SPE 103891
Best Practice and Case Study of Interwell Tracer Program Designs
H. Cubillos, SPE, CEPSA; H. Torgersen and C. Chatzichristos, SPE, IFE; and M. Lamela, SPE, CEPSA
Copyright 2006, Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper was prepared for presentation at the First International Oil Conference and Exhibition
in Mexico held in Cancun, Mexico, 31 August–2 September 2006.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than
300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
It is well known in the petroleum industry that tracer data can
provide valuable information on reservoir characteristics and
fluid flow performance. However, a prerequisite for obtaining
reliable information is careful planning, design, and field
implementation.
The application of gas tracer technology for improving the
reservoir description and optimizing the RKF Field miscible
gas injection project was presented earlier. The current paper
compliments the earlier work by discussing issues related to
design and field implementation of the tracer program,
including definition of the objectives, determination of tracer
types and amounts, and evaluation of sampling and detection
techniques.
In this paper we document the lessons learned and propose
best practices based on our experience with tracers in the RKF
Field, Algeria. A critical element is integration of the field
operator and Research Centre personnel with the subsurface
team during all phases of the tracer program. This integration
has been very important in obtaining good quality data in the
RKF project.
We also review common mistakes and bad practices that
could occur in the absence of a robust tracer design program.
The importance of analytical calculations, simulation,
sampling frequency and the recycling of tracers are also
among the design topics that are addressed.
The proposed best practices can be applied by field
operators in the design of future tracer projects and can also be
used to identify the causes of tracer monitoring problems in
existing projects. We hope that this paper will be of use to
those managing or planning tracer projects.
Introduction
The Rhourde El Khrouf (RKF) Field is located in Block 406A
of the Berkine Basin, 300-km southeast of Hassi Messaoud1.
The field has been producing under partial pressure
maintenance by miscible gas injection from the TAGI (Trias
Argilo-Gréseux Inférieur) since 1996. Deeper volatile oil and
retrograde gas condensate reservoirs provide makeup gas for
the project.
Tracer technology has been successfully applied in RKF.
It is demonstrated that reliable tracer data can be obtained
through careful planning, design, implementation, and
monitoring. A key element of success is integration of the
project team to include the disciplines of reservoir
engineering, geosciences, field operations, and tracer
specialists.
This paper will discuss the integrated workflow and
lessons learned, and will propose best practices based on the
successful gas tracer project implemented in RKF field2.
Background
Tracer technology has been used for hydrocarbon reservoir
characterization for more than 50 years3. Tracers can render
information that is almost impossible to obtain with other
methods, such as identifying flow paths, breakthrough times
from injector to producers and estimations of the interwell oil
saturation. Tracer technology is also used in the subsurface in
single-well applications for mass balance calculations and
saturation measurements. At the surface, tracers have been
used in separator efficiency tests, and in transport lines and
refinery surveys4,5.
Tracer can provide very reliable information on fluid flow
characteristics in secondary or tertiary recovery processes.
Tracers reflect the reservoir dynamics and can be injected any
time at the start of the injection or later to obtain the fluid flow
paths and velocities in the reservoir. The type of tracer
information acquired depends on the objectives for the
application. Some objectives could include: 1) detecting and
documenting breakthrough times; 2) mapping flow paths and
performing analytical calculations; and 3) more advanced
analyses using reservoir simulation to improve reservoir
description and optimize reservoir management. Recent
developments in tracer technology, especially in the areas of
sampling and laboratory analysis techniques, have made it
easier and less expensive to undertake a tracer project. This
does not mean that it is not a complex procedure. On the
contrary, based on our experience, a successful tracer project
implies special technical, cost, and environmental
considerations.
At the technical level, tracer types, sampling methods,
background levels, detection techniques, and recycling
problems should be considered. From the cost side, some
important issues are tracer amounts, sampling frequency, and
detection techniques. Finally, there are environmental
2 SPE 103891
considerations related to the types and amounts of tracers to be
injected and the minimization of their potential impact to the
atmosphere.
There are many applications of tracer technology, but in
this paper we will address only interwell tracer applications
and the issues that arise during the design and execution
phases of a tracer program.
Two tracer programs were conducted in the RKF miscible
gas injection project. The initial tracer program, which began
at production start-up, failed mainly due to poorly defined
objectives and inadequate monitoring. On the other hand, the
later program has been highly successful. Based on
experience from these two programs, best practices including
the importance of having an integrated project team that
includes all concerned disciplines will be discussed.
Integrated Tracer Program Design
The overall objectives of a tracer program are (1) to obtain
reliable data at reasonable cost with minimal environmental
impact and (2) to integrate tracer data into reservoir
management in order to improve recovery efficiency.
In our experience an integrated approach to designing and
implementing a tracer program is essential. A coordinated
effort by field personnel, reservoir engineers, geoscientists and
tracer specialists is required for a successful tracer program.
The recommended workflow consists of three phases:
1. Design
2. Field execution
3. Integration into reservoir management.
The design phase consists of definition of objectives,
selection of tracers, calculation of tracer volumes, scheduling
for monitoring, and evaluation of the impact of tracer
recycling. During the field execution phase of the program, the
tracers are injected, and gas is sampled and analyzed for
tracers. The final step is integration of the tracer data into the
reservoir management plan.
Design phase. The tracer program is prepared by the
integrated team using information shown in Table 1. The first
step is to establish the objectives of the tracer program.
Objectives. Typical objectives of a gas tracer survey are:
1. Improving reservoir description by defining the
interwell communication and flow paths. This
involves the injection of different tracers at each
injector and the monitoring of all the producers for all
of the tracers.
2. Estimation of the residual oil saturation. This requires
the simultaneous injection of two tracers with
different partitioning coefficients to the oil. The
difference of the retention time of the two tracers
provides estimates of the residual oil saturation.
3. Confirmation of miscibility during gas injection. This
methodology is similar to the previous one. Two
tracers with different partitioning coefficients are
injected into the reservoir at the same time. The
simultaneous arrival of the two tracers to the
producer(s) indicates single-phase flow conditions in
the reservoir.
4. Investigation of the communication across faults. A
tracer is injected on the one side of the fault and the
producers on the other side are monitored for its
arrival.
5. Determination of the existence of an attic volume.
Two or more tracers are injected from the same
injector at a different time. The simultaneous arrival
of the tracers might indicate the existence of an attic
volume6.
Types of tracers. The type of tracer(s) used must be
optimized for each application. The main criteria are
adsorption level, stability, resistance to degradation, detection
limit, cost, environmental impact, and ease of analysis.
There are both radioactive and non-radioactive (chemical)
tracers available for gas phase applications. Chemical tracers
have a significant advantage over radioactive tracers from the
standpoint of handling and logistics. Currently,
perflurocarbons (PFCs) (Fig. 1) are the most commonly used
chemical tracers. Table 2 presents a list of perflourocarbons
gas tracers. A new generation of environmentally friendly
tracers is being investigated under the Envitracer research
project.
The PFCs have been thoroughly tested in slim tube
systems with residual live oil as a stationary phase at different
temperatures and pressures. The lighter PFCs (mass < 450
AMU) are good tracers for methane and ethane at pressures
and temperatures found in reservoirs (P > 250 bars, T >
100°C). PFCs are very stable at reservoir conditions, have low
detection limits and, for surface sampling, can be absorbed
using an active carbon sorbent7.
Among the 10 commercially available tracers some of
them are light, such as PDMCB and some heavier like PFD.
PDMCH, is supplied as three isomers (m-, o- and p-).
Therefore, it is important to test produced gas from the field to
ensure that the one of the PDMCH isomers is not repeated.
Also worth mentioning is that the third isomer of PDMCH, the
p-PDMCH, is not easily purchased in sufficiently purity, it is
often contaminated with up to 50% of o-PDMCH and m-
PDMCH.
Calculation of tracer volumes. The tracer must be: 1)
produced in sufficient quantities to be detected by the analysis
techniques; 2) low cost; and 3) produced in quantities small
enough not to affect the environment. The calculation of the
tracer amount is normally based on pore volume between
injector and producer, desired maximum signal to noise ratio,
detection limit, and dilution factors. For gas tracers it is
especially important to take into account the reservoir pressure
and temperature in the reservoir vs. the temperature at the
sampling point.
There are several methods to estimate the tracer amounts.
One of the methods is based on Brigham8, which calculates
the mass of tracer needed as a function of reservoir properties,
tracer concentration desired, mixing coefficient and distance
from injector to producer. The most rigorous method is
numerical simulation using a detailed reservoir description9.
Several commercial simulators have tracer simulation options.
When calculating the tracer amount most suppliers
recommend a maximum tracer concentration of 100 times the
detection limit. Should the dilution volume in the reservoir be
10 times the expected volume, one should still observe a
maximum tracer response of 10 times the detection limit. A
SPE 103891
signal 10 times the detection limit should be easily
distinguishable from the noise.
Scheduling for monitoring. Monitoring is the most critical
step for a tracer program. The main considerations are
monitoring the appropriate wells, not missing the tracer
breakthrough, obtaining good produced tracer profiles, making
correct calculation of produced tracer volumes, optimizing of
costs, and getting reliable data.
One of the most important tasks in the design phase is to
plan the well monitoring. Proper monitoring includes:
1. Selection of the wells to be monitored for each tracer.
Typically the wells to be monitored are categorized in
Primary Candidates (regular sampling) and Secondary
Candidates (occasional sampling),
2. Determine the timing to start the sampling of each
producer and the sampling points,
3. Determine the initial sampling frequency and
4. Specify sampling and detection techniques.
The decision on the above issues can be based on
experience, although a well-tuned and updated reservoir
model can give more accurate information. Naturally the
status of each producer or its sampling frequency can change
during the execution phase.
An important consideration in this phase is whether to
analyze for tracers at the field location or at an external
laboratory. In the case of RKF the preferred approach was to
have field personnel collect tracer samples with analysis at an
external specialized laboratory. In this case, training of the
field personnel on sampling procedures was required before
tracer injection.
Recycling of tracers. One of the issues that might have to
be faced during the design phase is the recycling of the tracers
in the reservoir due to reinjection of produced gas. The
recycling of the tracers can potentially create a background
concentration in the reservoir, which if high enough can
distort the concentration profiles of the original tracer
injection. The best way to evaluate the impact of recycling on
the primary tracer response is by simulation of the tracer
operation. In general, the impact of recycling of tracers falls
into three main categories.
The first category includes the injector-producer pairs in
which the recycled tracer concentration is very low compared
with the original injected concentration and does not distort
the tracer profile (Fig. 2). In this case all the information
expected from tracers can be obtained.
The second category includes the injector-producer pairs
where the concentration of the recycled tracer is of the same
order as the original tracer concentration but does not overlap
completely in time. In this case, some information such as the
breakthrough time of the original tracer may be lost. Fig. 3
shows that the breakthrough time of the tracer will be lost
(covered by the recycled tracer) but the “peak” and the
remainder of the tracer profile are not distorted. Fig. 4 shows
that even though the tracer profile will be distorted, the
breakthrough time can be obtained. These cases should be
evaluated with simulation to characterize the tracer profiles for
the recycling scenarios.
The third category includes injector-producer pairs where
the original tracer profile is almost completely covered by the
recycled tracer profile (Fig. 5). For these cases it can be
3
concluded that no information can be obtained from the
tracers.
Field Execution. If production operations personnel have
been properly integrated into the design phase of the tracer
program then field implementation is often the easiest phase of
the program.
Tracer Injection. Tracer injection is often the least
complicated part of a tracer program. However, as analysis
methods are improved, the tracer amounts are rather small.
Often, 1 to 2 kg of gas tracer is sufficient for one injection
well.
Tracers are typically injected using pneumatic pumps.
Such pumps deliver from 0.1 litres/minute to 5 litres/minute.
Gas tracers are seldom used in larger quantities than 10 kg.
For perfluorocarbons 10 kg corresponds to 5 to 6 litres. Such
tracer amounts can usually be injected using a pump with a
capacity of 0.2 litres/minute. For smaller tracer amount, like 1
kg (0.5 to 0.6 litres) even a small manually operated pump
may be considered if pressurized air is not available.
Special consideration should be taken to (1) inject the
tracer in the flow line at a point as close as possible to the well
head to avoid problems with leaking valves at the injection
manifold, (2) ambient temperature conditions when injecting
low boiling point tracers, and (3) procedures for material
handling to avoid cross-contamination problems.
Tracer Sampling. The main considerations for tracer
sampling are sampling method, sampling point, and frequency
of sampling.
Sampling method: In our opinion, the most efficient
method for collecting gas samples to be analyzed for a
perfluorocarbon tracer (PFC), is to use a capillary absorption
tube (CAT). The CATs are ¼” tubes approximately 10 cm
long filled with a suitable absorbent that retains the PFC but
negligible amounts of the medium heavy alkanes and the
lighter alkanes.
The CAT sampling method involves bleeding a small
volume (usually 50ml) of gas from the production well into a
disposable plastic syringe. The gas is then transferred to the
CAT and the CAT is closed with stoppers at each end. The
CAT can be transported to the offsite laboratory in an ordinary
padded envelope. Normally field personnel perform this
operation.
Other widely used tracers like tritiated methane and SF6,
must, to our knowledge, be collected in pressurized cylinders
and shipped as hazardous materials.
Sampling points: A gas tracer sample is in most cases
easily sampled from the wellhead, but also can be done at the
test separator. When sampling the gas tracer may be present
on both gas and liquid phases, depending on the K-values at
given conditions. Normally only the gas phase is sampled so
to calculate the total produced tracer amount, liquid sample
should be analyzed as well. Sampling at the wellhead can
result in errors due to large variations, depending on the well
flowing conditions. For example, Fig. 6 shows a case were a
good tracer profile has been obtained in well RKF-5,
meanwhile very poor profile has been observed in RKF-9 well
(Fig. 7).
4 SPE 103891
Frequency of sampling: The sampling frequency is usually
a function of the estimated breakthrough time, which is often
unknown.
Surveys with short breakthrough time or limited dilution
volume require small tracer quantities. Using 1 kg of tracer
may then yield a significant response. In this case one can
consider using on site analyzing equipment to evaluate a large
array of samples.
Also, from the above-suggested sampling frequencies, in
surveys estimated to have a breakthrough time of more than 3
months, samples can be sent to the laboratory for analysis
while the survey is ongoing. While a special schedule with the
lab should be in place to ensure rapid handling of samples, in a
3-month survey the usual 2 weeks response time that most
labs provide is sufficient.
After tracer breakthrough the field engineers, laboratory
personnel, and the tracer specialists should communicate
frequently to decide how to proceed with the sampling,
staying consistent with the objectives of the survey. Finally,
all samples do not have to be analyzed. Analyzing every 4th
sample until breakthrough of the tracer(s) is sufficient as
backtracking can be used to defying breakthrough time and
profile. Table 3, shows and example of sampling frequency,
before, during, and after the estimated tracer breakthrough.
The breakthrough times suggested by a simulator should
form the basis for using the above table with sampling
frequencies10,11,12.
Tracer Analysis. The main considerations for tracer
analysis are level of detection, reliability, QC-QA procedures,
and reporting.
Gas Chromatographs (GC) are normally used for detection
of non-radioactive gas tracers. The PFCs are particularly
sensitive in GC systems with Electron Capture Detector
(ECD). GC/ECD normally offers detection limits in the 0.1 to
0.05 ppb range for perfluorocarbons. Even though the
GC/ECD is a robust instrument, placing it in field laboratories
has not always been successful. Typical problems are lack of
operator experience and variation in sample chemical
composition.
The Capillary Absorption Tube (CAT) combined with Gas
Chromatography with Mass Spectrometer detection (GC/MS)
method for gas tracer analysis has significantly improved the
ease and safety of sample collection and transport. The CAT
method also allows a significant reduction of the tracer
amounts due to a reduction in detection limit by a factor of 50
to 100 in hydrocarbon systems. Procedures should be in place
to rapidly detect bad quality or cross-contaminated samples.
When conducting tracer analysis at the field location, even
though GC/ECD is a very sensitive instrument and when
correctly used it should be able to detect the expected tracer
concentrations, it may not be practical in operational situations
because:
1. Lack of field personnel expertise at the level of an
external laboratory. It could be difficult to monitor
whether the performance of the field analysis system
is reliable.
2. Operational priorities override collecting and
analyzing tracer samples. Tracer analysis is then often
delayed or neglected.
3. Maintenance of a field instrument is often neglected.
Bringing in service personnel is costly and time
consuming.
Integration into reservoir management. The value of tracer
information is fully realized by integration of the results into
field development optimization. The methods for tracer
interpretation can be classified as qualitative, analytical, and
numerical13,14.
Qualitative analysis involves documentation of arrival and
non-arrival of tracer at producing wells. This information
provides some non-quantitative information about reservoir
continuity and barriers.
Analytical evaluation involves equations that model tracer
transport, based on the methodology of Brigham and Smith.
Other analytical methods are chromatographic analysis for
partitioning tracers.
In the RKF case there is an “integrated tracer-reservoir
performance analysis” program consisting of qualitative and
numerical analysis techniques. Operational plan modifications
are developed from this program to optimize field
performance. Some operational changes made to gas injection
patterns, as a result of the tracer monitoring program, have
increased oil production and improved recovery.
In summary, large volumes of data are acquired during
tracer monitoring. Validation and integration requires a
considerable effort on the part of the subsurface team. The
whole tracer project execution requires allocation of resources
and budget for the different phases. As an example the cost
distribution for RKF case is presented in Fig. 8. The challenge
is to add value to the field development by integrating tracer
information into reservoir management.
Best Practices
Based on RKF field case and on other projects documented in
the literature, the following best practices can be
proposed15,16,17.
1. A key element of a successful tracer project is the
integration of all disciplines from the design phase,
including reservoir engineers, geoscientists, field
personnel and tracer specialists.
2. In the case where tracers have been injected in the
past, sampling is needed to establish tracer
background.
3. Train field personnel to collect reliable samples before
tracer injection and convince them of the importance
of accurate sampling. Generally, tracer analysis
should be carried out at specialized laboratory.
4. Use numerical simulation with history matched
reservoir models to analyze problems resulting from
recycling, determine sampling frequency, and estimate
tracer injection volumes.
5. Implement very good QC-QA procedures. It is a
prerequisite that the tracer analysis laboratory has very
good procedures for handling the samples during the
analysis process and that the calculation of tracer
concentrations are objective performed based on a set
of good standards.
SPE 103891
6. Implement special procedures to prevent cross-
contamination related to injection equipment, material
disposal, and tracer storage.
7. Optimize tracer sampling to control cost. Sampling
primary and occasionally the secondary wells. In
multiple tracers’ case, analyze for all tracers.
8. Keep in close contact with the tracer analysis
laboratory and ask them to comment immediately on
unexpected tracer appearance and on all readings
below the accepted detection limit.
9. QC the analysis by periodically sending duplicate
samples to the main laboratory and by having other
laboratories analyze a duplicate sample set.
Lessons Learned
1. It is difficult to have reliable tracer analysis at the field
location. Operational priorities often override the
tracer analysis program.
2. If numerical simulation is not available for designing
tracer sampling frequency, adopt a traditional
frequency of sampling every fortnight for the first
year. If no tracer is recovered the first year decrease
the frequency to monthly sampling.
3. Injecting tracers with low boiling point at locations
with high temperature it is not easy. Depending on the
ambient temperature and the tracer to be injected, it
may difficult to inject light tracers such as PDMCB
with a boiling point around 42°C. The problem could
be solved by using bottled nitrogen at 2900 psi
pressure to drive the pump.
4. Considering that tracers are often analyzed in parts per
trillion even the slightest droplet of tracer in the
wrong place can contaminate the tracer sample. It is
therefore important to keep tracer stock and analysis
equipment well separated.
5. Recycling of tracers can significantly distort the tracer
profiles. If a recycling problem is anticipated
monitoring of the gas tracer at the gas injection
manifold to keep track of the reinjection of tracers is
recommended. This is important because some of the
gas tracers have higher boiling points than others and
will therefore be reinjected in lesser amounts due to
being separated to a larger extent in the topside liquid
separation units.
6. Cross-contamination is a serious matter requiring
attention from both the operator and the tracer service
company. A preventive step to check the sampling
equipment is to routinely runs blanks. If the blanks
show signs of tracer, the source of contamination
(field or laboratory) must be determined and
eliminated.
7. Quite often the breakthrough time is longer than
expected, especially in large reservoirs with
complicated connectivity. Attributing the delay to
degradation, adsorption, or insufficient injected tracer
volume may be an incorrect interpretation. Therefore,
consider the possibility that the reservoir might have
different flow paths than those expected and do not
prematurely plan a new survey or disqualify the
5
method if a tracer does not show up even half a year
after it was expected.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank SONATRACH/CEPSA
Association for permission to publish this paper. They also
acknowledge the contributions of Dan Stright and especially
the RKF field operations staff.
References
1. Cubillos, H., Stright, D.H., Djamel, O. and Navarro, J.M.:
“Successful Peripheral Miscible Gas Injection in RKF Field,
Berkine Basin, Algeria – Field Case History”, paper SPE 94138
presented at the 2005 SPE EUROPEC Conference, Madrid, June
13-16.
2. Cubillos, H., Torgersen, H., González, O. and Lamela, M.:
“Application of Tracer Technology for Optimizing RKF
Miscible Gas Injection Recovery - Field Case”, paper SPE
94139 presented at the 2005 SPE Europec/EAGE Annual
Conference, Madrid, June 13-16.
3. Du, Y. and Guan, L.: “Interwell Tracer Test: Lessons Learned
from Past Field Studies”, paper SPE 93140 presented at the
2005 Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition,
Jakarta, Apr. 5-7.
4. Haugan, A., Hassfjell, S. and Finborud, A.: “Online
measurements of liquid carry-over from scrubbers using
radioactive tracers”, presented at 2004 Tracer 3 Conference,
Ciechocinek, , June 21-23.
5. Sira, T., et al.: “Liquid accumulation in gas condensate pipelines
measured by use of tracer techniques”, presented at 2005
International Conference on Multiphase Production Technology,
Barcelona, May. 25-27.
6. Dugstad,Ø., Aurdal, T., Galdigal, C. and Torgersen, H.J.:
“Application of Tracers to Monitor Fluid Flor on the Snorre
Field: A Filed Study”, paper SPE 56427 presented at the 1999
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston,
Oct. 3-6.
7. Senum, G.I., et al.: “Petroleum Reservoir Characterization by
Perfluorocarbon Tracers”, paper SPE/DOE 24137 presented at
the 1992 SPE/DOE 8th Symposium on Enhanced Oil Recovery,
Tulsa, Apr. 22-24.
8. Brigham, W.E. and Smith Jr., D.H.: “Prediction of Tracer
Behavior in Five-spot Flow”, paper SPE 1130 presented at the
1965 SPE Conference on Production Research and Engineering,
Tulsa, May 3-4.
9. Cheung, S., Edwards, A. and Howard, J.: “A Novel Approach to
Interwell Tracer Design and Field Case History”, paper SPE
56610 presented at the 1999 SPE Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition, Houston, Oct. 3-6.
10. Liv, J., Parker E.D. and Camilleri, D.: “A New Particle Tracking
Algorith for Tracer Flow Simulation”, paper SPE 51905
presented at the 1999 SPE Reservoir Symposium, Houston, Feb.
14–17.
11. Ali, E., Chatzichristos, C., et al.: “Tracer Simulation to Improve
the Reservoir Model in the Snorre Field”, paper SPE 64796
presented at the 2000 SPE International Oil and Gas Conference
and Exhibition, Beijing, Nov. 7-10.
12. Gupta, A.D.: “Accurate Resolution of Physical Dispertion in the
Multidimensional Numerical Modeling of Miscible and
Chemical Displacement”, SPE Reservoir Engineering (Nov.
1990) 581-588.
13. Kocabas I. and Margoub A.: “Improved Numerical Schemes for
Transport Equations in Oil Reservoirs”, Report III submitted to
Exploration and Production Division ADNOC, UAE Univ., Al
Ain UAE , 2000.
6 SPE 103891

14. Tang, J.S. and Zhang, P.X.: “Effect of Mobile Oil on Residual Oil
Saturation Measurement by Interwell Tracing Method”, paper
SPE 64627 presented at the 2000 SPE International Oil and Gas
Conference and Exhibition, Beijin, Nov. 7-10.
15. De Melo, M.A., De Holleben, C.R. and Almeida, A.R.: “Using
Tracers to Characterize Petroleum Reservoirs: Application to
Carmopolis Field, Brazil”, paper SPE 69474 presented at the
2001 SPE Latin American and Caribbean Petroleum
Engineering Conference, Buenos Aires, March 25-28.
16. Mercado, M., Perez, C.E. and Casas, D.R.: “Gas Flood-Flow
Pattern Evaluation: A Successful Interwell Field Study”, paper
SPE 81005 presented at the 2003 SPE Latin American and
Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference, Port-of-Spain,
Apr. 27-30.
17. Wagner, O.R.: “The Use of Tracer in Diagnosing Interwell
Reservoir Heterogeneities- Field Results”, JPT (Nov. 1977)
1410-1416.
SPE 103891 7

FIELD Map with well locations

Structural crossection
Type of wells: producers, injectors
Production facilities
Well rates: oil, gas water
RESERVOIR Fluid types
Pressures
Permeability distribution
Porosity distribution
Saturations
Thickness, gross, net
Rock type
Extend of gas cap (if any)

Table 1. Example of Input Information for Tracer Program Design

Short Name Full Name

1 PDMCB Perfluorodimethylcyclobutane
2 PMCP Perfluoromethylcyclopentane
3 PMCH Perfluoromethylcyclohexane
4 1,2-PDMCH Perfluoro-1,2-dimethylcyclohexane
5 1,3-PDMCH Perfluoro-1,3-dimethylcyclohexane
6 1,4-PDMCH Perfluoro-1,4-dimethylcyclohexane *
7 n-PPCH Perfluoro-normal-propyl-cyclohexane
8 i-PPCH Perfluoro-iso-propyl-cyclohexane *
9 1,3,5-PTMCH Perfluoro-1,3,5-trimethylcyclohexane
10 PFD Perfluorodecalin
11 PFMD Perfluoromethyldecalin
* Normally not available with sufficient purity

Table 2. Perflourocarbons Tracers

8 SPE 103891

Estimated Sampling Frequency as Function of Estimated Breakthrough

breakthrough
time Before During After
1 day 12 samples/day 24 samples/day 6 to 12 samples/day
2 days 6 samples/day 12 samples/day 3 to 6 samples/day
1 week 2 samples/day 4 samples/day 1 to 2 samples/day
2 weeks 1 sample/day 2 samples/day 1 sample/day
1 month 2-3 samples/week 1 samples/day 1-3 samples/week
3 months 1 sample/week 2 samples/week 1 sample/week
6 months 2 samples/month 4 samples/month 1-2 samples/month
1 year 1 sample/month 2 samples/month 1 sample/month
2 years + 1 sample/month 1 sample/month 1 sample/month

Table 3. Example of Tracer Sampling Program

F F
F F F F
F3C F
F
C F3
F F F F
F C F3 F F
F F

PDMCB PMCH

F CF3 F F
F F F F
F F
F3C CF 3
F F F F
F F F F
F F

PMCP 1,3-PDMCH

Figure 1. Most Commonly Used Perfluorocarbons

SPE 103891 9

2.501
Secondary response
Recycling inj. conc

Concentration, *E-9 g/l

2.001
Primary response

1.501

1.001

0.501

0.001
19-Apr-01 10-Dec-02 01-Aug-04 24-Mar-06 14-Nov-07 06-Jul-09 26-Feb-11
Date

Figure 2. A producer-injector pair where all the information can be obtained.

5
Concentration, *E-9 g/l

Secondary response
4 Recycling inj. conc
Primary response

0
19-Apr-01 01-Sep-02 14-Jan-04 28-May-05 10-Oct-06 22-Feb-08 06-Jul-09 18-Nov-10

Date

Figure 3. A producer-injector pair where the breakthrough time is lost

4.5
4
Primary response
Concentration, *E-9 g/l

3.5
3 Secondary response

2.5
2
1.5

1
0.5

0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
T ime , days

Figure 4. A producer-injector pair where the tracer profile will be partially distorted
10 SPE 103891

0.9

0.8

Concentration, *E-9 g/l

0.7 Recycling inj. conc
0.6 Secondary response
Primary response
0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2
0.1

0.0
10-Oct-06 06-Aug-07 01-Jun-08 28-Mar-09 22-Jan-10 18-Nov-10

Date

Figure 5. A producer-injector pair where practically all the information of the original slug is lost

3.0E-10

2.5E-10
Concentration (g/l)

2.0E-10

1.5E-10

1.0E-10
Gas tracer n-PPCH
5.0E-11

0.0E+00
0 100 200 300 400 500
Time (days)

Figure 6. RKF-5 example of good tracer profile with sampling at well head

1.8E-10
1.6E-10
1.4E-10
Concentration (g/l)

Gas tracer 1,3-PDMCH

1.2E-10
1.0E-10
8.0E-11
6.0E-11
4.0E-11
2.0E-11
0.0E+00
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Time (days)

Figure 7. RKF-9 example of poor tracer profile with sampling at well head
SPE 103891 11

45%

RKF Tracer Program - Cost Distribution 40%

35%
30%
25%
20%

15%
10%
5%

0%
Planning, Baseline Injection of Tracer Inter-
design survey tracers analysis pretation
4 years 12% 5% 28% 39% 16%

Figure 8. RKF Tracer project – estimated cost distribution for 4 years duration