SPE 56648
A New Technique for Carbon/Oxygen Logging through Gravel Packs and Other
Special Completions
P.K. Wanjau, SPE, J. Joseph, SPE, P. Ciammetti, SPE, K. Lassel, SPE, Schlumberger, P Akunna, Mobil Producing
Nigeria
Copyright 1999, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 1999 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition held in Houston, Texas, 3–6 October 1999.
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
Productive horizons in the Niger Delta Basin of West Africa
comprise clastic tertiary sequences that formed coastal barrier
bars, beaches, tidal distributor channels and lagoonal deposits.
Such reservoirs are often made up of very high permeability
unconsolidated sands that require gravel-packed completions
for efficient production. Water influx from edge- or bottom-
aquifers is a dominant drive mechanism, and in this basin
water salinity is often less than 30 kppm (i.e., predominantly
fresh). It is no surprise that in this low-salinity environment
carbon-oxygen (C/O) logging has become particularly popular
for reservoir monitoring.
In the past, operators were often forced to exercise the high-
cost option of pulling the completion string in order to run
C/O logs. This was necessary because no logging tool was
rated for saturation evaluation inside gravel packs or other
special completion elements such as blast joints. In this paper
a new characterization for a slim C/O logging tool is presented
that now extends its applicability to these special completion
types. The technique is based on laboratory measurements
made with the tool inside typical Niger Delta gravel-pack and
formation lithology environments. These measurements were
used to benchmark a Monte-Carlo nuclear model from which a
database was constructed. The questions of gravel-pack
quality and of the pack’s fluid content have been addressed in
this work, as has the impact of uncertainties associated with
these variables upon the final saturation answer.
The new characterization database has been used to evaluate
C/O logs run in several wells in the Niger Delta. Three
examples where the tool was logged inside an internal gravel
pack (IGP) completion are presented in this paper. The
examples demonstrate a significant improvement over the
previous technique and provide for a more robust and reliable
saturation computation.
Introduction
Through-tubing carbon-oxygen (C/O) logging has become a
popular means for reservoir monitoring in Nigeria ever since
the Reservoir Saturation Tool (RST*) was introduced there a
few years ago. The tool, with its 1-11/16” OD, was designed
to pass through the tubing and be logged inside of casing to
quantitatively determine fluid saturation within the formation.
Hence it was no longer necessary to go through the expensive
workover exercise of pulling tubing with this new slim
generation of tools.
Yet several cases have been recorded where saturation results
were approximate because the tool was logged outside of its
domain of specification. In particular, gravel pack completions
are widespread in Nigeria due to sand consolidation problems.
Many wells also contain dual strings and blast joints. The
economic attraction of using a through-tubing tool disappears
if the completion must be pulled.
As a result successful interpretation was limited to intervals
where the C/O response could be calibrated in a known
environment. Planning logging campaigns required a lengthy
candidate well selection process that eliminated many wells
which otherwise would have been logged. It became clear that
in order for this technique to attain its potential in Nigeria the
RST would have to be characterized for logging within the
operating environment there. This latter observation provided
motivation for the current study.
Tool Characterization Methodology
The RST was introduced into the cased–hole evaluation
market in 1992 as a new generation Pulsed Neutron
Spectroscopy system.1,2 The tool featured a laboratory-
characterized C/O database for open holes and standard
cased holes. This database was acquired over a period of
several years as formations and boreholes were carefully
constructed to reproduce known logging environments.
*
Mark of Schlumberger
2 P.K. WANJAU, J. JOSEPH, P. CIAMMETTI, K. LASSEL, P. AKUNNA
Extending the C/O database to include more complex borehole
environments required a different approach. The number of
production wellbore configurations in use today in each
borehole size is ever on the increase as production engineers
seek to adapt each completion to specific well demands. Sand
consolidation techniques introduce added complexity and
often require use of an assortment of tubulars. Rather than
attempt to map a range of gravel packed and special
completion environments, a full characterization of specific
configurations was found to be a more realistic approach.
Careful selection of configurations to be characterized would
allow evaluation within a family of closely related completion
types.
A survey was carried out to prioritize the numerous
completion configurations encountered in Nigeria and to
identify generic configurations that represented a family of
related geometries. This survey was based on a sample of 34
completions within several Niger Delta fields. Further
references to gravel packed completions in this paper refers to
the internal gravel pack (IGP), depicted in Figure 1, found to
be the most common sand control technique in these fields.
Laboratory Measurements. Three IGP completions were
selected for database measurements. The completions were
constructed and assembled for measurement at the
Schlumberger Environmental Effects Calibration Facility
(EECF) in Houston, Texas. Figure 2 shows an EECF
formation schematic with an IGP completion assembled for
measurement. The casing and gravel pack assemblies were
positioned centered in the wellbore while the RST tool was
positioned eccentered in the screen during measurement.
In Table 1, IGP descriptions for each measurement
configuration are listed. A total of 28 measurements were
made representing various combinations of water and oil in
the borehole and formation. During each laboratory
measurement, the gravel pack was fully saturated with screen
fluid following immediate invasion through open screens into
the dry gravel. In the laboratory environment, simulation of
partial fluid invasion and two phase conditions in the gravel
pack was not feasible using typical IGP hardware. The
complexity of laboratory measurements was thus limited and
Monte-Carlo modeling was used to simulate more complex
borehole conditions.
Monte-Carlo Modeling. While laboratory measurements
provided C/O database points for the basic combinations of
borehole fluid, formation fluid and porosity in the selected
IGPs, Monte-Carlo modeling was used to provide database
coverage in intermediate environments found difficult to
construct in the laboratory. Monte-Carlo modeling has found
growing application in the prediction of nuclear tool
responses3,4,5,6. One advantage with modeling which was
exploited in this study is that the geometric and fluid model
can be conveniently defined, thus reproducing the actual tool
and wellbore configurations with a high degree of accuracy. In
our specific application, gravel pack quality and fluids were
defined independent of formation and screen fluids thereby
SPE 56648
making provision for complex scenarios like partial invasion
of wellbore fluids into the gravel pack.
Although measurements are preferred to modeling due to
better accuracy, modeling accuracy can be significantly
improved through benchmarking to measurement in identical
wellbore geometries.
Benchmarking Modeling to Measurement. Monte-Carlo
modeling was initially carried out for wellbore geometries
identical to the laboratory measurements. This provided a
benchmark needed to improve the accuracy of modeling
results used in the new database. Figure 3 shows the
benchmarked Monte-Carlo C/O results compared to
measurements. A single gain and offset were applied to
calibrate the Monte-Carlo C/O values to laboratory measured
C/O values. This benchmark allowed for accurate Monte-
Carlo modeling in the more complex gravel pack fluid
configurations, improving coverage of formation porosity and
gravel pack quality and fluids within each configuration.
Table 2 represents the combined laboratory measurement and
Monte-Carlo derived database for gravel packed completions
in sandstone formations. A total of 144 database points have
been constructed for 3 IGP completions of which 28 are
measurements.
Tool Response and Interpretation Model
The standard approach to RST C/O interpretation1 expresses
the carbon and oxygen yields as sums of contributions from
the rock, pore space and borehole. In gravel packed
completions and indeed most production wellbores, the
borehole is partitioned into two or more sectors. In the simple
IGP and single tubing environment, the two sectors consist of
an inner tubular and its annulus. The borehole carbon and
oxygen yield contributions can be similarly partitioned into
two; one from the screen contents and another from its
annulus, the gravel pack. The resulting response model is
given by the following expression;
Matrix Screen Contents Gravel Pack Fluid Formation Fluid
C C1 + C2Yo + C3ΦgpSogp + C4ΦSo
=
O O1 + O2(1 - Yo) + O3Φgp(1 - Sogp) + O4Φ (1 - So)
…….. (1)
where C1, C2… and O1, O2… are coefficients representing the
sensitivities of each yield to the rock and gravel matrix, screen
contents, gravel pack fluid and formation fluid, in this order.
Yo is the screen oil holdup, Φgp and Sogp the gravel pack
porosity and oil saturation respectively, Φ and So the
formation porosity and oil saturation respectively. The second
and third coefficient terms in Equation 1 represent the
partitioned borehole contributions. For a given gravel type,
Φgp represents the gravel pack quality and is equal to 100 p.u.
in absence of gravel (i.e., at the top of the gravel pack or in
gravel-free completions). As seen in Table 2, the characterized
SPE 56648A NEW TECHNIQUE FOR CARBON/OXYGEN LOGGING THROUGH GRAVEL PACKS AND OTHER SPECIAL COMPLETIONS
values of Φgp were 35 p.u. and 100 p.u. representing well
packed and absent gravel porosities respectively for the 20/40-
mesh gravel type.
Since the tool is logged inside of the screens, the contents of
the screen can be determined using the pulsed neutron tool
itself3,4 or some other combinable fluid density measurement
(e.g., gradiomanometer, nuclear fluid densimeter, etc.).
Evaluation of annular sector contents is more difficult due to
isolation from the tool by the screen and the porous nature of
the gravel pack. Because the annulus does make a significant
contribution to the total borehole C/O response, and it was
important to develop effective methods for accurate
determination of gravel pack quality and fluids.
Gravel Pack Quality. Laboratory measurements in the
absence of gravel showed that tool response was significantly
different than with gravel, to an extent that depended on the
borehole fluid. This observation is demonstrated in Figure 4
through the crossplot of near to far detector C/O ratios in the
two environments. The difference in response is insignificant
in water borehole conditions and increases with increasing oil
in the borehole
Through RST spectroscopy, the near detector inelastic silicon
yield, normalized to the sum of silicon and iron yields, was
found an effective gravel pack quality diagnostic. During RST
C/O logging, silicon and iron yields are computed in real time,
thus avoiding an independent gravel pack quality log7. Figure
5 demonstrates the sensitivity of this diagnostic to volume of
gravel in the annulus. Although dependent on the borehole
fluid type, this measurement clearly exhibits an effective
dynamic range for use in gravel pack quality assessment.
Figure 4 showed that maximum C/O sensitivity to gravel
quality is achieved in an oil-filled borehole and formation. In
these conditions, the increase of far detector C/O ratio from
gravel-filled case to absent gravel case represents up to 1.5
times of dynamic sensitivity to formation fluid variation. A
10% error in the assigned gravel porosity would thus result in
a 15 s.u. error in computed formation saturation at the far
detector. The combined use of the silicon yield diagnostic and
C/O ratio crossplot ensure that a representative gravel quality
value is assigned for formation saturation computation.
In summary, gravel quality assessment is effectively carried
out using;
- Normalized silicon yield to evaluate gravel quality.
- C/O crossplot to verify results.
Observations based on several field data sets have indicated
that changes in gravel pack quality are most often dramatic,
making gravel quality conducive to zoning.
Gravel Pack Fluids. The introduction of a gravel pack in the
wellbore environment significantly complicates evaluation of
formation fluids. In order to determine the correct formation
carbon content in Equation 1, the borehole contribution to
total carbon must be accurately accounted for. This can be
done with ease in a single casing environment. In an IGP
environment however, the gravel introduces a porous medium
3
into the borehole sector and the accompanying fluid
distribution and displacement problems. As suggested earlier
the approach to a good answer lies in partitioning the borehole
model accordingly for determination of screen and annular
components separately.
A successful determination of gravel pack fluids requires that
the fluids be immiscible and in a static condition. Another
requirement is that gravel quality must be determined to
assign a fluid volume to the annulus. The preceding section
dealt with gravel pack quality assessment and demonstrated
significant C/O sensitivity to volume of oil in the annulus. The
contents of the gravel pack pore space can now be evaluated
by applying basic knowledge of fluid behavior in porous
media. The following set of arguments is an effective
approach towards determination of gravel pack fluid(s).
- Typical gravel as used in the IGP is strongly water wet
and will emulate the behavior of water-wet
sandstones.
- Gravel carrying fluids used to place gravel in the IGP
are typically water based. More often than not
therefore, the gravel pore volume will be water-filled
at the onset of production.
- On commencement of production, gravel pore fluid is
displaced by produced reservoir fluids. However the
capillary forces acting within the gravel pore network
will result in the entrapment of water by oil during
immiscible displacement. In the typical case, initial
water in the gravel pores is displaced by produced oil
to an extent where an extremely large pressure
gradient is required to overcome the capillary forces
and further move the water. Tests with approximately
30 p.u. high permeability sandstone cores have
indicated irreducible water saturations in the order of
15 s.u. following displacement of water by oil8.
- When the well is shut-in for several hours prior to C/O
logging, the static screen fluid is expected to rapidly
invade the highly porous and permeable gravel
through open screens. If the screens are oil-filled,
invasion of gravel pore space by oil is expected but to
the limit of an irreducible water saturation in the order
of 15 - 20 s.u. If the screens are water-filled
however, a greater displacement of oil in the gravel
pack is expected through the now combined effects of
capillary forces and pressure gradients. Chatzis and
Morrow9 have demonstrated the mobilization and
displacement of oil by water in water wet sandstones
as a function of capillary number. With the exception
of high viscosity oils, they show that a complete
displacement of oil is achievable under realistic
pressure gradients in very high permeability
environments. A reasonable assumption therefore is
that most of the oil in a gravel pack is easily displaced
by water resulting with almost 100% water saturation
in the gravel.
- Behind blank screens, the screen contents are isolated
from the gravel pack and the gravel pore space will
either contain the original gravel carrying fluids or
4 P.K. WANJAU, J. JOSEPH, P. CIAMMETTI, K. LASSEL, P. AKUNNA
trapped production fluids closer to the producing
intervals.
Based on these arguments, an estimate for gravel pack fluid
type is made and subsequently verified through the overlay of
log data onto C/O ratio crossplots. Figure 6 shows the C/O
fluid distributions for an IGP in a typical Niger Delta
environment. Figure 7 highlights a portion of the same
endpoints detailing C/O sensitivity to invasion of oil into the
gravel pack when the screen is oil-filled. At the point labeled
“A”, the borehole is oil-filled in both the screen and gravel
pack while the formation is water filled. An error of 20 s.u. in
the gravel pack fluid type would result in a 15 s.u. error in
computed formation oil saturation at the far detector as
demonstrated by point “B”. Point “C” demonstrates a
corresponding 33 s.u. error in the computed near detector
formation oil saturation.
As opposed to water displacement by oil, oil displacement by
water in the gravel pack is expected to be largely complete
across open screens. Gravel pack oil saturation in open water-
filled screens will therefore be very nearly 0 s.u.
Other Special Completions
While the basic theories for tool C/O response and arguments
presented above have been constructed on the basis of gravel
packs, other single tubular configurations within a standard
cased hole environment are adequately represented in the
above models. In reality these other completions are less
complex owing to the absence of a porous medium in the
annulus. In a single tubing or blast joint configuration for
example, the gravel porosity Φgp is constrained to a 100 p.u.
value while the complication associated with gravel quality
does not exist. However environmental conditions have been
shown to exist where interpretation is difficult, particularly in
large holes and in configurations where hydrocarbons can be
trapped in the annulus5. As with IGP evaluation, the total
borehole hydrocarbon must be accurately accounted for in
order to compute accurate formation saturations.
The interpretation model for these other completions is
identical to the IGP model and a database for specific
configurations has been similarly constructed.
Field Log Examples
Example 1. This example is taken from a shaly sand
formation in the offshore Niger Delta. The well has been
completed with an IGP in a 12 ¼” hole with 9 5/8” cemented
casing. The IGP contains standard 5 ½” wire-wrapped screens
with 20/40 mesh gravel.
The C/O data was acquired with the RST after more than 6
hours of well shut-in time and consisted of 3 passes across the
interval of interest. Pre-processing of log data consisted of
recalculation of individual yields using the raw spectra and
lateral averaging of the C/O data after stacking of passes.
Figure 8 shows the crossplot of near to far C/O overlaid with
the new characterization for an equivalent wellbore
configuration. The two clusters of C/O points indicate both
water-filled and oil-filled sections of the screens. Most of the
SPE 56648
points in the water filled screens lie on the 0% borehole-oil
line suggesting complete saturation of water in the gravel pack
while the points in the oil-filled section suggest irreducible
water saturation in the gravel pack as expected. The few points
in between the two clusters indicate a transition zone which is
typical of fluid interfaces in porous environments. The Near
Inelastic Silicon Yield diagnostic and computed oil saturations
are shown in Figure 9. The gravel quality diagnostic shows
good gravel quality across the perforated interval and reduced
quality above the top perforation. The formation oil volume
results based on the IGP characterization are compared to a
qualitative saturation evaluation carried out without use of the
new database. The post characterization results demonstrate a
more definite WOC and robust saturation computation.
Example 2. This well has also been completed with an IGP in
a 12 ¼” hole with 9 5/8” cemented casing. The IGP also
contains standard 5 ½” wire-wrapped screens with 20/40 mesh
gravel. In addition to open screens, the C/O log in this well
includes a blank screen section. Four C/O passes have been
carried out following more than 6 hours of well shut-in time
with pre-processing of data as in Example 1.
Figure 10 shows the crossplot of near to far C/O overlaid with
the new characterization for an equivalent wellbore
configuration showing a mainly water-filled borehole. The top
of gravel is clearly indicated by the silicon yield diagnostic in
Figure 11. The C/O values in the blank screen section are
relatively high despite a high shale content in the formation
across this interval. This abnormally high carbon content is
interpreted as not being due to the formation but to the
presence of trapped oil behind the blank screens. At the onset
of production it is expected that much of the initial water was
displaced by produced oil across the entire gravel pack. After
water break through, oil in the open screens was displaced
while oil behind the blank screens has been trapped. When
the well is shut-in, water in the screens is unable to displace
this oil for the same reason.
Results based on the IGP characterization are compared to a
qualitative evaluation, again showing significant difference.
Example 3. As with previous 2 examples, this well is
completed with an IGP in a 12 ¼” hole with 9 5/8” cemented
casing over an interval of more than 250 ft. The IGP contains
standard 5 ½” wire-wrapped screens with 20/40 mesh gravel.
Four C/O logging passes were made and pre-processed as in
other two examples. The C/O ratio crossplot in Figure 12
shows both a water-filled section of screens and an oil-filled
section. The oil-filled section indicates irreducible water in the
gravel pack as in Example 1.
This well was selected for C/O logging to assess the level of
depletion in each sand following water breakthrough. Figure
13 shows the computed formation oil volumes indicating the
two most depleted reservoirs.
Conclusions
A new database and tool response model have been
constructed for the interpretation of C/O data acquired inside
SPE 56648A NEW TECHNIQUE FOR CARBON/OXYGEN LOGGING THROUGH GRAVEL PACKS AND OTHER SPECIAL COMPLETIONS 5

IGPs and similar completions. Examples have demonstrated
the robustness of the new model in characterized
environments and show that reservoir saturations and contacts
can now be successfully determined.
Accurate determination of borehole hydrocarbons in gravel
packs poses the main challenge to a successful interpretation
and it is suggested that two borehole sector configurations
should constitute a limit for effective characterization of
complex completions.
The completion design process should incorporate information
about available monitoring techniques in order to minimize
the need to pull completions for formation evaluation
purposes. Similarly, new designs of production strings will
prove effective if accompanied by equivalent development of
reservoir monitoring technologies.
Nomenclature
IGP = Internal Gravel Pack
C/O = Carbon Oxygen
COR = Carbon Oxygen Ratio
NCOR = Near Detector Carbon Oxygen Ratio
FCOR = Far Detector Carbon Oxygen Ratio
So = Formation Oil Saturation
Sogp = Gravel Oil Saturation
p.u. = Porosity Units
s.u. = Saturation units
Φ = Total Formation Porosity
Φgp = Gravel Porosity
WO = water borehole/oil formation point
WW = water borehole/ water formation point
OO = oil borehole/oil formation point
OW = oil borehole/ water formation point
20/40 mesh = US Sieve Number 20 to 40
WOC = Water Oil Contact
3. Roscoe, B.A., 1996, “Three-Phase Holdup Determination
in Horizontal Wells Using a Pulsed Neutron Source”, SPE
37147, Proceedings of the 1996 SPE International
Conference on Horizontal Well Technology, Calgary,
Canada, November 18-20, 1996.
4. Morris, F., Hemingway, J., “Continuous Oil, Gas and
Water Holdup Using Pulsed-Neutron Spectroscopy
Techniques”, Trans. SPWLA 40th Annual Logging
Symposium, Oslo, Norway, June 1-3, 1999, Paper N.
5. Badruzzaman, A., Badruzzaman, T., Adeyemo, A.O.,
Limon, M.A., “Carbon/Oxygen Logging in Complex
Borehole Completions”, 38th Annual SPWLA Logging
Symposium, Houston, Texas, June 1997, Paper KK.
6. Boyce, J.R., Carroll, J.F., “Mathematical Modeling of a
Gravel-Pack Logging Tool”, Paper SPE 13138, 59th Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, Texas,
September 16-19, 1984.
7. Sollee, S.S., “Gravel-Pack Logging Experiments, Paper
SPE 14163, 60th Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Las Vegas, NV, September 22-25, 1985.
8. Slider, H.C., Practical Petroleum Reservoir Engineering
Methods, PennWell Publishing Company, Tulsa, Oklahoma,
1976.
9. Chatzis, I., Morrow, N.R., “Correlation of Capillary
Number Relationships for Sandstone”, Paper SPE 10114,
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio,
Texas, October 5-7, 1981.

Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the management of Mobil
Producing Nigeria Unlimited and Schlumberger Nigeria
Limited for the resources used to complete this study. Special
thanks to Ivanna Albertin, Frank Morris and Brad Roscoe of
Schlumberger and Ron Plasek, formally of Schlumberger, for
sharing their valuable ideas and expertise. Finally to Norman
Winkelmann and John Spallone, formally of Schlumberger,
for their assistance with laboratory measurements.

References
1. Roscoe, B.A., Stoller, C., Adolph, R.A., Boutemy, Y.,
Cheeseborough, J., Hall, J., McKeon, D.C., Pitman, D.,
Seeman, B., and Thomas, S., “A New Through-Tubing Oil-
Saturation Measurement System”, Paper SPE 21413, Midddle
East Oil Show and Conference, Bahrain, November 16-19,
1991.
2. Stoller, C., Scott, H.D., Plasek ,R.E., Lucas, A.J., Adolph,
R.A., “Field Tests of a Slim Carbon/Oxygen Tool for
Reservoir Saturation Monitoring”, Paper SPE 25375, Asia
Pacific Oil & Gas Conference & Exhibition, Singapore,
February 8-10, 1993.
6 P.K. WANJAU, J. JOSEPH, P. CIAMMETTI, K. LASSEL, P. AKUNNA SPE 56648

Screen Pipe Base

Screen Jacket OD

(US Sieve Number)

1 11/16” OD C/O Tool

Casing Size (in.)

Laboratory Gravel Pack Eccentered in Screen
Hole Size (in.)
Schematic
Completion #

Gravel Size
Formation Flush

Size (in.)
Formation Material

Gravel Pack Screen Casing and Cement Sheath

(in.)
Centered in Casing

Formation Drain
1 12 ¼ 9.625 5.5 5.98 20/40 mesh Spool

Base of Gravel Pack Borehole Fill & Drain

2 12 ¼ 9.625 4.5 4.97 20/40 mesh Module

Rathole
3 8½ 7.0 4.0 4.46 20/40 mesh

Table 1 Selected laboratory gravel pack configurations

Figure 2 Laboratory formation with gravel pack assembly

Casing

Porosity
Screen

2
2

Formation Fluid
Screen Content

2
Annular Fluid
1
Sandstone
Formation
Porosities
Size (in.)

Size (in.)
Hole &

Nominal

Gravel

1.5
(p.u.)

Benchmarked Monte-Carlo COR

1
8 ½, 7.0 4.0 L M H 35 100 W O W O W O
-0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04
Model Deviation From Measured COR

12¼, 9 5/8 4.5 L M H 35 100 W O W O W O

0.5
5.5 L M H 35 100 W O W O W O

Table 2 IGP characterization environments

1 0
L = Low, M = Medium, H = High
2
W = Water, O = Oil

-0.5
-0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
Laboratory Measured Near & Far Detector COR
Figure 3 Modeled versus measured C/O values for 28
benchmark measurements
Screen

Formation
Gravel

Perforations

Figure 1 IGP schematic

SPE 56648A NEW TECHNIQUE FOR CARBON/OXYGEN LOGGING THROUGH GRAVEL PACKS AND OTHER SPECIAL COMPLETIONS 7

0.7
1.5
COR Crossplot for Gravel pack
0.6 100%
80%
60%
OO 40% 75%
0.5 20%
0%
1 50%
Maximum Gravel Quality 25%
Sensitivity 0.4
OW 0%

Far COR
OO
Formation Fluid
Far COR

0.3
Sensitivity
0.5
OW 0.2

WO 0.1

0 Gravel Filled Annulus 0

WW 0%

-0.1
Absent Gravel in Annulus
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
Near COR
-0.5
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 Figure 6 C/O ratio endpoints for IGP
Near COR

Figure 4 C/O ratio plots for gravel filled annulus and absent
gravel annulus 0.6

80% 100%
0.55
• WW = Water in borehole and formation 60%

•
40% 75%
OW = Oil in borehole, water in formation 0.5
20%
• OO = Oil in borehole and formation 0.45
0% 50%
• WO = Water in borehole, oil in formation Far COR
C 25%
0.4

0.35 B A
Near Detector Silicon Yield Diagnostic as a Function of Gravel Volume
in 9 5/8" Casing 0.3
0.3
100% gravel in
0.25
4 1/2" Screens
Silicon Yield Diagnostic = Si/(Si+Fe)

100% gravel in 0.2

5 1/2" screens 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7 0.75 0.8 0.85 0.9
Near COR
0.2

Figure 7 C/O ratio endpoints for IGP showing progressive

invasion of oil into gravel pack & 20 s.u. irreducible gravel
water effect on formation saturation.
0.1

Water in Screens

Oil in Screens
No Gravel
0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Volume of Gravel in Annulus (cubic in.)

Figure 5 Silicon Yield diagnostic as a function of gravel

volume in annulus
8 P.K. WANJAU, J. JOSEPH, P. CIAMMETTI, K. LASSEL, P. AKUNNA SPE 56648

EXAMPLE 1: COR Crossplot Overlay

ENDPOINTS: 33 p.u.SS, 12 1/4" Hole, 9 5/8" Csg, 5 1/2" IGP
OVERLAY: Field Data Across IGP
0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4
Far COR

0.3

0.2

0.1

-0.1
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
Near COR

Figure 8 Example 1: C/O ratio crossplot

Example 1 : Computed Volume of Oil

After IGP Before IGP
Well Sketch and Volumetric Analysis
Caliper & GR NCOR &FCOR characterization characterization
Silicon Yield

10 ft
Residual Oil Produced Oil

Figure 9 Example 1: Silicon Yield diagnostic and computed oil volumes

 EXAMPLE 2: COR Crossplot Overlay
ENDPOINTS: 33 p.u.Sandstone, 12 1/4" Hole, 9 5/8" Csg, 5 1/2" IGP
OVERLAY: Field Data Across IGP
0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4
Far COR

0.3

0.2

0.1

-0.1
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
Near COR

Figure 10 Example 2: C/O ratio crossplot

Example 2 : Computed Volume of Oil

Well Sketch and After IGP Before IGP Volumetric Analysis

Caliper GR & CCL
Silicon/Iron Yield NCOR &FCOR characterization characterization

20 ft

Residual Oil Produced Oil

Figure 11 Example 2: Silicon Yield diagnostic and computed oil volume

10 P.K. WANJAU, J. JOSEPH, P. CIAMMETTI, K. LASSEL, P. AKUNNA SPE 56648

EXAMPLE 3: COR Crossplot Overlay

ENDPOINTS: 33 p.u.SS, 12 1/4" Hole, 9 5/8" Csg, 5 1/2" IGP
OVERLAY: Field Data Across IGP
0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4
FCOR

0.3

0.2

0.1

-0.1
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
NCOR

Figure 12 Example 3: C/O ratio crossplot

Example 3 : Computed Volume of Oil

Well Sketch and After IGP Before IGP
Caliper, GR & CCL Silicon Yield NCOR &FCOR characterization characterization Volumetric Analysis

Residual Oil Produced Oil

Figure 13 Example 3: Silicon Yield diagnostic and computed oil volume