 37

Previous | Main Menu | Contents | Search | Next

 Horizontal Wells

Wellbore Joule-Thomson effects Two-zone flow is characterized by an increase in

slope of the temperature profile at the point of the
In a perfectly horizontal flowing well, the geothermal
second inflow. When the total flow is the same as the
gradient does not provide any measurable thermal
single-point entry, after the second inflow, the slope is
response. However, the Joule-Thomson effect can cause
the same as the single-point entry (Brown et al., 2000).
a change in the well fluid temperature that is flow
In a homogeneous reservoir interval, the inflow profile
related, and this can be interpreted to give an indication
is linearly distributed over the whole reservoir interval.
of flowing intervals and flow contribution.
A distributed inflow is characterized by a nonlinear
In horizontal oil wells, the Joule-Thomson effect is
temperature increase that is smaller than a one- or two-
relatively small so care must be taken to acquire the
point inflow increase because it is essentially caused by
highest resolution temperature data possible.
multiple single-point inflows.
Figure 45 demonstrates the effect of Joule-Thomson
The amount of Joule-Thomson warming (or cooling
warming due to one- and two-point inflow and a uniformly
in the event of gas) is dependent on the fluid properties,
distributed pattern of inflow. The well is horizontal
flow rate, and casing diameter that define the pressure
with a 4½-in completion along the reservoir, flowing
drop along the casing. In low-flow-rate wells with large
20,000 bbl/d of 30-API oil with a GOR of 100 ft3/bbl and
casing diameters, the effect is negligible, but the pres-
a reservoir depth of 5,000 ft true vertical depth (TVD).
sure drop increases as the casing size decreases and flow
A single-point inflow at the toe is characterized by a
rate increases.
linear increase in temperature from that point along the
horizontal section.

50,000 204

Distributed flow Two-zone flow Toe flow

40,000 202

30,000 200
Flow rate, Geothermal gradient Temperature,
bbl/d degF
20,000 198

10,000 Flow distribution 196

0 194
4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 10,000
Depth, ft

4½-in completion

Figure 45. Joule-Thomson warming with distributed inflow.

The Essentials of Fiber-Optic Distributed Temperature Analysis 39

Previous | Main Menu | Contents | Search | Next

Reservoir Joule-Thomson effects GOR of 4,000 ft3/bbl. One scenario has the heel zone with
a permeability of 10 mD, the next zone 1.0 mD, the next
Horizontal wells normally have a low pressure drawdown.
0.2 mD, and the toe two intervals have zero permeability.
Thus, in high-permeability reservoirs, the near-wellbore
The second scenario has uniform permeability of 2.24 mD,
Joule-Thomson effects are small. However, in some
and the third scenario has 11.2-mD permeability in the
low-permeability reservoirs, there is enough of a drop
toe zone only. Thus, all three scenarios have the same
in the drawdown pressure in the near-wellbore region
permeability thickness product kh.
to generate significant cooling at the sandface in gas or
If the high-permeability zone is at the toe of the well,
high-GOR oil wells.
the temperature profile along the well is similar to the
The cooling is directly related to the reservoir perme-
uniformly distributed scenario with the same kh, thus
ability and the GOR of the oil. As the GOR increases, so
the difference between the two is difficult to discern.
does the cooling effect.
However, if the higher permeability zone is at the heel of
The example in Fig. 46 shows the effect of three differ-
the well, there is sufficient character generated on the
ent flow distributions in a horizontal well producing at a
temperature trace that it is possible to interpret it with
rate of 4,000 bbl/d with five permeable intervals and a
a thermal model of the reservoir.

16,000 210

Three-zone flow Distributed flow Toe flow

12,000 200
Geothermal gradient

Flow rate, Temperature,

bbl/d 8,000 190
degF

4,000 180
Flow distribution

0 170
4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 10,000
Depth, ft

Openhole completion

Figure 46. Reservoir Joule-Thomson cooling as a function of reservoir permeability.

40

Previous | Main Menu | Contents | Search | Next

Example: Horizontal oil well with
Joule‑Thomson reservoir flow
This horizontal well has an openhole completion and
is produced by gas lift. A DTS system was permanently
installed across the reservoir by attaching a ¼-in control
line protecting the optical fiber to a 23⁄8 -in tubing stinger
hung below the production tubing (Brown et al., 2003).
The well was put on production in July and by August
was producing with stabilized flow. The DTS measured
temperature profile indicated that the well was initially
flowing from X+3,000 ft to the heel. Over the next three
months, the increase in Joule-Thomson cooling from
X+3,000 to X+5,000 ft indicated that the well was clean-
ing up over this interval and that the flow distribution
along the reservoir had changed (Fig. 47).
Figure 48 shows the change in the computed inflow
profile over time using the thermal model matched to
the flowing temperature profiles. The model was run
using known reservoir permeabilities and pressures,
and the change in flow was achieved by varying the
skin factor and GOR. The skin in August needed to be
high toward the toe to reduce the flow with a GOR of
3,000 ft3/bbl. The skin thus had to be decreased and
GOR increased to 6,000 ft3/bbl to achieve the fit to the
October data.

Openhole completion
235

230
Geothermal gradient
225

220
Temperature,
Change over three months degF
215
Joule-Thomson cooling
210

205

200
X X+1,000 X+2,000 X+3,000 X+4,000 X+5,000 X+6,000
Depth, ft
Figure 47. Reservoir Joule-Thomson cooling as a function of well cleanup.

Openhole completion
3,500 235

3,000 230
Geothermal gradient
2,500 225

2,000 220
Flow rate, Temperature,
bbl/d 1,500 215 degF

1,000 Model flow Model flow plus 210

three months
500 205

0 200
X X+1,000 X+2,000 X+3,000 X+4,000 X+5,000 X+6,000
Depth, ft
Figure 48. THERMA software calculated flow as a function of well cleanup.

The Essentials of Fiber-Optic Distributed Temperature Analysis ■ Horizontal Wells 41

Previous | Main Menu | Contents | Search | Next

 Although the well’s total production had reduced over
the period, there was increasing flow from the interval
at X+1,500–X+4,000 ft caused by well cleanup toward
the toe.
The data identified the rate of cleanup of this long-hor-
izontal, high-GOR producer and enabled the operator to
change the well stimulation procedures to improve the
cleanup response and monitor the effect on future wells.
Hydraulically stage-fractured
horizontal shale wells
In 1991, Mitchell Energy completed its first horizontal
well in the Barnett Shale in North Texas and, in 1998,
economically fractured a shale gas well. What followed
this success is well known. Shale gas activity has grown
to levels unimaginable 10 years ago, and now oil is also
being produced from similar formations. This growth
and the need for reliable methods to improve efficiency
and well life have opened the door for the application of
new technology, including the use of CT DTS surveys for
production logging.
Not all shale gas wells can be production logged to
determine where the fractures are located and their flow
contribution. Of course, if the completion has tubing and
packers along the reservoir interval, the fractures may
occur away from the valves, and spinner logs will show
only the flow through the valves.
The advantage of distributed temperature is that
when the well is shut in, the locations of the fractures
can be determined because they have been cooled by
the flow of Joule-Thomson cooled gas during the flow
period. This cold event remains for a long time once the
well has been shut in, irrespective of the completion in
the borehole.
When the well is flowing, the cold gas produced from
the fractures flows along the wellbore, warming toward
the geothermal temperature as it goes until it mixes with
gas emanating from the next fracture (Fig. 49).
The analysis procedure is exactly the same as for
hydraulically fractured velocity string gas wells, which
are generally vertical whereas the fractured shale gas
wells are horizontal.
Figures 50 and 51 show a large difference in the
predicted temperature profiles for a hydraulically
stage-fractured horizontal well producing at a rate of
1.0 MMcf/d with either heel- or toe-biased flow after the
fracture job.
Where both DTS and multispinner logs have been
run together, the comparison between the results is
generally good. However, it must be remembered that the
multispinner logs reflect only the flow within the diameter
42
Previous | Main Menu | Contents | Search | Next
Fractures
Geothermal gradient
Well shut-in Well flowing
Figure 49. Flowing and shut-in temperature response.
of the spinners; often in horizontal wells that are cased
and perforated or with slotted liners or even tubing with
packers, the range of spinner logs is limited. Gas can flow
along outside the casing if it is poorly cemented or above
the slotted liner or tubing in these types of completions.
Temperature analysis reflects the true reservoir flow,
irrespective of the effects of fluid stratification, whereas
spinner analysis may not in some cases.
More recently, oil has been produced from
hydraulically stage-fractured horizontal shale wells. In
this case, theory predicts that there should be no large
Joule-Thomson cooling events at the fractures as for gas
wells.
However, experience shows that there are cooling
events occurring at the fractures, and these are attributed
to the fact that when the fracture is created, a significant
amount of cold fluid and proppant is injected into the
wing of the fracture. This causes the fracture to be
several degrees below the geothermal temperature for
an extended period of time (i.e., months), so when oil
is flowed through the fracture, it is cooled and exits the
fracture below the geothermal temperature. Clearly, this
phenomena also occurs in gas wells, but the effect is
masked by the Joule-Thomson cooled gas.
Thus, it is possible for a few months after a horizontal
oil well has been hydraulically fractured to identify the
fractures by their cold signature during a shut-in. By
using the fracture shut-in temperature to define the
magnitude of the cooling occurring inside the fracture,
it is possible to calculate the flow profile along the
wellbore in a similar fashion to gas well analysis.
 4.0 255
Staged hydraulic fractures
3.5
Geothermal
Model flowing temperature
3.0 gradient 250

2.5

Gas rate, 2.0 245 Temperature,

MMcf/d degF
1.5
Joule-Thomson
1.0 inflow temperature 240

0.5
Flow profile
0 235
10,000 11,000 12,000 13,000 14,000 15,000
Depth, ft
Figure 50. Hydraulically stage-fractured horizontal well with heel-biased gas flow.

4.0 255
Staged hydraulic fractures
3.5
Geothermal
3.0 gradient 250

2.5 Model flowing temperature

Gas rate, 2.0 245 Temperature,

MMcf/d degF
1.5
Joule-Thomson
1.0 inflow temperature 240

0.5
Flow profile
0 235
10,000 11,000 12,000 13,000 14,000 15,000
Depth, ft
Figure 51. Hydraulically stage-fractured horizontal well with toe-biased flow.

The Essentials of Fiber-Optic Distributed Temperature Analysis ■ Horizontal Wells 43

Previous | Main Menu | Contents | Search | Next

 Water Injectors

Distributed temperature surveillance has been tra-
ditionally used to monitor the performance of water
injectors by employing a technique called warmback.
This involves shutting the well in for a period of time and
recording the temperature response while the reservoir
warms back toward the geothermal gradient.
Warmback analysis
Under normal injection conditions, the cold water injected
into the well cools all the surrounding rock, including
the nonpermeable intervals above the reservoir. So, the
only information that can be obtained when injection is
occurring is the lowest extent of fluid injection. If the
injection rate is low, the character of the profile should
be determined by the geothermal gradient and inflow into
the reservoir and could be analyzed as such. However, this
is not normally the case.
Once injection ceases, the rock surrounding the well
that has been cooled only by conduction through the
casing warms back to the geothermal gradient over a
short period of time as a function of the formation’s
thermal properties (Fig. 52). However, if a permeable
interval has been taking cold injected water, this will
have cooled the rock to a much greater radius from
the wellbore than in the impermeable zones. These
intervals warm back at a much slower rate than those
that have not been taking injection fluid. The magnitude
of this effect is a function of the injection rate, interval
permeability, time, and the thermal properties of the
fluid and rock.
Figure 53 shows the modeled response of a 500-ft-thick
interval of 10-mD rock that includes two higher-permea-
bility intervals of 20 mD and 30 mD; the water injection
rate is 5,000 bbl/d at 80 degF for 10 days. Because the
higher-permeability intervals have been taking more

Injection rate, bbl/d

0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000
0

1,000

100-day warmback
Completion

2,000
10-day warmback
Depth, ft
3,000
1-day warmback
Injection
Ge

distribution
oth

4,000
er m
al
g
r ad
ie n

5,000
t

10-day injection
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Temperature, degF
Figure 52. Injector warmback response (10-day injection).

The Essentials of Fiber-Optic Distributed Temperature Analysis 45

Previous | Main Menu | Contents | Search | Next

 Injection rate, bbl/d
0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000
0

1,000

100-day warmback

Completion
2,000
10-day warmback
Depth, ft
3,000
1-day warmback
Injection

Ge
distribution

ot
4,000

he
rm
al
gr
a
die
n
5,000

t
10-day injection

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

Temperature, degF
Figure 53. Injector warmback response with two higher-permeability zones (10-day injection).

water, they are preferentially cooled and warm back at
a slower rate than the low-permeability zones, although
there is little contrast after only one day’s shut-in. The
effect of the permeability contrast increases as the
shut-in time gets longer.
However, if injection has taken place for a long dura-
tion (i.e., months to years), the permeability contrasts in
the formation taking water can be identified only after a
long shut-in time (Fig. 54).
Thus, the optimal time to achieve a clear warmback
profile to highlight permeability contrasts in the forma-
tion is roughly proportional to the injection time.
If the injection rate is low enough, there is a relation-
ship between the injection profile and zone permeability
that can be used to determine the injection profile. Also,
at low injectivity per foot of rock, the warmback response
to permeability changes occurs at a short-enough time
scale that, even after long injection times, the warmback
analysis technique can be employed with only a short
warmback period of a day or so (Fig. 55).
Typically, long horizontal injection wells have low
injectivity per foot of rock so these also can be analyzed
using the warmback technique with shut-in times of a
day or two.
One characteristic of all these warmback scenarios
is that the nonpermeable rock at the heel of the well
warms back much more quickly than the reservoir
rock. This means that there can be a large temperature
contrast inside the wellbore at the heel of the well after
a short shut-in period. This hot and cold water interface
in the wellbore can be used to determine the injection
profile by tracking it with fast-acquisition DTS measure-
ments (Brown et al., 2004).

46

Previous | Main Menu | Contents | Search | Next

 Injection rate, bbl/d
0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000
0

1,000

100-day warmback

Completion
2,000
10-day warmback
Depth, ft
3,000
1-day warmback
Injection

Ge
distribution

ot
4,000

he
rm
al
gr
a
die
n
5,000

t
100-day injection

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

Temperature, degF
Figure 54. Injector warmback response (100-day injection).

Injection rate, bbl/d

0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000
0

1,000

100-day warmback

Completion
2,000
10-day warmback
Depth, ft
3,000
1-day warmback
Injection
Ge

distribution 100-day injection

ot

4,000
he
rm
al
gra
die
n

5,000
t

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

Temperature, degF

Figure 55. Low-rate injector warmback response (100-day injection).

The Essentials of Fiber-Optic Distributed Temperature Analysis ■ Water Injectors 47

Previous | Main Menu | Contents | Search | Next

Example: Horizontal hot water injector verified; however, to make the model fit the data, a toe
zone with high permeability, taking 30% of the injection
This well is horizontal along the reservoir interval with a
into the well, was used in the thermal model to fit to the
sand screen completion. The optical fiber was installed
warmback data.
in a ¼-in control line, attached to a 23⁄8 -in-diameter
This high-permeability zone at the toe had been veri-
perforated stinger hung below the injection tubing along
fied by running a PLT spinner log before the completion
the reservoir interval. Hot water from production wells
with the DTS fiber was run into the well. The results of
was injected at a rate of 600 bbl/d and had a temperature
the analysis are shown in Fig. 56.
along the reservoir interval from 140 to 170  degF. The
In this well, the injectivity per foot of rock is low
well’s geothermal temperature at the reservoir depth
enough that there is significant cooling toward the
was only 80 degF (Rodionev et al., 2012).
geothermal temperature within a few days whenever the
At the time of the shut-in, the well had been on injec-
well is shut in.
tion for six months and was then shut in for a week. The
It is immaterial whether the injected water
DTS warmback response indicates two zones of higher
temperature is higher or lower than the geothermal
permeability, one near the heel of the well and another
gradient; the same analysis applies. However, if the
halfway down the reservoir, which are evident because
injected water temperature is the same temperature as
they warmed back more slowly than the other intervals.
the geothermal gradient, or at least near to it, then it is
Unfortunately, the fiber did not go all the way to the
difficult to generate sufficient warmback character on
end of the well, so temperatures at the toe cannot be
the shut-in data.

3,200

Model injection
response DTS injection
2,400 response 160

Model DTS
Injection rate, 1,600 shut-in shut-in Temperature,
120
bbl/d degF

800 80
Geothermal gradient

Model
0 injection rate 40
X X+400 X+800 X+1,200 X+1,600 X+2,000 X+2,400
Depth, ft

Figure 56. Warmback injection analysis of a hot water horizontal injector.

48

Previous | Main Menu | Contents | Search | Next

Hot and cold interface velocity measurements for each temperature trace, and the depth difference
between successive traces divided by the time interval
If a well has been on injection for some time, the reservoir
gives the velocity at that point (Fig. 57).
will have completely cooled to the injection temperature
Unfortunately, the hot and cold interface cannot be
and will stay cold for a long time after injection has
injected from the surface (except for very shallow wells)
stopped. An alternative is to allow the warmback period
because the interface loses its heat as it travels down the
to generate a hot and cold water interface in the tubing
well as a result of conduction to its surroundings. There
immediately above the reservoir and track this hot water
is, therefore, insufficient temperature resolution by the
once injection recommences.
time the interface reaches the reservoir. However, the hot
Once injection is resumed, the hot and cold water
and cold interface has an advantage over the warmback
interface can be tracked by the DTS fiber-optic system
technique in that it requires only a short shut-in of the
(recording at a suitably high acquisition rate) as it moves
well and has much better resolution and velocity accuracy
down the reservoir interval. The velocity of this interface
than can be achieved by warmback analysis.
traveling down the reservoir can be determined, and it
Unlike the warmback technique, a hot and cold
reflects the flow profile into the reservoir.
interface occurs whenever the well is shut in, irrespective
The interface is tracked by identifying the inflection
of how long injection has been occurring.
point between cold and hot water on the interface

Reservoir
Warmback
profile

Inflection points
Temperature
Injection
profile ient
Geothermal grad ½
½

Depth
Figure 57. Hot water velocity measurement.

The Essentials of Fiber-Optic Distributed Temperature Analysis ■ Water Injectors 49

Previous | Main Menu | Contents | Search | Next

Example: Hot and cold interface velocity
in a horizontal injector
This horizontal water injector has an openhole
6¼-in-diameter completion. The DTS system was
permanently installed across the reservoir by attaching
the ¼-in control line protecting the optical fiber to a
23⁄8 -in tubing stinger hung below the production tubing.
Figure 58 shows the injecting temperature profile
down the well and along the reservoir and the warmback
response during a 24-hour shut-in (Brown et al., 2003).
The reservoir injection zone is colored red and the zone
of no injection below is orange.
During injection, water was flooding down to only
X+7,200 ft; below this depth, the temperature increased
to the geothermal temperature. On shut-in, the interval
taking flow can be easily identified because it stays
cold while the water in the tubing warms back up
toward the geothermal gradient, rapidly creating a
hot and cold interface at the top of the reservoir.
When the injection was switched back on (Fig. 59),
the hot water generated at the tubing shoe during the
warmback period flooded down the reservoir and was
tracked by the DTS system, allowing conversion into the
percentage inflow distribution.
Figure 60 shows the inflow distribution calculated
using the hot and cold velocity injection method for the
months of March and October. The results indicate that
the injection profile of the well is changing with time
with the well flooding deeper in October. This may be
due to the pressure building up at the heel or that the
well is slowly cleaning up from the heel to the toe over
time.
Injection monitoring has shown that the water is
flooding the reservoir farther along the horizontal sec-
tion with respect to time. As a result, the data confirms
the decision to drill long injectors in this reservoir
because they eventually flood along the whole well.

Openhole completion
Nonreservoir warmup

175–180
170–175
160 165–170
160–165
Temperature, 155–160
degF 140
150–155
o ld

145–150
ys c

120 5:54:57 p.m. 140–145

sta

2:39:20 p.m. 135–140

oir

9:59:53 a.m. 130–135

er v

125–130
Re s

5:20:27 a.m. 120–125

X
115–120
X+2,000 110–115
12:41:00 a.m.
X+4,000 105–110

Depth, ft X+6,000
8:01:34 p.m.

Figure 58. Hot and cold interface velocity measurement.

50

Previous | Main Menu | Contents | Search | Next

 Openhole completion
Hot water injection
down the reservoir

176–180
172–175
168–172
165–168
160 161–165
Temperature, 157–161
10:29:09 p.m.
153–157
degF 140 10:05:13 p.m. 149–153
145–149
9:38:31 p.m. 141–145
138–141
134–138
9:11:50 p.m.
130–134
X
126–130
8:45:08 p.m. 122–126
X+1,000
Depth, ft
X+2,000
8:18:27 p.m.

Figure 59. Hot and cold interface velocity measurement with injection resumed.

120
March injection distribution
100 October injection distribution

80

Inflow 60
distribution, %
40

20

0
X X+1,000 X+2,000 X+3,000 X+4,000
Depth, ft
Figure 60. Inflow distribution from hot and cold interface velocity measurement.

The Essentials of Fiber-Optic Distributed Temperature Analysis ■ Water Injectors 51

Previous | Main Menu | Contents | Search | Next

Multiple thin permeable zones By plotting the DTS data over the reservoir interval in
2D from before the commencement of injection to some
It may be that the reservoir in question consists of
time after, transient temperature events corresponding
several high-permeability zones interspersed with
to the hot and cold intervals in the reservoir caused
low-permeability rock, and the injection rate and time
by the shut-in warmback event can be converted into
are such that no reservoir warmback can be observed in
velocity events (Fahim et al., 2011).
a suitable shut-in time. In this case, it is difficult to track
The example in Fig. 62 shows a vertical well with
a single hot and cold interface from the heel of the well.
perforations where the hot and cold events along the
The temperature response for three thin permeable
reservoir interval have been highlighted by differentiat-
zones during shut-in is shown in Fig. 61. When injection
ing the temperature traces versus depth. The red dots
commences, the cold spot at the top zone starts to move
correspond to the hot and cold leading edge and the blue
down the well at a velocity that reflects the injection
to the trailing edge. The injection velocity at three points
velocity immediately below that zone, and this is the
down the reservoir interval can be clearly identified, and
case for all subsequent zones. If the data is plotted in
hence the injection profile determined.
2D, the slope of the cold spot movement, once injection
Obviously, the more hot and cold events created along
commences, defines the injection velocity at that point.
the reservoir by the shut-in, the greater the number of
velocity tracks that can be determined and the better
the flow profile resolution.

Geothermal gradient

Warmback Depth plot

Injection + x min
Injection + 2x min

Injection + 2x min

Injection + x min
2D plot
Time

Injection starts Slope: velocity

below cold zone

Depth
Figure 61. Hot and cold velocity measurement of three thin permeable zones.

Tubing velocity 1.4 ft/s

X
Packer

X+100 Velocity 0.2 ft/s

Depth, Velocity 0.1 ft/s
Perforations

ft X+200
Velocity 0.025 ft/s
X+300

X+400 Velocity zero

10:58:08 a.m. 11:04:59 a.m. 11:11:50 a.m. 11:18:41 a.m. 11:25:33 a.m. 11:31:49 a.m.
Time
Figure 62. Injection profile from hot and cold velocity measurement of thin permeable zones.

52

Previous | Main Menu | Contents | Search | Next

 Water Flow Between Wells

Injection of cold water into a reservoir causes the reservoir
rock to cool with time, depending on the temperature of
the injected water, the rate injected, and the time of injec-
tion. The water at the periphery of the flood warms rapidly
to the geothermal temperature of the formation through
which it is passing. However, as large volumes of cold water
are injected into the reservoir, the rock cools radially from
the wellbore with time, forming a thermal cold front that
follows the waterflood front into the reservoir at approxi-
mately half the radial distance (Fig. 63).
It follows that after a period of production of injected
water at geothermal temperature from a nearby injection
well, the temperature of the injected water arriving at
the producer drops to a value dependent on the zone
thickness, injection rate and temperature, and distance
between the injector and producer.
The theory for the movement of a hot or cold interface
in a reservoir due to the injection of water of a different
temperature was outlined by Lauwerier (1955) and a
calculation using his equations is shown in Fig. 64. After
two years of injection, the oil/water interface will be at a
1,000-ft radius from the injection well while the hot and
cold interface will be at only a 600-ft radius. This can, of
course, also be modeled using a thermal reservoir simu-
lator such as the ECLIPSE* Compositional module of the
ECLIPSE industry-reference reservoir simulator.

Cold Flood
Hot Cold front front

Cold Flood
Hot Cold front front

Temperature Reservoir
temperature

Figure 63. Radial injection of cold water.

180
Reservoir temperature
160
140
Water Waterflood
120 thermal front
Temperature,
degF 100 front

80
60
Injection temperature
40
0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200
Radial distance, ft
Figure 64. Thermal front resulting from the radial injection of 60-degF water into a 30-ft 25%-porosity zone for two years at a rate of 10,000 bbl/d.

The Essentials of Fiber-Optic Distributed Temperature Analysis 53

Previous | Main Menu | Contents | Search | Next

 For normal well spacing and injection or production, However, the toe of the well is close to an injector well
the arrival of cold injected water at a producer can take a that had been injecting for several years, so the water
long time. However, if wells are drilled close to one another produced from the toe is no longer at the geothermal
or the field is old and has been on injection for many years, temperature but significantly colder.
cold injected water can arrive at the producer. It is easy Farther up the well, the cold water is mixing with oil
to identify these zones in a well during a shut-in because that is flowing at the geothermal temperature from the
they are colder than the expected geothermal (Brown and other producing intervals.
Tiwari, 2010). Revising the thermal model (Fig. 66) by changing
only the temperature of the water flowing from the zone
at the bottom of the well results in a good fit between
Example: Cold water breakthrough the thermal model and the measured DTS data over the
reservoir interval.
This horizontal producer has a 7-in-diameter cased hole
Thus, if the zone of cold water breakthrough can
completion with fluids pumped to the surface by ESP.
be identified and the water temperature included in
The DTS system was permanently installed across the
the thermal model, it is possible to determine the flow
reservoir by attaching the ¼-in control line protecting
profile along the reservoir interval.
the optical fiber to a 23⁄8 -in tubing stinger hung below
Without the cold water breakthrough in this well,
the production tubing.
there is little temperature difference between the geo-
Figure 65 shows the measured DTS temperature
thermal temperature and the flowing temperature, and
profile (black trace) over the reservoir interval together
a flow distribution analysis would not be possible.
with the thermal model temperature and calculated flow
This well was continuously monitored, and although
rate, assuming that all the produced fluids (oil and water
the flow contributions changed over time, the well was
from the toe) are at the geothermal temperature (Brown
still producing cold water from the toe and a significant
et al., 2000). The THERMA software thermal-modeled
inflow from the zones close to the heel over five years
temperature (red trace) is close to the geothermal
later.
gradient, whereas the measured DTS temperature is as
much as 30 degF below the geothermal temperature at
the toe of the well. The thermal model does not account
for the temperature rise at the ESP.

16,000 180
Gas/liquid
interface
in the annulus ESP
12,000 160

Total rate, Geothermal gradient Temperature,

8,000 140
bbl/d degF
Oil flow
4,000 120

Water flow
0 100
X X+2,000 X+4,000 X+6,000 X+8,000 X+10,000 X+12,000 X+14,000
Measured depth, ft

Cold water
breakthrough

Figure 65. Effect of cold water breakthrough at the bottom producing interval, assuming that all produced fluids are at geothermal temperature.

54

Previous | Main Menu | Contents | Search | Next

 16,000 180
Gas/liquid
interface
in the annulus ESP
12,000 160

Total rate, 8,000 Geothermal gradient Temperature,

140
bbl/d degF
Oil flow

4,000 120

Water flow
0 100
X X+2,000 X+4,000 X+6,000 X+8,000 X+10,000 X+12,000 X+14,000
Measured depth, ft

Cold water
breakthrough

Figure 66. Revised thermal model for the effect of cold water breakthrough at the bottom producing interval.

The Essentials of Fiber-Optic Distributed Temperature Analysis ■ Water Flow Between Wells 55

Previous | Main Menu | Contents | Search | Next

 Steamflood and
SAGD Well Analysis

In heavy oil regions, it is common to reduce the viscos-
ity of the low-API oil or bitumen by heating it, using
steam to make it flow to the surface. In one approach,
steam is pumped into injection wells, causing the res-
ervoir to become hot between the steam injector and
producer, thereby allowing the lowered-viscosity bitumen
to be pumped from producing wells. A different method
employs steam injected directly into the producer well
for a period of time, then the heavy oil and condensed
water are produced from the well in a cycle, which often
requires the use of downhole pumps. This is called the
huff ‘n’ puff process. In a third method, the steam is
injected into a separate upper well in a horizontal pair
of wells (typically 16 ft [5 m] above the producer well).
A steam chamber is created above both wells from which
the lowered viscosity bitumen and condensed water drain
down into the producer well by gravity. This last method is
called steam-assisted gravity drainage (SAGD).
In all these methods the steam injected ranges from
480 to 570 degF, which is outside the range of most
electrical measurements, and because the produced flow
is still highly viscous, it is not possible to monitor the
flow profile using conventional spinner measurements.
Measurements in these types of wells are limited to either
thermocouple or fiber-optic temperature measurements.
Monitoring producing and monitor wells in a field
under steam injection was the first application of fiber-
optic temperature systems in the oil field. This occurred
in the San Joaquin Valley heavy oil fields in California
in 1995 and is still being performed in 2016. The high
temperatures encountered in the initial monitoring
efforts resulted in the optical fibers degrading rapidly
due to hydrogen ingress, which caused poor operating
life. However, a significant effort on the development
of optical fiber coatings has resulted in the carbon
polyimide coating of WellWatcher BriteBlue HT* high-
temperature multimode DTS fiber, which can operate
successfully at 570 degF for many years.
Steam monitor wells
Where steam is injected into one well and oil and bitu-
men produced from another, the development of the hot
front between the wells is often observed using monitor
wells situated between the injector and producer so
the reservoir model of the steam front can be refined
over time. Typically, these monitor wells require only a
slickline fiber to be run into them on a regular basis and
a single DTS temperature profile recorded.

Previously
steamed zone

458–485
431–458
400 404–431
377–404
350–377
300 323–350
Temperature, 296–323
degF 200 269–296
11/25/2002
242–269
100 3/23/2002 215–242
188–215
X 3/5/2001 161–188
Stea 134–161
X+500 thro m fron 107–134
ugh ts 12/16/2000
the movin 80–107
rese g
X+1,000 r v oi
r 1/29/1999
Depth, ft
X+1,500
1/12/1998
Figure 67. Steamflood tracking using monitor wells.

The Essentials of Fiber-Optic Distributed Temperature Analysis 57

Previous | Main Menu | Contents | Search | Next

 The data shown in Fig. 67 is from a typical steam
monitor well where DTS surveys have been recorded
every two weeks for five years. The upper reservoir is hot
and remains so, having previously been steamflooded.
The steam breakthrough in the lower reservoir is clearly
not homogeneous but occurring in thin layers in the
reservoir, and some zones have flooded farther into the
reservoir than others during the monitoring period.
Single huff ‘n’ puff steam wells
In wells where steam is injected, the well produced, and
the procedure repeated in cycles, the production string
is often set to the bottom of the reservoir. This causes a
counterflow situation (i.e., flow down the outside of the
tubing and up inside it) when the well is producing, thus
making flow analysis difficult.
However, it is possible to determine the likely pro-
duction profile by performing a shut-in warmback for a
period after the steam injection phase is completed and
analyzing the warmback response the same way as with
water injectors except that the fluid thermal properties
are those of steam.
This approach is also applicable to SAGD wells during
the early steam-soak phase for determining permeability
changes along the reservoir that would later have an
effect on the well’s production capability.
Figure 68 shows the warmback analysis of a huff
‘n’ puff heavy oil steam well. The injected steam tem-
perature is 570 degF and after a four-day shut-in, the
warmback data (red trace) was recorded. Varying the
reservoir zone permeabilities to match the thermal
model (orange trace) to the warmback data resulted in
the gray injection profile down the reservoir, indicating
a short zone of high permeability near the heel and also
high permeability at the toe, which is below the end of
the fiber. A zone is required below the end of the fiber to
make the model fit.
Consequently, this reservoir is not behaving in a
homogeneous fashion, and the two high-permeability
intervals can be expected to flow preferentially when the
well is put on production.

Injection DTS steam

profile injection temperature
X

X+200

Depth, ft
DTS shut-in temperature
X+400

Geothermal Model shut-in Model steam

gradient temperature injection
X+600 temperature

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

Temperature, degF
Figure 68. Warmback analysis of a huff ‘n’ puff heavy oil steam well.

58

Previous | Main Menu | Contents | Search | Next

SAGD bitumen-producing wells will not flow. However, if it is too small, there is the pos-
sibility for the steam to break through from the injector
The SAGD process requires an upper horizontal steam
into the producer. This is to the detriment of the SAGD
injection well that creates a steam chamber above it, fed
process. Consequently, to achieve optimal production,
by the injected steam. Steam lowers the viscosity of the
the subcool in a well must be maintained at a constant
bitumen at the steam and bitumen interface, and the
level, which can be different for different oil fields.
hydrocarbon and condensed water fall under gravity to
One of the problems of measuring temperature in
the horizontal producing well (Fig. 69), from which they
these types of wells is the assumption that the DTS or
are pumped to the surface.
thermocouple sensor measures the flowing temperature
Normally, the optical fiber is installed in an instru-
of the bitumen and water mixture in the producing well.
ment string: a 1-in-OD tube inserted into the lower
However, if the steam chamber is not well developed,
producing well along the reservoir section. Usually,
for whatever reason, a large temperature difference
there is no optical fiber installed in the upper steam
can exist between the top and bottom of the producing
injection well.
well, which can exhibit a 35-degF or more temperature
The objective of monitoring the temperature along the
difference. Figure 70 shows the temperature recorded in
wellbore is that the SAGD process works most efficiently
a vertical monitor well 3 ft from the SAGD pair of wells,
when a certain temperature difference is maintained
with a large temperature difference between the top
between the injector and producer. This difference in
and bottom of the producing well. An instrument string
temperature is called the subcool. If the subcool is too
inserted helically into this well showed temperature
high, the bitumen viscosity is also too high, and the well

Steam Steam flows to

chamber interface
and condenses

Bitumen Heated bitumen

and water flows to well

Figure 69. SAGD heavy oil production process.

X+50

Thermocouple temperature
3 ft from the SAGD wells
Depth, X+100
ft
Steam injector

X+150 Producer

X+200
0 100 200 300 400 500
Temperature, degF
Figure 70. A monitor well showing a high temperature gradient at the producing well.

The Essentials of Fiber-Optic Distributed Temperature Analysis ■ Steamflood and SAGD Well Analysis 59

Previous | Main Menu | Contents | Search | Next

differences of more than 35 degF between the top and
bottom of the producing interval.
Ideally, the instrument string should be inserted heli-
cally or fiber should be installed in a monitor well drilled
close to the producer to identify this problem because if
the instrument string is lying on the bottom of the well,
the top can show as 35 degF or higher and the calculated
subcool will be incorrect (Krawchuk et al., 2006).
Although it is not possible to calculate the flow profile
using conventional spinner logs because of the viscosity
of the fluid, it is possible, under some circumstances, to
estimate the production profile from the DTS temperature
and a thermal model. There must be some character to the
temperature profile in the producing well (i.e., it is not a
constant value) and the steam and liquid interface must
be at about the depth of the injection well. Under these
conditions, it is possible to use a horizontal thermal well
model to simulate the interval between the steam injector
and producer, assuming vertical liquid flow only where
the controlling factor is not the reservoir permeability
(which is always high) but is the viscosity of the bitumen,
which is controlled by its temperature. Consequently, the
flow into the producing well is controlled primarily by
the temperature of the interwell rock and not the steam
chamber above the injector. It is the rock between the
wells that controls the viscosity of the bitumen flowing
down through it and thus its ability to flow.
Figure 71 shows the temperature profile created
by SAGD flow into a horizontal producing well from
two zones where the heel zone has a higher interwell
temperature than the toe zone. The heel zone bitumen
temperature is hotter than the DTS measured tempera-
ture in the wellbore because it mixes with the flow from
farther down the well, and it is this mixture temperature
that is measured by the DTS sensors. Although subcool
60
Previous | Main Menu | Contents | Search | Next
is used to control the well, in some zones, particularly
toward the heel, bitumen can be flowing from the reser-
voir at a temperature above the measured temperature
and thus, the subcool can in some circumstances be
pessimistic.
Figure 72 shows a horizontal well thermal model
fit to DTS data recorded in a flowing SAGD well. The
downward excursions of temperature are due to cold
spots at the bottom of the well where there must be a
large temperature gradient across the producing well.
Using THERMA software and assuming constant
permeability in all the zones and a water cut of 60%, the
interwell zone temperature is adjusted until the thermal
model calculated temperature matches the measured
temperature. The flow is determined by the temperature
viscosity relationship of the bitumen, which should be
measured and implemented in the software. The steam
injection pressure is the external reservoir pressure for
the model.
The results show that the higher-temperature zone
at the heel is producing significantly more flow than
the lower-temperature zones toward the toe of the well
because of the temperature-viscosity relationship of the
bitumen.
Also, the interwell zone temperature in the zone at
X+1,750 ft needs to be significantly higher than the
measured temperature to get the model to fit. Thus, this
zone is close to steam breakthrough and a subcool mea-
surement in this zone using only the DTS measurement
and injected steam temperature will be very pessimistic.
 Injected steam temperature

DTS flowing temperature

Subcool
Interwell zone
temperature

Geothermal gradient

Figure 71. SAGD subcool and interwell temperatures.

12,000 600

Steam temperature
10,000 500
Calculated
temperature Zone temperature
8,000 400

Flow rate, Temperature,

6,000 DTS flowing 300
bbl/d degF
temperature

4,000 200
Cold spots
Flow profile
2,000 100
Geothermal gradient

0 0
X X+500 X+1,000 X+1,500 X+2,000 X+2,500 X+3,000 X+3,500 X+4,000
Depth, ft
Figure 72. SAGD thermal model flow analysis.

The Essentials of Fiber-Optic Distributed Temperature Analysis ■ Steamflood and SAGD Well Analysis 61

Previous | Main Menu | Contents | Search | Next

 Acid Stimulation Optimization

Acid reacting with carbonate rock causes an exothermic
reaction, giving off heat. In a process called stimulation,
acid is used to improve near-well permeability in oil and
gas wells. During stimulation, acid is bullheaded down the
well into the reservoir or placed at selected spots along the
reservoir interval using CT.
The process of acid dissolution of the carbonate rock
causes “wormholes” (Fig. 73) around the wellbore where
the reaction and heating take place. This occurs at the tip
of the wormhole as it expands outward into the formation
(McDuff et al., 2010). When injection ceases, the unspent
acid in the rest of the wormhole also reacts with the rock.
This causes a zone around the wellbore to heat up faster
than it would under normal injection conditions. However,
the exothermal heating is a transient event lasting only a
short time, although the heated rock remains hot even after
the exothermal reaction has ceased.
Figure 74 shows a well with several reservoir zones
(shaded gray) where acid has been bullheaded into the
formation and DTS data acquired during the shut-in warm-
back period. The “normal warmback” response above the
reservoir is of nonpermeable rock that has been cooled

Side View Top View

Wormholes

Wormholes

Figure 73. The creation of wormholes around the well by acid reaction.

Normal warmback Acid stimulation warmback

96.4–98.0
95
94.9–96.4
93.3–94.9
90 91.7–93.3
Temperature, 85
90.2–91.7
degF 88.6–90.2
80 87.1–88.6
85.5–87.1
2:01 p.m. 75 83.9–85.5
82.4–83.9
1:56 p.m. X+600 80.8–82.4
79.2–80.8
1:26 p.m. X+400 77.7–79.2
76.1–77.7
12:55 p.m. 74.5–76.1
Depth, ft
X+200
12:25 p.m.

11:54 a.m. X
Figure 74. Acid heating during warmback.

The Essentials of Fiber-Optic Distributed Temperature Analysis 63

Previous | Main Menu | Contents | Search | Next

only by conduction through the casing. If the reservoir
zones had been injected with a nonexothermal fluid,
they would have warmed back at a rate slower than the
rate of the nonpermeable zones. However, the reservoir
zones heat back much faster than the nonpermeable
zones due to the effect of exothermic heating of the rock
by the acid.
Removing the normal nonpermeable warmback
response from the dataset results in the response
shown in Fig. 75. The top reservoir zone heats up slower
than the bottom zone but stays hotter much longer,
while the bottom zone heats up quickly and then the
heat dissipates rapidly. The bottom zone is known to
be less permeable than the top zone so that the acid
has not created very deep wormholes and thus only a
small-diameter hot region around the wellbore. In the
top reservoir zone the acid has created much deeper
wormholes, and although they take longer to warm up,
the region remains hot much longer (Gonzalez et al.,
2012; Grayson et al., 2015).
Acid stimulation jobs in long horizontal carbonate
wells usually consist of three or four events each fol-
lowed by DTS warmback monitoring:
1. Preflush of nonexothermic fluid, which is used to
identify the permeable layers in the reservoir
2. Injection of VDA* viscosity diverting acid into the
permeable zones, whereupon the VDA acid increases
its viscosity to divert further injected acid into other
less permeable intervals
3. Injection of acid into less permeable intervals
4. Postflush of nonexothermal fluid, which is used to
confirm the effectiveness of the acid stimulation job.
By comparing the warmback response of operations
2, 3, and 4 to the original preflush warmback, the effec-
tiveness of the acid stimulation job can be evaluated.
In long horizontal wells, the rate at which fluids can
be pumped is often limited by the CT diameter to about
2 bbl/min, so injection cooling of the reservoir during
the preflush is often small. Also, at this rate, the injected

Acid exothermal response

42.5–43.2
95 41.7–42.5
41.0–41.7
40.2–41.0
Temperature, 39.5–40.2
degF 38.7–39.5
90
38.0–38.7
2:01 p.m. 37.2–38.0
36.5–37.2
35.7–36.5
1:56 p.m.
X+600 35.0–35.7
34.2–35.0
1:26 p.m. 33.5–34.2
32.7–33.5
X+400
12:55 p.m. 32.0–32.7

Depth, ft
12:25 p.m. X+200

X
11:54 a.m.
Figure 75. Acid heating during warmback with the normal nonpermeable warmback response removed.

64

Previous | Main Menu | Contents | Search | Next

fluid heats up as it travels along the horizontal reservoir Correcting for the change in geothermal to injection
to decrease the temperature difference between the temperature along the reservoir yields
geothermal and injected temperature toward the toe of
the well. X Cg
N wbk = . (12)
These effects can be normalized by using the normal Cw
nonpermeable warmback response observed at the heel
of the well and simple algorithms to make the warmback If there has been acid heating the rock, the normalized
response along the horizontal similar, irrespective of the response is greater than the preflush nonexothermal
geothermal to injection temperature difference. This is response, and this can be identified by comparing the
shown in Fig. 76 where Nwbk is the normalized warmback preflush and VDA acid pumped normalized responses.
response that, if the zone is permeable, is negative Because the acid effect is transient, the maximum
(after removing the geothermal temperature), while the response at one depth may be different from the
nonpermeable zones are zero. maximum response at another depth. This changes
The derivation of X and the normalized warmback during the warmback period, so the whole dataset from
temperature Nwbk from Fig. 76 is as follows: during the warmback must be viewed to identify the
maximum acid effect.
( Xw X i ) ( C g Ci )
, (11)
X = Ci +
Xg Xi
where
X = un-normalized correction at depth x
in the reservoir
Xw = shut-in warmback temperature at depth x
Xi = injection temperature at depth x
Cg = geothermal temperature at the nonpermeable
calibration point
Ci = injection temperature at the nonpermeable
calibration point
Cw = warmback temperature at the nonpermeable
calibration point
Xg = geothermal temperature at depth x.

Horizontal section
nt Cg Xg
radie
g
al Nwbk
erm
oth
Ge Cw
e
ur
at
-in er Xw
h ut mp
S k te
ac
r mb Xi
wa X
Injection Ci
temperature x

Shale Sand Shaly Sand

Figure 76. Normalizing the warmback response.

The Essentials of Fiber-Optic Distributed Temperature Analysis ■ Acid Stimulation Optimization 65

Previous | Main Menu | Contents | Search | Next

Example: Acid stimulation
warmback responses
Figure 77 shows the normalized responses along a long
horizontal carbonate well after preflush, VDA acid injec-
tion, and acid injection. The blue preflush trace identifies
the permeable reservoir intervals that require diverting
using VDA acid plus where best to place the VDA acid
with CT. The purple trace shows the heating response
of the VDA acid in the permeable zones (i.e., the much
warmer zones than the preflush permeable zones due to
the acid exothermic effect). The purple trace shows that
little VDA acid has been injected into the low-permea-
bility zones (gray intervals). With the permeable zones
plugged with VDA acid, CT was used to target acid at
the low-permeability zones. The red trace is the postacid
normalized data, which shows significant acid warming
over the two low-permeability zones at the toe of the well,
confirming that these low-permeability zones have been
significantly stimulated.

10.0
Zones in gray correlate
with low log permeability
7.5
Acid response in
low-permeability zones
5.0
VDA acid exothermic warming
in permeable zones only
2.5
Normalization VDA
zone
Temperature, 0
degC

–2.5

–5.0
Preflush
–7.5
Colder than the normalization zone
due to cold water invasion
–10
X X+1,000 X+2,000 X+3,000
Depth, ft
Figure 77. Normalized preflush, VDA acid, and acid responses.

66

Previous | Main Menu | Contents | Search | Next

 Gas Lift Monitoring

Because it is recording temperature along the whole
length of the fiber at the same time, the DTS measure-
ment is ideally suited to monitor whether gas lift valves
are working or not by detecting the cooling event that
occurs at a valve when gas is passed through it. Often
operators run a pressure gauge survey on slickline and
plot the pressure gradient inside the tubing to identify
the operating gas lift valve by the change of gradient.
However, this only identifies the current operating valve
and does not work if the flowing pressures are not stable.
DTS measurements can check that all the valves
operate normally during well startup (they should open
and pass gas one after the other in sequence) and can
identify the operating gas lift valve, even when the flow
through the valve is irregular due to a slugging well.
The cooling event occurring at the gas lift valve is
a result of the pressure drop of gas across the valve,
causing the gas to cool due to the Joule-Thomson effect.
The magnitude of the cooling is a function of the gas
injection rate, pressure drop across the valve, and oil
rate up inside the tubing. When the well is started to flow
by injecting gas through the valve nearest the surface, it
exhibits a large cooling event because the oil flow rate
is low and the Joule-Thomson cooling is large. As the
well starts to flow, the cooling event at lower valves is
reduced as both the oil flow rate increases and the Joule-
Thomson effect is lessened with increasing annulus
pressure (Costello et al., 2012).
Often the bottom valve in a string is an orifice valve,
which, as its name implies, has little pressure drop
across it, so the Joule-Thomson cooling may even be
very small. However, the temperature response of gassy
oil above the valve is different from the response of
nongassy oil, so even where there is no significant Joule-
Thomson cooling through the valve, it is still possible
to identify whether it is flowing gas by comparing the
temperature response above the valve to that predicted
with no gas lift operating.
Figure 78 shows a thermal model of gas cooling
through the top valve in a gas lift string. The cooling is
compared with the expected temperature response for
no gas lift cooling, with the well flowing at 1,000 bbl/d
and a 2.0-MMcf/d gas injection rate.

Gas rate, MMcf/d

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

Flow rate, bbl/d

00 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000

No gas lift
1,000
Gas lift
2,000 through valve
Gas rate Gas lift valve
3,000 at 1,500 ft
Ge
ot

Depth, ft Cooling
he
rm

4,000 at gas lift

al

valve
gr
a

Reservoir zones
die
n

5,000
t

6,000
Oil rate
7,000
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Temperature, degF
Figure 78. Thermal model of gas lift startup with gas flowing through an upper valve.

The Essentials of Fiber-Optic Distributed Temperature Analysis 67

Previous | Main Menu | Contents | Search | Next

 Figure 79 shows the expected temperature response
when the well is flowing at a higher rate of 5,000 bbl/d and
gas lift at 2.0 MMcf/d is occurring through a deeper valve.
Figure 80 shows the expected temperature response
when the lower valve is an orifice valve with little or no
pressure drop across it. There is still a change in the
temperature profile slope above the valve due to the
change in thermal properties of the oil with added gas,
so it is still possible to identify the operating valve using
DTS measurements.

Gas rate, MMcf/d

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

Flow rate, bbl/d

00 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000

No gas lift
1,000

Ge
ot
2,000

he
rm
Gas lift through valve

al
g
ra
3,000

die
n
Gas lift valve

t
Depth, ft Gas rate at 4,500 ft
4,000
Cooling at gas
lift valve Reservoir zones
5,000

6,000
Oil rate
7,000
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Temperature, degF
Figure 79. Thermal model of gas lift startup with gas flowing through a lower valve.

Gas rate, MMcf/d

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

Flow rate, bbl/d

0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000
0

No gas lift
1,000
Gas lift
Ge

through orifice
ot

2,000
he
rm
al
g
ra

3,000
die
n

Orifice valve
t

Depth, ft Gas rate at 4,500 ft

4,000
No cooling at gas
5,000 lift valve Reservoir zones

6,000
Oil rate
7,000
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Temperature, degF
Figure 80. Thermal model of gas lift startup with gas flowing through a lower orifice valve.

68

Previous | Main Menu | Contents | Search | Next

Example: Unstable gas lift flow well’s flow rate or an increase in water cut over time
so the well valves are not operating at the conditions
The data in Fig. 81 was acquired using a slickline DTS
that they were designed for. Consequently, the operator
system that monitored all the gas lift valves in the well
should check whether the gas lift design of this well is
for a period of two hours. The well is not flowing in a
still valid, and if not, change the valves accordingly.
stable condition and gas is flowing irregularly through
the gas lift valve at X+5,200 ft, causing large cooling
events followed by no cooling. Normally, gas lift valves
are designed to produce a stable flow through the lowest
valve. However, the valve that is lifting this well is not
the lowest valve and flow through it is not stable. This
condition is most probably caused by a change in the

X Slugging through X+5,200-ft valve

Geothermal
gradient

200–210
X+2,000
190–200
180–190
170–180
160–170
150–160
Depth, X+4,000 141–150
131–141
ft 121–131
111–121
Gas lift valves 101–111
91–101
X+6,000 81–91
71–81
1:17 p.m. 61–71
12:51 p.m.
12:25 a.m.
100
11:59 a.m.
150
Temperature,
degF 200 11:33 a.m.

Figure 81. Unstable flow causing irregular cooling at a gas lift valve.

The Essentials of Fiber-Optic Distributed Temperature Analysis ■ Gas Lift Monitoring 69

Previous | Main Menu | Contents | Search | Next

 Leak Detection Using Temperature

Leaks can occur at several places in a well (e.g., in tubing
or casing, past packers, or even outside the well between
different permeable zones where the cement in the
outside casing is insufficient to provide a pressure seal).
Although there are several types of casing measure-
ment tools, including calipers and even spinner logs,
most of these are limited to measuring the inside the
tubing string. The only measurements that can pene-
trate multiple strings and respond to flow outside the
casing are acoustic and temperature measurements.
The best way to identify a leak with temperature
measurements is to cause the maximum amount of
flow possible through the leak by injecting into the
tubing or annulus or bleeding off the annulus pressure.
Temperature response to this transient event is recorded
(Julian et al., 2007).
Example: Leaks in a casing identified 
by injection
Figure 82 shows leaks through a casing identified by
injecting water down the inside of the casing. There
are clearly two leaks occurring at X+5,900  ft and
X+7,200  ft with no flow down the casing below the
lower leak.
Although the upper leak must be through the casing,
there are two options for the lower leak: either there is
also a hole in the casing at this point or the flow leaking
through the upper hole is flowing down the outside of the
casing and bleeding off into the formation at this point.
It is not possible with temperature alone to identify
which is the correct option.

X+2,000
Geothermal gradient
X+4,000 Completion

End of injection
Depth,
ft X+6,000
Leakoff points

X+8,000

X+10,000

50 75 100 125 150 175 200

Temperature, degF
Figure 82. Casing leaks identified during injection.

The Essentials of Fiber-Optic Distributed Temperature Analysis 71

Previous | Main Menu | Contents | Search | Next

Example: Leaks in tubing identified  is a transient event, it is necessary to record DTS data
by gas lift
During gas lift, a temperature anomaly is expected at
the depth of the operating gas lift valve due to the
Joule-Thomson cooling of gas passing through the valve
or, if injection is just starting, the effect is observed
sequentially as the gas lift valves open. However, the gas
lift startup data in Fig. 83 shows large cooling events
occurring between the top two gas lift valves, which
indicates that the gas lift gas is flowing through holes in
the tubing rather than through the gas lift valves. When
the well is flowing, it is also evident that the majority of
the gas lift is taking place through holes in the tubing and
that only the top gas lift valve is operating.
The biggest temperature change occurs where Joule-
Thomson effects are large (i.e., for gas and the smallest
for water). Because bleeding off pressure in an annulus
before, during, and after the bleedoff.
Example: Flow behind casing
Temperature measurements are also useful to identify
situations where there is flow outside the well casings.
The example shown in Fig. 84 is a shut-in well where
there is flow from X+2,000 ft up outside the casing into
a permeable zone X+1,300 ft. This can be identified
because the temperature response is that of a flowing
well but only between the leak points. Clearly, the
cement around the outer casing is not sufficient to
prevent flow, and if this is allowed to continue, it will
increase the chance of corrosion and a potential leak
through the casing occurring.

X
Well flowing
X+1,000
Well startup
X+2,000
Valve operating
Flow through holes
X+3,000
Depth,

Completion
Gas lift valve Gas lift
ft through holes
X+4,000

X+5,000

X+6,000

X+7,000
40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Temperature, degF
Figure 83. Tubing leaks identified during gas lift injection with gas lift valve.

X+500

X+1,000

X+1,500
Completion

Depth, Crossflow between zones

ft X+2,000
Expected response
X+2,500 with no flow

X+3,000

X+3,500
80 90 100 110 120
Temperature, degF
Figure 84. Flow behind casing observed during shut-in.

72

Previous | Main Menu | Contents | Search | Next


DTS measurements in oil wells can also be used for a
variety of other applications. Three are mentioned here.
Vacuum-insulated tubing monitoring
Vacuum-insulated tubing (VIT) is sometimes required to
prevent the region surrounding the well near the surface
from getting too hot during production, which may cause
the collapse of casings with no means of annulus pres-
sure relief. DTS monitoring has been used to monitor the
effectiveness of VIT and check to make sure the vacuum
in the tubing remains.
Fracture detection
There are many papers on the use of temperature logs
for detecting the height of a fracture in a well. Ideally,
the fracture is in line with the wellbore, but it may not
be, either due to the well trajectory or rock stresses. In
these latter cases the fracture response is more difficult
to interpret. In horizontal wells, the fracture most likely
intersects the wellbore at one point only.
The method of identifying fractures is to shut in the
well after the hydraulic fracture job has been completed
and the fractured interval will warmback toward the
geothermal gradient slower than the response of a nor-
mally invaded interval. If the well has been hydraulically
The Essentials of Fiber-Optic Distributed Temperature Analysis 73
Previous | Main Menu | Contents | Search | Next
Other Oilfield DTS
Monitoring Applications
fractured using proppant, which is cold when pumped
from the surface, the fractured interval is usually easy to
identify. If the fracture is not propped open and has been
created only for a short time (e.g., a “data frac” during
a hydraulic fracture job), then it may be more difficult
to see the fracture because the fracture opening closes
when injection stops.
Cement-top detection
When a casing has been cemented, the cement sets up
with an exothermal chemical reaction that causes it
to heat up for several hours after the cement has been
pumped. The increase in temperature above the geo-
thermal gradient is an indication of where the cement
is behind the casing. This effect may also vary with hole
size: More cement produces a larger exothermal heating.
Wireline temperature logs are usually run 12 hours after
a cement job to identify the cement top but, because the
exothermal heating is a function of several parameters,
this may not be the optimal time. However, DTS mea-
surements recorded continuously for 24 hours after the
cement job has occurred are sufficient to identify all the
intervals in the well where the cement-setup exothermal
reaction has occurred.

Al-Asimi, M., Butler, G., Brown, G., Hartog, A., Clancy,
T., Cosad, C., Fitzgerald, J., Navarros, J., Gabb, A.,
Ingham, J., Kimminau, S., Smith, J., and Stephenson, K.:
“Advances in well and reservoir surveillance,” Oilfield
Review (Winter 2002), 14–35.
Brown, G.A.: “Monitoring multilayered reservoir
pressures and gas/oil ratio changes over time using
permanently installed distributed temperature
measurements,” paper SPE 101886 presented at the
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San
Antonio, Texas, USA (September 24–27, 2006).
Brown, G.A., Carvalho, V., Wray, A., Smith, D., Toombs, M.,
and Pennel, S.: “Monitoring alternating CO2 and water
injection and its effect on production in a carbonate
reservoir using permanent fiber-optic distributed
temperature systems,” paper SPE 90248 presented at
the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
Houston, Texas, USA (September 26–29, 2004).
Brown, G.A., Field, D., Davies, J., Collins, P., and
Garayeva, N.: “Production monitoring through open hole
gravel-pack completions using permanently installed
fiber-optic distributed temperature systems in the
BP-operated Azeri field in Azerbijan,” paper SPE 95419
presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, USA (October 9–12, 2005).
Brown, G.A., Kennedy, B., and Meling, T.: “Using fiber-
optic distributed temperature measurements to provide
real- time reservoir surveillance data on Wytch Farm
field horizontal extended-reach wells,” paper SPE 62952
presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, USA (October 1–4, 2000).
Brown, G.A., Storer, D., McAllister, M., al-Asimi, A., and
Raghavan, K.: “Monitoring horizontal producers and
injectors during cleanup and production using fiber-
optic-distributed temperature measurements,” paper
SPE 84379 presented at the SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Denver, Colorado, USA
(October 5–8, 2003).
Brown, G.A., and Tiwari, P.: “Using DTS flow
measurements below electrical submersible pumps
to optimize production from depleted reservoirs by
The Essentials of Fiber-Optic Distributed Temperature Analysis 75
Previous | Main Menu | Contents | Search | Next
References
changing injection support around the well,” paper
SPE 135130 presented at the SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Florence Italy (September
19–22, 2010).
Chertenkov, M., Deliya, S., Semkin, D., Brown, G.A.,
Bayanova, A., Kanevsky, E., Nukhaev, M., Shapovalov, A.,
and Pormeyster, Y.: “Gas breakthrough detection and
production monitoring from ICD screen completion on
Lukoil’s Korchagina field using permanently installed
distributed temperature measurements,” paper
SPE 159581 presented at the SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, USA
(October 8–10, 2012).
Costello, C., Sordyl, P., Hughes, C., Figueroa, M., Balster,
E., and Brown, G.A.: “Permanent distributed sensing
(DTS) technology applied in mature fields: a Forties
field case study,” paper SPE 150197 presented at the
SPE Intelligent Energy International, Utrecht, The
Netherlands (March 27–29, 2012).
Curtis, M.R., and Witterholt, E.J.: “Use of the tempera-
ture log for determining flow rates in wells,” paper SPE
4737 presented at the SPE Annual Meeting , Las Vegas,
Nevada, USA (September 30–October 3, 1973).
Doll, H.G., and Perebinossoff, A.A.: “Temperature mea-
surements in oil wells,” presented at the 1936 Meeting
of the Institute of Petroleum Technology.
Fahim, M., Keshka, A., Al Marzooqi, A., Alvi, A., Brown,
G.A., and Al Neyaei, F.: “Distributed temperature sensing
(DT) enables injectivity visualization to enhance
stimulation efficiency,” paper SPE 141238 presented at
the SPE Middle East Oil and Gas Conference, Manama,
Bahrain (March 6–9, 2011).
Fryer, V., Shuxing, D., Otsubo, Y., Brown, G., and
Guilfoyle, P.: “Monitoring of real-time temperature
profiles across multizone reservoirs during production
and shut in periods using permanent fiber-optic
distributed temperature systems,” paper SPE 92962
presented at the SPE Asia Pacific Oil & Gas Conference
and Exhibition, Jakarta, Indonesia (April 5–7, 2005).
doi:10.2118/92962-MS
Gonzalez, Y.J., Friese, A.M., Brown, G., Padilla, A.,
Sanchez, A., and Ward, L.A.: “Slickline DTS measurements
provide useful information for well integrity diagnostic,
stimulation treatments, and water injector wells
performance: North America land case studies,” paper
SPE 154442 presented at the SPE/ICoTA Coiled Tubing
& Well Intervention Conference & Exhibition, The
Woodlands, Texas, USA (March 27–28, 2012).
Grayson, S., Gonzalez, Y., England, K., Bidyk, R., and
Farrell Pits, S.: “Monitoring acid stimulation treatments
in naturally fractured reservoirs with slickline distributed
temperature sensing,” paper SPE 173640 presented
at the SPE/ICoTA Coiled Tubing & Well Intervention
Conference & Exhibition, The Woodlands, Texas, USA
(March 24–25, 2015).
Heubsch, H., Bruns, J., Tripp, G., Brown, G.A., Sanchez,
A., and Gonzalez, Y.: “The effect of previous counter-
flow production on the interpretation of velocity string
gas wells using DTS temperature surveys,” paper SPE
162785 presented at the SPE Canadian Unconventional
Resources Conference, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
(October 30–November 1, 2012).
Heubsch, H., Moss, M., Trilsbeck, T., Brown, G.A.,
Rogers, S., and Bouchard, T.: “Monitoring inflow
distribution in multi-zone, velocity string gas wells using
slickline deployed fiber optic distributed temperature
measurements,” paper SPE 115816 presented at the SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver,
Colorado, USA (September 21–24, 2008).
Joule, J.P., and Thomson, W.: “On the thermal effects
of fluids in motion,” Philosophical Transactions of the
Royal Society of London (1853) 143, 357–365.
Julian, J., King, G., Cismoski, D., Younger, R., Brown,
D., Brown, G.A., Richards, K., Meyers, C., Sierra, J.,
Leckband, W., Sack, J., and Julian, F.: “Downhole leak
determination using fiber-optic distributed-temperature
surveys at Prudhoe Bay, Alaska,” paper SPE 107070
presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Anaheim, California, USA (November 11–14,
2007).
76
Previous | Main Menu | Contents | Search | Next
Krawchuk, P., Beshrey, M., Brown, G.A., and Brough, B.:
“Predicting the flow distribution on Total E&P Canada’s
Joslyn project horizontal SAGD producing wells using
permanently installed fiber optic monitoring,” paper
SPE 102159 presented at the SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, USA
(September 24–27, 2006).
Kunz, K.S., and Tixier, M.P.: “Temperature surveys in
gas producing wells,” presented at the AIME Annual
Meeting, Chicago, Illinois, USA (February 13, 1955).
Lauwerier H.A.: “The transport of heat in an oil layer
caused by the injection of hot fluid,” Applied Scientific
Research (1955) 5, A, 145.
McDuff, D.R., Shuchart, C., and Jackson, S.:
“Understanding wormholes in carbonate: unprecedented
experimental scale and 3-D visualization,” paper
SPE 134379 presented at the SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Florence, Italy (September
19–22, 2010).
Pinzon, I.D., Davies, J.E., Mammadkhan, F., and Brown,
G.A.: “Monitoring production from gravel-packed sand
screen completions on BP’s Azeri field using permanently
installed distributed temperature sensors,” paper
SPE 110064 presented at the SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Anaheim, California, USA
(November 11–14, 2007).
Ramey, H.J.: “Well bore heat transmission,” paper SPE
96 presented at the SPE Annual Meeting, Dallas, Texas,
USA (October 8–11, 1961).
Rodionov, A., Lachugin, D., Muslimov, E., Makatov, E.,
Brown, G.A., Nukhaev, M., and Tyutikov, S.: “Injectivity
profile monitoring and hot water flooding optimization
for horizontal well 2G on Rospan’s Russkoe heavy oil
field using DTS,” paper SPE 159592 presented at the SPE
Russian Oil and Gas Exploration Technical Conference,
Moscow, Russia (October 16–18, 2012).
Wood, P., Simpson, A., Holland, B., Brown, G.A., Rogers,
G., Anderson, S., Balster, E., and Figuera, M.: “Monitoring
flow and completion integrity of a North Sea subsea
HPHT appraisal well during an extended well test using
permanently installed fiber-optic temperature sensors,”
paper SPE 137120 presented at the SPE Deepwater
Drilling and Completions Conference, Galveston, Texas,
USA (October 5–6, 2010).
 Appendix

350
t t
0f 0f
F⁄10 F⁄10
g g ft
de de
00
1.6 1.4 F⁄1
g
de ft
1.2
F⁄100
250
deg
1.0 ft
g F⁄100
Temperature, de
0.8 ft
degF 100
6 d egF⁄
0.
150

50
0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000
Depth, ft
Figure A-1. Geothermal gradient, degF/100 ft.

220

0 m
10
g C⁄
de
3.0 00
m
170
g C ⁄1 m
de 100
2 .5 e g C ⁄
d 0m
2.2 C ⁄ 10
de g
Temperature, 120 2 .0
00 m
degC
e g C ⁄1
d
1.5
00 m
0 d e gC ⁄ 1
1.
70

20
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000
Depth, m
Figure A-2. Geothermal gradient, degC/100 m.

The Essentials of Fiber-Optic Distributed Temperature Analysis 77

Previous | Main Menu | Contents | Search | Next

Table A-1. Pipe Size Versus Fluid Velocity for a Flow Rate of 1,000 bbl/d
Pipe OD, Weight, Pipe ID, Fluid Velocity,
in [mm] lbm/ft [kg/m] in [mm] ft/min [m/min]
1.9 [48.26] 2.75 [4.09] 1.61 [40.89] 276.0 [84.12]
4.00 [5.95] 2.041 [51.84] 172.0 [52.43]
2.375 [60.33] 4.60 [6.85] 1.995 [50.67] 180.0 [54.86]
5.80 [8.63] 1.867 [47.42] 205.0 [62.48]
9.50 [14.14] 4.09 [103.89] 42.7 [13.01]
11.60 [17.26] 4 [101.60] 44.7 [13.62]
4.5 [114.30]
13.50 [20.09] 3.92 [99.57] 46.6 [14.20]
15.10 [22.47] 3.826 [97.18] 48.8 [14.87]
13.00 [19.35] 5.044 [128.12] 28.1 [8.56]
14.00 [20.83] 5.012 [127.30] 28.5 [8.69]
15.50 [23.07] 4.95 [125.73] 29.2 [8.90]
5.5 [139.70]
17.00 [25.30] 4.892 [124.26] 29.9 [9.11]
20.00 [29.76] 4.778 [121.36] 31.3 [9.54]
23.00 [34.23] 4.67 [118.62] 32.8 [10.00]
17.00 [25.30] 6.538 [166.07] 16.7 [5.09]
20.00 [29.76] 6.456 [163.98] 17.2 [5.24]
23.00 [34.23] 6.366 [161.70] 17.6 [5.36]
26.00 [38.69] 6.276 [159.41] 18.2 [5.55]
7 [177.80]
29.00 [43.16] 6.184 [157.07] 18.7 [5.70]
32.00 [47.62] 6.094 [154.79] 19.3 [5.88]
35.00 [52.09] 6.004 [152.50] 19.8 [6.04]
38.00 [56.55] 5.92 [150.37] 20.4 [6.22]

78

Previous | Main Menu | Contents | Search