WATER

MANAGEMENT
identification and treatment
of water-control problems
for improved reservoir recovery efficiency
 WATER
MANAGEMENT MANUAL
CONTENTS
• Introduction

• Table of Contents

• Conformance Problems

• Data Collection

• Testing Methods and Equipment

• Computer Programs

• Treatment Options

• Placement Techniques and Equipment

• Conformance Treatment Evaluations


What Is Conformance
Technology?
Conformance Technology is the
application of processes to reservoirs
and boreholes to reduce water
production, enhance recovery effi-
ciency, or satisfy a broad range of
reservoir management and environ-
mental objectives. Although the use of
conformance processes may not result
in increased production, such pro-
cesses can often improve an
operator’s profitability as a result of
the following benefits:
• longer productive well life
• reduced lifting costs
• reduced environmental
concerns and costs
• minimized treatment and
disposal of water
• reduced well maintenance costs
Ideally, conformance control should
be performed before a condition can
result in serious damage. As with
personal health, treating potential
problems before they become serious
is considerably less costly than
allowing a condition to deteriorate
until drastic actions must be taken.
For example, just as changing lifestyle
habits can reduce a person’s risk of
heart disease, treating a well’s
potential coning problem may prevent
it from “bottoming out” in the future.
Conformance
Technology
Introduction
The Conformance
Control Process
The first step in effective conform-
ance control is understanding
potential conformance problems.
Chapter 1 of this book reviews the
characteristics of correct reservoir
behavior and identifies both near-
wellbore and reservoir-related
conformance problems.
Historically, operators assessed the
production of unwanted fluids based
on individual wells. Recent experi-
ence, however, suggests that reservoir
descriptions and reservoir evaluations
can often provide valuable informa-
tion that may result in more effective
conformance control. Chapter 2
explains the principles of reservoir
description and reservoir evaluation
and provides information regarding
static and dynamic reservoir proper-
ties and how these properties can
affect the design of typical conform-
ance treatments.
Before an effective conformance
treatment can be designed, the
conformance problem must be
thoroughly examined. Chapter 3
provides information regarding the
production logs, cement logs,
reservoir monitoring tools,
downhole video equipment, and
tracer surveys used for problem
prediction, problem identification,
and treatment evaluation.
Introduction 0-1
HOME
CONFORMANCE TECHNOLOGY

A simulator, such as the QuikLook simulator, can be used
to help optimize the design of a conformance treatment
and evaluate the chosen solution. A tool that can provide
assistance during the diagnosis and treatment selection
phases is Halliburton’s XERO water-control expert
system. This PC-based program uses artificial intelli-
gence techniques to identify the problem, select the
proper fluid system for treating the problem, and recom-
mend treatment designs based on the identified problem
and built-in engineering calculations. Chapter 4 provides
a detailed description of the QuikLook simulator and the
XERO system.
When a conformance problem is identified, engineers
should choose an appropriate chemical system to treat the
problem. Chapter 5 provides more specific information
about water-based polymer systems and diesel systems.
When a chemical system has been selected, designers
must focus their attention on selecting the appropriate
placement techniques and equipment. Chapter 6 de-
scribes various placement techniques as well as the
pumping, mixing, monitoring, and filtering systems
typically used for conformance control. This chapter also
provides information regarding the use of coiled tubing,
which is becoming a popular alternative to the traditional
workover rig.
After a treatment has been performed, engineers can
perform several tests to monitor the treatment’s success.
Chapter 7 briefly summarizes treatment evaluation
methods.

0-2 Introduction
HOME
 HALLIBURTON

Contents

Introduction–Conformance Technology ............................................................. 0-1

What Is Conformance Technology? ........................................................................ 0-1
The Conformance Control Process ........................................................................ 0-1

Chapter 1–Conformance Problems .................................................................... 1-1

Recovery Mechanisms ........................................................................................... 1-1
Primary Recovery ........................................................................................... 1-1
Depletion (Solution Gas) Drive .................................................................................................. 1-1
Segregation Drive without Counterflow ..................................................................................... 1-1
Gravity Drainage (Segregation Drive with Counterflow) ............................................................ 1-2
Waterdrive ................................................................................................................................. 1-2
Secondary Recovery ...................................................................................... 1-3
Water-Injection Pressure Maintenance ...................................................................................... 1-3
Gas-Injection Pressure Maintenance ........................................................................................ 1-3

Problem Sources .................................................................................................... 1-3

Near-Wellbore Problems ................................................................................ 1-3
Casing Leaks ............................................................................................................................ 1-3
Channels Behind Casing ........................................................................................................... 1-4
Barrier Breakdown .................................................................................................................... 1-4
Debris, Scale, and Bacteria ....................................................................................................... 1-5
Completion Into or Near Water or Gas ...................................................................................... 1-5
Reservoir-Related Problems .......................................................................... 1-5
Coning and Cresting ................................................................................................................. 1-5
Channeling Through Higher Permeability .................................................................................. 1-6
Fingering ................................................................................................................................... 1-6
Fracturing Out of Zone .............................................................................................................. 1-6
Fracture Communication Between Injector and Producer.......................................................... 1-6
Lack of Communication Between Injector and Producer ........................................................... 1-6

Conclusions ............................................................................................................ 1-7

Bibliography ............................................................................................................ 1-7

Contents i
HOME
CONFORMANCE TECHNOLOGY

Chapter 2–Data Collection ................................................................................... 2-1

Well Testing ............................................................................................................ 2-1
Effect of Reservoir Nonidealities ................................................................... 2-1
Faults and Barriers .................................................................................................................... 2-1
Permeability Anisotropy ............................................................................................................. 2-2
Well Tests for Vertical Permeability ............................................................... 2-2
Vertical Interference and Pulse Tests ........................................................................................ 2-2
Formation Testers...................................................................................................................... 2-2
Layered Reservoirs ......................................................................................... 2-2
Natural Fractures ............................................................................................ 2-2
Multiple-Well Testing ....................................................................................... 2-3
Interference Tests ...................................................................................................................... 2-3
Pulse Tests ................................................................................................................................ 2-3

Reservoir Descriptions ........................................................................................... 2-3

Reservoir Heterogeneity and Conformance ................................................. 2-4
Solutions for Reservoir-Related Conformance Problems ........................... 2-7
Coning and Cresting ................................................................................................................. 2-7
High-Permeability Channeling ................................................................................................... 2-9
Fingering ................................................................................................................................... 2-9
Induced Fractures ..................................................................................................................... 2-9
Natural Fractures ...................................................................................................................... 2-10
Permeability Barriers ................................................................................................................. 2-10
Development Planning ................................................................................... 2-10
Field Development .................................................................................................................... 2-10
Production Planning .................................................................................................................. 2-11

Reservoir Monitoring .............................................................................................. 2-11

The Reservoir-Monitoring Process................................................................ 2-11
Seismic Data Acquisition ........................................................................................................... 2-11
Seismic Processing ................................................................................................................... 2-12
Seismic Data Interpretation ....................................................................................................... 2-12
Well Log Analysis ...................................................................................................................... 2-12
Well Test Analysis ..................................................................................................................... 2-12
Geologic Model ......................................................................................................................... 2-12
Seismic Verification ................................................................................................................... 2-12
Simulation Model-Building ......................................................................................................... 2-13
Reservoir Fluid Saturation Distribution ...................................................................................... 2-13
Example ........................................................................................................... 2-13

Conclusions ............................................................................................................ 2-14

Bibliography ............................................................................................................ 2-14

ii Contents
HOME
 HALLIBURTON

Chapter 3–Testing Methods and Equipment ...................................................... 3-1

Fluorescent Dyes as Waterflood Tracers ................................................................ 3-1
Acknowledgment ............................................................................................ 3-1
Summary ......................................................................................................... 3-1
Manual for Tracer Test Design and Evaluation ............................................. 3-2
Abstract ..................................................................................................................................... 3-2
Background Information ............................................................................................................ 3-2
Information Necessary to Plan a Tracer Test ............................................................................. 3-3
Calculation of Tracer Amounts ................................................................................................... 3-4
Injection and Sampling .............................................................................................................. 3-5
Chemical Analysis of Data ........................................................................................................ 3-6

Logging Methods .................................................................................................... 3-9

FracPressure Analysis ................................................................................... 3-9
TracerScan Analysis ....................................................................................... 3-9

Logging Services .................................................................................................... 3-9

Openhole Logs ................................................................................................ 3-9
Nuclear Magnetic Resonance ........................................................................ 3-15
Cement Evaluation Logs ................................................................................ 3-17
Conventional Bond-Logging Tools ............................................................................................. 3-17
Ultrasonic Bond-Logging Tools .................................................................................................. 3-17
Casing Evaluation Logs ................................................................................. 3-22
Mechanical Logging Devices ..................................................................................................... 3-23
Electromagnetic Phase-Shift Devices ....................................................................................... 3-24
Ultrasonic Casing Tools ............................................................................................................. 3-26
Pulsed Neutron Logs ................................................................................................................. 3-31
Production Logging Tools .......................................................................................................... 3-41
Downhole Video Services .............................................................................. 3-53
Application in Oilwell Environments ........................................................................................... 3-53
Detection of Fluid and Particulate Entry .................................................................................... 3-57
Logging ..................................................................................................................................... 3-57
Problem Identification and Remedial Treatment Planning .......................................................... 3-57
In-Progress Monitoring .............................................................................................................. 3-57
Post-Treatment Confirmation ..................................................................................................... 3-57
Operating Limits ........................................................................................................................ 3-57
Other Applications ..................................................................................................................... 3-58

Conclusions ............................................................................................................ 3-59

Contents iii
HOME
CONFORMANCE TECHNOLOGY

Chapter 4–Computer Programs .......................................................................... 61

Introduction ............................................................................................................ 4-1

QuikLook Simulator ................................................................................................ 4-1

Purpose and Philosophy of QuikLook .......................................................... 4-2
QuikLook Theory ............................................................................................. 4-3
Conformance Fluids Modeled by QuikLook ................................................. 4-3
WELLCAT Software......................................................................................... 4-3
General Data Requirements ........................................................................... 4-4
Validation of the QuikLook Simulator ........................................................... 4-4
Example 1—First SPE Comparative Study ............................................................................... 4-4
Example 2—Second SPE Comparative Study .......................................................................... 4-9
QuikLook as a Conformance Simulator ........................................................ 4-13
Case 1—Water Channeling in an Injector-Producer System (PermSeal Solution) ..................... 4-13
Case 2—Water Coning of a Single Gas Producer (H2Zero and PermSeal Solutions) ................ 4-20
Case 3—Water Coning of a Black-Oil Producer (PermSeal Solution) ....................................... 4-25

The XERO Program ............................................................................................... 4-31

Phase 1–Problem Identification ..................................................................... 4-31
Phase 2–Treatment Design ............................................................................ 4-39

Summary and Conclusions .................................................................................... 4-42

References ............................................................................................................. 4-43

Chapter 5–Treatment Options ............................................................................. 5-1

Water-Based Polymer Systems .............................................................................. 5-2
PermSeal Service ............................................................................................ 5-2
PermTrol Service ............................................................................................. 5-3
H2ZeroSM Service ............................................................................................. 5-3
Injectrol® Service ............................................................................................. 5-4
Example .................................................................................................................................... 5-4
Treatment Procedure ................................................................................................................. 5-5
Injectrol Sealants and Services ................................................................................................. 5-5
Relative Permeability Modifiers ..................................................................... 5-5
Kw-FracSM Stimulation Service .................................................................................................. 5-5
Oxol II RPM Removal Service ................................................................................................... 5-6

Squeeze Cementing ............................................................................................... 5-7

General Design Principles ............................................................................. 5-7
Lack of Proper Fluid Control ...................................................................................................... 5-9
Improper Perforation Cleanup ................................................................................................... 5-9
Low Placement Rates ............................................................................................................... 5-9
No Knowledge of Where Cement Is Needed ............................................................................. 5-9

iv Contents
HOME
 HALLIBURTON

Poor Injection Point Control ....................................................................................................... 5-9

Effect of Bottomwater ................................................................................................................ 5-9
Crossflow .................................................................................................................................. 5-9
Poor Bonding ............................................................................................................................ 5-9
Cement Flowback ..................................................................................................................... 5-9
Multiple Injection Zones ............................................................................................................. 5-10
MOC/One Cement ........................................................................................... 5-10

Conclusions ............................................................................................................ 5-10

Bibliography ............................................................................................................ 5-10

Chapter 6–Placement Techniques and Equipment............................................ 6-1

Placement Techniques ........................................................................................... 6-1
Placement in Injection vs. Production Wells ................................................ 6-1
Injection Wells ........................................................................................................................... 6-1
Production Wells ....................................................................................................................... 6-1
Controlling Fluid Movement ........................................................................... 6-2
K-MaxSM Service ....................................................................................................................... 6-2
Bullheading ..................................................................................................... 6-2
Mechanical Packer Placement ....................................................................... 6-4
Dual-Injection Placement ............................................................................... 6-4
Chemical Packers ........................................................................................... 6-5
Isoflow Placement........................................................................................... 6-5
Transient Placement ....................................................................................... 6-5

Service Equipment ................................................................................................. 6-6

Monitoring Systems........................................................................................ 6-6
Filtering Systems ............................................................................................ 6-6
Mixing and High-Pressure Pumping Systems.............................................. 6-6
Pumping Equipment Example ................................................................................................... 6-6
Coiled Tubing ................................................................................................... 6-9

Conclusions ............................................................................................................ 6-9

Chapter 7–Conformance Treatment Evaluations ............................................... 7-1

Introduction ............................................................................................................ 7-1
Numerical Methods ................................................................................................ 7-1
Production Data ..................................................................................................... 7-1
Injection Well Data (Hall Plot) ......................................................................... 7-1

Treatment Placement Calculations ......................................................................... 7-2

Pressure-Transient Testing to Determine Treatment Volume ...................... 7-3
Reservoir Simulation to Determine Treatment Volumes .............................. 7-5

Contents v
HOME
CONFORMANCE TECHNOLOGY

Coning and Cresting Calculations .......................................................................... 7-5

Vertical Rate Calculations .............................................................................. 7-5
Critical Rate Calculations .......................................................................................................... 7-5
Breakthrough Time Calculations ............................................................................................... 7-8
Water Cut/Water-Oil Ratio Calculations ..................................................................................... 7-9
Horizontal Well Cresting Calculations ........................................................... 7-11
Critical Rate Calculations .......................................................................................................... 7-11
Breakthrough Time and Calculations ......................................................................................... 7-12
Water Cut/Water-Oil Ratio Calculations ..................................................................................... 7-14

Chapter Abbreviations ............................................................................................ 7-15

Nomenclature .................................................................................................. 7-15
Subscripts ....................................................................................................... 7-15
Superscripts .................................................................................................... 7-15

Bibliography ............................................................................................................ 7-16

References ............................................................................................................. 7-16

vi Contents
HOME

By understanding correct reservoir
behavior, engineers can better
determine if current gas or water
production is excessive or whether it
could become excessive in the future.
The production rates and ultimate
recoveries of hydrocarbons and
unwanted fluids from a reservoir
depend on drive mechanisms, rock
properties, fluid properties, structural
relief, well locations, and reservoir
management techniques. This chapter
explains primary and secondary
recovery mechanisms and describes
common near-wellbore and reservoir-
related problems.
Recovery Mechanisms
This section covers primary and
secondary recovery mechanisms.
Primary Recovery
The principal mechanisms driving
hydrocarbon recovery are depletion,
water drive, segregation, and gravity
processes. For oil reservoirs, deple-
tion (solution gas) drives result in the
lowest recoveries (15 to 27%) and
natural waterdrives result in the
highest recoveries (35 to 70%), as
shown in Figure 1.1 (Page 1-2). For
dry gas reservoirs, depletion drive
generally results in the highest
recoveries (70 to 90%). Between
these extremes are combination
mechanisms involving limited water-
or gas-cap drives, segregation
conditions, and gravity drainage
processes. The following paragraphs
discuss each drive mechanism.
Chapter 1
Chapter 1
Depletion (Solution Gas)
Drive Conformance
The depletion drive mechanism
depends on solution gas and oil
Problems
expansion as its source of energy to
move fluids. In an undersaturated
reservoir, the expansion of oil and
dissolved gas is responsible for fluid
production. As the pressure drops
below the bubble point, the reservoir
becomes saturated, and the liberated
gas initially replaces the produced oil
on an equal-volume basis, providing
more reservoir energy than liquid
expansion alone. Once the saturation
of the gas reaches the point where it
can flow, the gas is produced with the
oil, which depletes the gas as a source
of energy. As a result, more gas
expansion is necessary per unit
volume of oil produced. The relative
permeability to oil is reduced, and the
produced gas-oil ratio (GOR) in-
creases rapidly.
Segregation Drive
without Counterflow
In high-relief geologic structures
containing reservoirs with both oil and
gas, the oil and gas may exist as
stratified or segregated phases; for
example, a gas cap may overlay an oil
zone. In this type of reservoir, low
vertical permeability or the presence
of shale stringers or other imperme-
able zones suppresses the counterflow
of oil and gas associated with gravity
drainage processes. The primary drive
mechanism is gas-cap expansion.
Conformance Problems 1-1
HOME
CONFORMANCE TECHNOLOGY
100
90
Percent of Original Reservoir Pressure
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
Solution Gas Drive
10
0
0 10
Figure 1.1—For oil reservoirs, solution gas drives result in lowest recoveries. Natural waterdrives result in highest recoveries.
Although gas-cap depletion through coning or other
means is harmful, this type of reservoir is often a candi-
date for pressure maintenance through gas injection into
the gas cap.
Gravity Drainage
(Segregation Drive with Counterflow)
The development and expansion of a gas cap over an oil
zone can result from an active fluid segregation process
in which oil migrates downward because of gravity, and
gas migrates upward from buoyancy effects. In this type
of reservoir, the vertical permeability must favor hydro-
carbon movement, and the volume of gas moving up must
be equal to the amount of oil moving down. The rate of
fluid segregation increases as the mobility of oil ap-
proaches that of gas. Depletion of the gas cap through
coning or other means is especially detrimental to
reservoir performance because this type of reservoir is
not a candidate for gas injection into the gas cap.
Waterdrive
Natural waterdrive reservoirs occur when an oil-bearing
stratum is embedded into an aquifer or when a hydraulic
connection exists between the reservoir and an outcrop
that allows water infiltration. When enough water volume
exists to replace the produced oil volume, the reservoir
1-2 Conformance Problems
Waterdrive
Gas-Cap Drive
20 30 40 50 60
Percent of Original Oil Produced
has an active waterdrive. If the primary movement of
water is from the edge inward, approximately parallel to
the bedding plane, the reservoir has an edgewater drive. If
the primary water movement is upward from below, the
reservoir has a bottomwater drive.
Water usually provides a strong energy support mecha-
nism, but it does so at a cost. Often, depending on the
(1) completion length of the interval, (2) oil viscosity,
(3) vertical permeability, (4) density difference between
the oil and water, (5) distance between the perforations,
and (6) water-oil contact, the water underlying the oil
can eventually move into the well.
Vertical water encroachment (bottomwater drive) occurs
when water from an underlying aquifer, possibly con-
nected to an outcrop, replaces the produced hydrocarbon
volume. The upward moving water-oil contact resulting
from reservoir depletion can eventually reach the perfora-
tions, causing water production.
Horizontal water encroachment (edgewater drive) into an
oil reservoir may result from a hydraulic connection with
an outcrop, which can conduct large amounts of water.
Generally, this effect appears as a constant-pressure
boundary in the solution of the diffusivity equation for oil
or gas. If permeability is heterogeneous, the drive water
can channel through the higher-permeability streaks,
bypassing much of the oil contained in the lower-
Chapter 1
HOME
permeability layers. If the water is more mobile than the
oil (the water-oil mobility ratio is greater than 1), the
water can finger through the oil, again reducing sweep
efficiency and bypassing oil.
Secondary Recovery
In primary recovery, natural reservoir energy displaces oil
to the production well. Any method that improves oil
production beyond primary recovery is referred to as
improved oil recovery (IOR). IOR processes that do not
involve chemical reaction between the injected fluid and
the oil in place are called secondary recovery methods.
Pressure maintenance techniques such as water or gas
injection are among the most widely applied secondary
processes.
Water-Injection Pressure Maintenance
During waterflooding, operators inject water into an oil
reservoir to enhance recovery during the final stages of
the primary recovery operation. When waterflooding is
used, early breakthrough at the production well may
occur if the water channels through high-permeability
streaks. If the water is more mobile than the oil, fingering
may also occur.
Waterflood performance can be predicted based on the
same techniques used to predict natural water influx, but
additional calculations are required for the prediction of
flood patterns and sweep efficiencies.
Gas-Injection Pressure Maintenance
Operators use gas injection either to maintain reservoir
pressure at a selected level or to supplement natural
reservoir energy by reinjecting the produced gas. Com-
plete or partial pressure-maintenance operations can
result in increased hydrocarbon recovery and improved
reservoir performance. However, gas-injection methods
and mechanisms are generally similar to those of water
injection; therefore, early gas breakthrough caused by
channeling or fingering is still a concern. By including
the effects of gas solution in the reservoir oil and vapor-
ization of lighter hydrocarbons, engineers can model gas-
injection reservoirs as water-injection reservoirs.
Although many conformance problems are exclusive to a
production well or an injection well, such a clear delinea-
tion does not always exist. Therefore, engineers must
accurately determine the source of the problem before
they can design the proper treatment for each well.
Chapter 1
HOME
Engineers must also determine if fluid breakthrough is
premature. In reservoirs with various natural drives and in
enhanced recovery operations, an unwanted fluid is
expected to break through eventually, even if the reser-
voir is ideal.
Part of problem identification is determining if a problem
actually exists or if everything has proceeded as planned.
Engineers use such methods as reservoir simulation,
volumetric analysis, decline curve analysis, and data
comparisons to determine if the reservoir is depleted.
They may also use a pressure-volume-temperature (PVT)
analysis of the reservoir oil to determine if the produced
gas is from a gas cap or dissolved gas.
Conformance Problem Sources
Conformance problems are classified as either near-
wellbore problems or reservoir-related problems. Some
problems, however, could easily be placed in both catego-
ries. For example, barrier breakdown is related to fractur-
ing out of zone and could be considered reservoir-related,
but it is considered a near-wellbore problem. Similarly,
although coning and cresting occur in the near-wellbore
region and can result from a completion too near the water
or gas zone, they are considered reservoir-related.
Near-Wellbore Problems
Near-wellbore conformance problems include
• casing leaks
• channels behind casing
• barrier breakdown
• debris, scale, and bacteria
• completion into or near water or gas
Casing Leaks
An unexpected increase in water or gas production could
be the result of a casing leak. Production logs, such as
temperature, fluid density, Hydro, and flowmeter (spin-
ner), can help, individually or in combination, locate
where various fluids are entering the wellbore. Thermal
multigate decay (TMD) and pulsed spectral gamma test
(PSGT) logs can also be used. These tools detect water
entry and waterflow into casing.
Casing evaluation logs are used to find holes, splits, and
deformities that could allow unwanted fluid entry. The
logs also detect corrosion conditions that could eventu-
Conformance Problems 1-3
CONFORMANCE TECHNOLOGY
ally cause leaks. Downhole video can also show engi-
neers the condition of the wellbore and where various
fluids enter the wellbore. Engineers can also compare
water analyses between the produced water and those of
nearby formations to locate the source of the leak.
Channels Behind Casing
Channels can develop behind the casing throughout the
life of the well, but such channels are most likely to occur
immediately after the well is completed or after the well
is stimulated. Unexpected water production at these times
strongly indicates that a channel may exist. Channels in
the casing-formation annulus result from poor cement/
casing bonds or cement/formation bonds. Fluid influx can
only be prevented if proper displacement techniques are
used. The factors affecting displacement efficiency are
listed below.
Condition of the Drilling Fluid—Maximum circulatable
hole should be achieved, and the mobility of the drilling
fluid should be increased through the control of filter-
cake buildup. In vertical applications, these practices will
result in low gel strength and viscosity. In deviated
wellbores, the drilling fluid should be conditioned to
prevent the dynamic settling of solids to the low side of
the wellbore.
Pipe Movement—Rotating or reciprocating the casing
provides a mechanical means of controlling gel strength
buildup. Pipe movement can eliminate a solids-settled
channel.
Pipe Centralization—Centralizers can be used to
improve pipe standoff and to equalize the forces in the
annulus. The result is uniform fluid flow around the
casing. In deviated wellbores, a standoff of at least 70%
is preferred.
Displacement Fluid Velocity—Fluids should be dis-
placed from the annulus at the highest rate possible while
wellbore control is still maintained.
Gas influx or fluid migration through the unset cement
column occurs because the slurry cannot maintain
overbalance pressure while the cement is in a gelled
phase, which allows gas percolation to form a gas
channel. Once a cement slurry is in place, it begins to
develop static gel strength (SGS). Gel strength develop-
ment inhibits the slurry from transmitting hydrostatic
pressure, and when combined with hydration/fluid-loss
volume reductions, the result is gas migration. Gas
1-4 Conformance Problems
HOME
migration during the initial phases of cement hydration
has been thoroughly researched and several control
methods have been developed. These methods include
systems that exhibit controlled fluid loss, modified SGS
development, and compressible systems.
Gas influx can also occur after the cement has set. This
type of long-term gas migration is thought to occur
because of poor displacement or the debonding of the
pipe/cement/formation sheath. In the case of poor
displacement, gas flow dehydrates the drilling fluid that
the cement bypasses and results in a highly permeable
flow path for gas migration. Drilling/production/
workover operations can break the cement/casing bond or
cause the cement sheath to fail, resulting in a path for
fluid migration. The use of good displacement practices
and expansive cements should help solve such “long-
term” gas migration problems.
Once a well has been cemented, Halliburton can use
diagnostic sonic tools (cement bond and pulse echo tools)
to determine the effectiveness of the cement job. The logs
these tools generate must be interpreted, and this interpre-
tation is historically used as the basis for remedial work,
such as squeezing off water and gas. Data from these
sonic tools provide information about cement-to-pipe
bonding and the quality of the cement-annulus seal.
Temperature logs that exhibit deviation from the geother-
mal gradient when the well is shut in indicate fluid
migration behind the pipe. A zone with an abnormally high
temperature indicates that fluid is migrating upward.
Abnormally low temperatures indicate that fluid is
migrating downward. TMD and PSGT logs can detect and
quantify water flow in a channel behind the casing. When
the well is shut in, borehole audio tracer surveys (BATS)
help indicate possible fluid movement behind the pipe.
Barrier Breakdown
Even if natural barriers, such as dense shale layers,
separate the different fluid zones and a good cement job
exists, the shales can heave and fracture near the wellbore.
As a result of production, the pressure differential across
these shales allows fluid to migrate through the wellbore
(Figure 1.2, Page 1-5). More often, this type of failure is
associated with stimulation attempts. Fractures can break
through the shale layer, or acids can dissolve channels
through it. Temperature, TMD, and PSGT logs can be used
to detect fluid migration caused by barrier breakdown.
Chapter 1
 Oil Oil

Shale Barrier

Water Water

Figure 1.2—Communication through a barrier Figure 1.3—Coning

Debris, Scale, and Bacteria Reservoir-Related Problems

Debris, scale, or bacteria deposited on the perforations or Reservoir-related problems include
in the region around the wellbore of an injector can
• coning and cresting
restrict flow through perforations, decreasing injectivity
and possibly diverting fluid into unwanted regions. The • channeling through higher permeability
presence of debris, scale, or bacteria may also indicate
• fingering
that permeability streaks or crossflow exist.
• fracturing out of zone
Comparing the water analysis results of injection and
reservoir fluids is an excellent means of determining the • fracture communication between injector and
possibility of scale problems. All fluids injected into the producer
well should be evaluated for the possibility of introducing
• isolation between injector and producer
bacteria to the formation face. In addition to water
analysis results, scale problems can be detected with
downhole video. Coning and Cresting
Fluid coning in vertical wells and fluid cresting in horizon-
Completion Into or Near Water or Gas tal wells both result from reduced pressure near the well
completion. This reduced pressure draws water or gas from
Completion into the unwanted fluid allows the fluid to be
an adjacent, connected zone toward the completion
produced immediately. Even if perforations are above the
(Figure 1.3). Eventually, the water or gas can break
original water-oil contact or below the gas-oil contact,
through into the perforated section, replacing all or part of
proximity to either of these interfaces allows production
the hydrocarbon production. When breakthrough occurs,
of the unwanted fluid, through coning or cresting, to
the problem tends to get worse because higher cuts of the
occur much more easily and quickly.
unwanted fluid are produced. Although reduced production
Engineers should re-examine core data, the driller’s daily rates can curtail the problem, they cannot cure it.
report, and openhole logs to determine the cutoff point of
Fluid density, Hydro, PSGT, and TMD logs can help
moveable water. Data from resistivity and porosity logs,
engineers determine the point of water entry into the
for example, can be combined to determine the location
wellbore. The PSGT and TMD logs can also indicate the
of water and pay zones.
present location of the water-oil contact before break-
through. In addition to these logs, engineers can run
additional well tests to detect bottomwater encroachment.

Chapter 1 Conformance Problems 1-5

HOME
CONFORMANCE TECHNOLOGY

Channeling Through Higher Permeability

High-permeability streaks can allow the fluid that is
driving hydrocarbon production to break through prema-
turely, bypassing potential production by leaving lower-
permeability zones unswept (Figure 1.4). As the driving Higher Permeability
fluid sweeps the higher-permeability intervals, permeabil-
ity to subsequent flow of the fluid becomes even higher,
which results in increasing water-oil or gas-oil ratios Low Permeability
throughout the life of the project.
Tracer surveys, interference and pulse testing, reservoir
simulations of the field, reservoir descriptions, and
reservoir monitoring are used for channel detection.
Tracer surveys and interference and pulse tests verify
Figure 1.4—High-permeability streaks
communication between wells and help engineers
determine the flow capacity of the channel. Reservoir
description and monitoring verify the location of fluids Producer
in the various formations. The data available through
reservoir description (Chapter 2) allow engineers to Oil
produce more accurate models of the formations and
then simulate fluid movement through the reservoir.
Permeability variations between zones can be revealed
by core test results or pressure transient test results of
individual zones.

Fingering
Unfavorable mobility ratios (>1) allow the more mobile
displacing fluid (from either primary or enhanced
recovery operations) to finger through and bypass large
amounts of oil. Once breakthrough occurs, very little
additional oil will be produced as the drive fluid contin-
ues to flow directly from the source to the production
well (Figure 1.5).
Reservoir- and drive-fluid mobilities derived from fluid
and core data are probably the most important factors
for determining whether fingering is a potential prob-
lem. Engineers can use reservoir simulations or avail-
able information on ideal systems to determine if sweep
efficiencies are within range expected if fingering did
not exist.
Fracturing Out of Zone
An improperly designed or poorly performed stimulation
treatment can allow a hydraulic fracture to enter a water
or gas zone. If the stimulation is performed on a produc-
Injection Water
Injector
Figure 1.5—Fingering
tion well, an out-of-zone fracture can allow early break-
through of water or gas. If the fracturing treatment is
performed on an injection well, a fracture that connects
the flooded interval to an aquifer or other permeable zone
can divert the injected fluid to the aquifer, providing very
little benefit in sweeping the oil zone. Engineers can use
temperature logs, tracer surveys, and detailed reviews of
the fracturing treatment to identify this problem.
Microfrac treatments and long-spaced sonic logs, usually
performed before the fracturing treatment, help verify the
existence of vertical stress contrasts that might indicate a
potential for uncontained fracture height growth.

1-6 Conformance Problems Chapter 1

HOME
Fracture Communication
Between Injector and Producer
Natural fracture systems can provide a direct connec-
tion between injection and production wells, allowing
injected fluid to move through these higher-permeabil-
ity channels, bypassing hydrocarbons within the rock
matrix (Figure 1.6). Even if natural fractures intersect-
ing two wells are not directly connected, fluid can
preferentially flow through one fracture until it is in
close proximity to another fracture or wellbore,
crossing through and sweeping only a small portion of
the matrix.
Natural fractures serving as flow channels can be con-
firmed by chloride level comparisons and tracer surveys.
Reservoir description should locate the discontinuities,
and reservoir monitoring should detect the movement of
fluids through the fracture system. A combined analysis
of pressure buildup or drawdown data and interference
data allows engineers to estimate the properties for both
the matrix and the natural fracture system.
Poorly oriented hydraulic fractures can also provide
channels that allow injected fluids to bypass much of the
hydrocarbon production. Although created fractures
rarely interconnect two wells, a hydraulic fracture still
provides a channel of higher conductivity that allows
much reservoir fluid to be bypassed. Preferred fracture
orientation and the possibility of enhanced recovery
operations should be considered during the reservoir
initial development.
Various technologies, such as microfrac analysis and
anelastic strain recovery, allow engineers to determine the
expected direction of fracture growth. If engineers know
the lengths and directions of any hydraulic fractures, they
can use reservoir simulations to model flow through the
system and determine the expected sweep efficiency.
Isolation Between Injector and Producer
If oil or gas production does not respond to injection, the
problem could be a lack of communication between the
injector and producer. A natural barrier, such as a sealing
fault, can separate the wells, or they can be perforated in
different zones.
Interference and pulse tests help determine if interwell
communication exists. Reservoir description reveals the
presence of major heterogeneities, such as faults.
Chapter 1
HOME
Open Fracture
Injection Well
Production Well
Figure 1.6—Injected fluid moving through a high-perme-
ability channel, bypassing hydrocarbons in the rock matrix
Conclusions
With a basic knowledge of reservoir behavior and the
primary causes of conformance problems, a reservoir
description team can examine various wellbore and
reservoir parameters to pinpoint any conformance
problems that might exist in a given area. Chapter 2
presents detailed information regarding well testing,
reservoir descriptions, and reservoir monitoring.
Bibliography
Aguilera, R. et al.: Horizontal Wells, Gulf Publishing Co.,
Houston, TX (1991).
Arps, J.J. et al.: “A Statistical Study of Recovery
Efficiency,” API Bulletin D-14.
Arthur, M.G.: author’s reply to discussion of “Fingering
and Coning of Water and Gas in Homogeneous Oil
Sand,” Trans., AIME, (1944) 45:200-01.
Bateman, R.M.: “Building a Reservoir Description
Team–A Case Study,” The Log Analyst, (1993) 67-73;
34, 4.
Beterge, M.B. and Ertekin, T.: “Development and
Testing of a Static/Dynamic Local Grid-Refinement
Technique,” JPT (April 1992) 487.
Bournazel, C. and Jeanson, B.: “Fast Water-Coning
Evaluation Method,” paper SPE 3628 presented at the
1971 SPE Annual Fall Meeting, New Orleans, Oct. 3-6.
Bournazel, C.L. and Sonier, F.: “Physical Models for the
Study of Oil Drainage with Cone Formation,” ARTFP
3rd Meeting, Pau, France, Technip Editions, 1969.
Conformance Problems 1-7
CONFORMANCE TECHNOLOGY
Byrne, W.B. and Morse, R.A.: “Waterconing May Not
Be Harmful–1,” OGJ (Sept. 3, 1973) 66-70.
Chaperon, I.: “Theoretical Study of Coning Toward
Horizontal and Vertical Wells in Anisotropic Forma-
tions: Subcritical and Critical Rates,” paper SPE
15377 presented at the 1986 SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, Oct. 5-8.
Chapplelear, J.E. and Hirasaki, G.J.: “A Model of Oil-
Water Coning for Two-Dimensional, Areal Reservoir
Simulation,” SPEJ (April 1976) 65-72.
Coats, K.H.: “An Analysis for Simulating Reservoir
Performance Under Pressure Maintenance by Gas
and/or Water Injection,” SPEJ (Dec. 1968) 331-40.
Collins, D.A., Ngheim, L.X., and Grabenstrotter, J.E.:
“An Efficient Approach to Adaptive-Implicit Compo-
sitional Simulation with an Equation-of-State,” paper
SPE 15133 presented at the 1986 California Regional
Meeting of SPE, Oakland, CA, April 2-4.
Cottin, R.H. and Ombret, R.L.: “Application of a Multi-
phase Coning Model to Optimize Completion and
Production of Thin Oil Columns Lying Between Gas
Cap and Water Zone,” paper SPE 4632 presented at
the 1973 SPE Annual Fall Meeting, Las Vegas,
Sept. 30-Oct. 3.
Dahl, J.A. et al.: “Current Water-Control Treatment
Designs,” paper SPE 25029 presented at the 1992 SPE
European Petroleum Conference, Cannes, France,
Nov. 16-18.
Graig, F.F.: The Reservoir Engineering Aspects of Water-
flooding, Monograph Series, SPE, Richardson, TX
(1980) 3.
Giger, F.M.: “Analytic 2-D Models of Water Cresting
Before Breakthrough for Horizontal Wells,” SPE
Reservoir Engineering (Nov. 1989) 409-16.
Giger, F.M.: “Horizontal Wells Production Techniques in
Heterogeneous Reservoirs,” paper SPE 13710 pre-
sented at the 1985 SPE Middle East Oil Technical
Conference, Bahrain, March 11-14.
Høyland, L.A., Papatzacos, P., and Skjaeveland, S. M.:
“Critical Rate for Water Coning: Correlation and
Analytical Solution,” SPE Reservoir Engineering
(Nov. 1989) 495-502.
Joshi S.D.: “Augmentation of Well Productivity Using
Slant and Horizontal Wells,” JPT (June 1988) 729-39.
1-8 Conformance Problems
HOME
Joshi, S.D.: Horizontal Well Technology, PennWell
Publishing Company, Tulsa, OK, 1991.
Kabir, C.S.: “Predicting Gas Well Performance: Coning
Water in Bottom-Water-Drive Reservoirs,” paper SPE
12068 presented at the 1983 SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, San Francisco, Oct. 5-8.
Karp, J.C., Lowe, D.K., and Marusov, N.: “Horizontal
Barriers for Controlling Water Coning,” JPT (July
1962) 783-90.
Lake, L.W.: Enhanced Oil Recovery, Prentice Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ (1989) 223.
Meyer, H.I. and Garder, A.O.: “Mechanics of Two
Immiscible Fluids in Porous Media,” Journal of
Applied Physics, 25, No. 11, 1400.
Mungan, N.: “A Theoretical and Experimental Coning
Study,” SPEJ (June, 1975) 247-54.
Muskat, M.: The Flow of Homogeneous Fluids Through
Porous Media, IHRDC, Boston (1982) 454-476.
Papatzacos, P., Gustafson, S.A., and Skaeveland, S.M.:
“Critical Time for Cone Breakthrough in Horizontal
Wells,” presented at the 1988 Seminar on Recovery
from Thin Oil Zones, Norwegian Petroleum Director
ate, Stavanger, Norway, April 21-22.
Papatzacos, P. et al.: “Cone Breakthrough Time for
Horizontal Wells,” paper SPE 19822 presented at the
1989 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
San Antonio, TX, Oct. 8-11.
Reed, R.N. and Wheatley, M.J.: “Oil and Water Produc-
tion in a Reservoir With Significant Capillary Transi-
tion Zone,” paper SPE 12066 presented at the 1983
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
San Francisco, Oct. 5-9.
Slider, H.C.: Practical Petroleum Reservoir Engineering
Methods, Petroleum Publishing Company, Tulsa
(1976) 353-364.
Sobocinski, D.P. and Cornelius, A.J.: “A Correlation for
Predicting Water Coning Time,” JPT (May 1965)
594-600.
Weber, K.J.: “How Heterogeneity Affects Oil Recovery,”
Reservoir Characterization, Academic Press, Or-
lando, FL, 487-544.
Chapter 1
Weber, K.J.: “Reservoir Modeling for Simulation Pur-
poses,” Development Geology Reference Manual
(ed.), American Association of Petroleum Geologists,
Tulsa, OK (1992) 531-535.
Wheatley M.J.: “An Approximate Theory of Oil/Water
Coning,” paper SPE 14210 presented at the 1985 SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Las
Vegas, Sept. 22-25.
Yang, W. and Wattenbarger, R.A.: “Water Coning
Calculations for Vertical and Horizontal Wells,”
paper SPE 22931 presented at the 1991 SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Oct. 6-9.
Zhao, L.: Progress Report No. 16, Texas A&M University
Reservoir Modeling Consortium (1993).

Chapter 1 Conformance Problems 1-9

HOME

To understand the source or potential
source of a problem, conformance
control design teams must thoroughly
investigate all aspects of well and
reservoir parameters, including
geological, petrophysical, well
completion, and production/injection
log data. All of this information may
not be available, and some of the
available information may not
sufficiently identify the source of the
problem; therefore, additional tests
may have to be performed.
By fully understanding the different
mechanisms that contribute to a
conformance problem, engineers can
better evaluate the information
available, identify additional tests,
and perhaps better determine possible
problems. This chapter describes well
testing, reservoir description and
monitoring methods, and specifies
how a design team can use the data
collected to identify conformance
problems and plan treatments.
Well Testing
Well tests provide information
regarding pertinent reservoir proper-
ties, such as horizontal and vertical
permeability. They can also reveal the
presence of heterogeneities and verify
interwell communication.
This section discusses the general
effects of reservoir nonidealities on
pressure-transient testing and how
well testing can be used to quantify
these nonidealities. In addition, the
application of multiple-well tests to
conformance technology is discussed.
Chapter 2
Chapter 2
Effect of Reservoir
Nonidealities
Data
Reservoir nonidealities, such as
barriers, permeability anisotropy,
Collection
layered systems, and natural frac-
tures, play important roles in well
conformance. Researchers have
examined the effects of each
nonideality on pressure-transient
behavior, and have developed
methods and tests to determine their
existence or magnitude. Such tests,
however, should be supported by
additional geologic, seismic, fluid-
flow, and performance data. Engi-
neers should not infer heterogeneous
reservoir properties based solely on
transient testing.
Faults and Barriers
Barriers, such as sealing faults, can
prevent communication between
injection and production wells. If
faults are located near an injector,
they could cause rapid pressure
changes early in the well life that
could be mistaken for indications of
other injector-related problems.
On an appropriate semilog plot, a
linear barrier, such as a sealing fault,
appears as a second straight-line
portion of double slope in drawdown,
two-rate pressure buildup, injectivity,
and pressure falloff testing. Log
analysts must be careful to ensure
that wellbore storage effects are not
causing the two apparent semilog
straight lines. The use of the intersec-
tion time of the two straight-line
segments allows analysts to deter-
mine the distance from the well to the
Data Collection 2-1
HOME
CONFORMANCE TECHNOLOGY
fault. The method for this determination depends, of
course, on the type of well test performed. Multiple faults
are not as easily analyzed as a single fault because their
relative angles and distances from the well affect transient
test-pressure behavior.
Permeability Anisotropy
The degree to which a reservoir’s permeability is aniso-
tropic affects coning or cresting behavior near the well
and will factor into the degree of crossflow between
adjacent permeable layers. Typically, vertical permeabil-
ity is less than horizontal permeability in petroleum
reservoirs.
Because the response curve of an anisotropic reservoir is
the same as an isotropic reservoir, anisotropy cannot be
recognized from a single-well test; the permeability
determined from one test is considered an average
permeability. However, multiple-well transient tests are
available that allow engineers to recognize and quantify
anisotropic reservoir properties. Well tests are also
available for determining vertical permeability.
Well Tests for Vertical Permeability
Methods for estimating vertical permeability include
vertical interference testing, vertical pulse testing, and the
use of a formation tester.
Vertical Interference and Pulse Tests
To perform vertical interference and pulse tests, operators
must complete the well so that part of the completion can
be used for production or injection and another part for
observation. A favorable method is to separate the active
(injection or production) perforations from the observa-
tion perforations with a packer. Theoretically, either set of
perforations can serve as the active or observation
perforations, but operators generally prefer to use the
upper set for the active perforations.
In general, operational considerations for these types of
tests are more demanding than other tests because
operators must (1) limit or eliminate wellbore storage
effects, which can mask the pressure response, and (2)
eliminate any communication between the two sets of
perforations, except through the matrix permeability.
In addition to the increased operational difficulty, the
analysis of vertical pulse tests is more complex than that
of horizontal tests because of the influence of upper and
lower formation boundaries on the test. Vertical interfer-
ence tests are also possible, but they can only be properly
analyzed with specialized software.
2-2 Data Collection
HOME
Formation Testers
Formation testers measure pressures at individual points
within a wellbore as fluid samples are taken. As fluids are
withdrawn from the formation, a drawdown permeability
is calculated from the pressures measured. Spherical
buildup permeability is calculated from pressures
measured while the formation relaxes to an undisturbed
state. Through mathematical relationships, horizontal and
vertical permeabilities are calculated from these two
values.
Layered Reservoirs
The pressure transient behavior of a layered system with
crossflow is the same as the behavior of a homogeneous
system. Therefore, normal pressure-transient testing will
not reveal the layered nature of the reservoir. In these
systems, the effective permeability-thickness product will
be the total of the permeability-thickness products of the
individual layers. Likewise, the effective porosity-
compressibility-thickness product will be the total of the
porosity-compressibility-thickness products of the
individual layers.
For layered reservoirs separated by barriers that prevent
crossflow, early-time drawdown or buildup behaviors
cannot be distinguished from those of a single-layer
system. However, at later times, once boundary effects
occur, the presence of the boundary will be sensed at
different times in each layer if the layers have different
properties. The resulting behaviors can be analyzed
through the use of special techniques.
By isolating and testing each layer in a layered reservoir
with a straddle packer, analysts can estimate the perme-
abilities, skin factors, and average pressures of all layers.
Natural Fractures
Natural fracture systems, among the most common of
heterogeneities, can create flowpaths that allow injected
water or drivewater to bypass hydrocarbons within the
formation matrix.
If the natural fractures occur predominantly in a single
direction, the reservoir behaves as a system with anisotro-
pic permeability, and well-testing methods developed for
anisotropic behavior can be applied.
Natural fractures can also occur in an interconnected
system that exhibits two distinct porosity types: (1) the
fine, low-permeability pores of the matrix and (2) the
higher-permeability system of fractures, fissures, and vugs.
Chapter 2
The existence of this dual-porosity system manifests itself
in pressure-transient testing behavior. For buildup and
drawdown tests, techniques are available for determining
the total permeability-thickness product for the system, as
well as skin factor and average reservoir pressure. A ratio
of the porosity-compressibility product of the fracture
system to that of the total system is also available. A
combined analysis of pressure drawdown or buildup data
and interference data allows engineers to estimate the
properties of both the matrix and the fracture system.
Multiple-Well Testing
As implied by the name, multiple-well transient tests
involve more than one well. They require at least one
active (producing or injecting) well and at least one
pressure-observation well. For practical rather than
theoretical reasons, the observation well is shut in for
pressure measurement. In addition to providing informa-
tion on interwell communication, multiple-well tests
allow engineers to investigate a larger portion of the
reservoir. The investigation area includes the region
between the wells and a radius of influence that depends
on the reservoir properties and the testing time.
Although multiple-well tests are designed to provide
information on the effective reservoir properties, they can
also indicate whether communication exists between two
or more wells. In a multiple-well test, the flow rate of the
active well is varied, while the bottomhole pressure
response at the observation wells is measured. A lack of
response at the observation well indicates little or no
communication. This condition suggests that either the
active and observation wells are completed in different
zones or that a boundary, such as a sealing fault, could
exist between the wells.
If a response occurs at the observation well, it can usually
help engineers determine such parameters as permeability
and the porosity-compressibility product. In addition,
methods have been developed for estimating anisotropic
reservoir characteristics from interference testing.
Because multiple-well tests measure properties over a
region of influence, the variation in fluid properties (for
example, mobility) that exists with fluid-fluid contacts
can cause the results to be unreliable or meaningless
when they are applied to conformance control.
The two major types of multiple-well tests are the inter-
ference test and the pulse test. Of the two tests, the pulse
test requires less time, but it is more difficult to analyze.
Chapter 2
HOME
Interference Tests
During an interference test, operators modify the long-
term rate, usually by shutting in the active well. Tech-
niques as simple as type-curve matching and semilog
plots are applied to the pressure responses measured at
the observation wells. In addition, permeability anisot-
ropy can be determined from interference tests that
involve multiple observation wells and more complex
analysis techniques.
If natural fractures exist, they may substantially affect
observation well behavior in interference tests. Because
early-time behavior is most greatly affected, type-curve
methods may not provide correct results in these in-
stances, but semilog methods should still apply.
Pulse Tests
During a pulse test, a number of short-duration rate pulses
are used at the active well. These production or injection
pulses are made at the same rate and duration, and the
pulses are separated by shut-in periods of the same
duration. The pressure responses measured at the observa-
tion well can be small, sometimes less than 0.01 psi,
requiring special pressure-measuring equipment. When
used on naturally fractured reservoirs, pulse tests can
provide erroneous results.
Reservoir Description
Historically, engineers have assessed the condition of
unwanted fluid production on a well-by-well basis
without the benefit of reservoir understanding. While
many conformance problems can be traced to mechanical
(near-wellbore) problems, a significant number of
conformance problems are the result of reservoir-related
phenomena. By understanding a reservoir’s characteris-
tics, engineers can more easily identify, control, and
sometimes predict a conformance problem.
To understand reservoir behavior, engineers must have a
description of the static and dynamic properties of a
reservoir. Although reservoir information from a problem
well may provide valuable information that engineers can
use to create a treatment for that well, truly effective
reservoir understanding generally results from a multiple-
well or field-scale reservoir description.
Reservoir description is the quantitative assessment of
both static and dynamic subsurface properties, both
spatial and temporal. Reservoir descriptions can be
Data Collection 2-3
CONFORMANCE TECHNOLOGY

Static Reservoir Properties Geophysics Geology Petrophysics Engineering

Structural Stratigraphic
Configuration Framework
h

Volumetric
Geologic Estimate
φ Model of Fluids
in Place

Reservoir
Simulator
Dynamic Reservoir Properties

Optimization of Economic Production

Field Operations Analysis Forecasts

k
Figure 2.2—Integrated approach to reservoir description
P
Sw
Q

φ = porosity
h = thickness
k = permeability
P = pressure
Q = rate
Sw = water saturation
Figure 2.1—Static and dynamic reservoir properties
(modified after Bateman, 1993)
performed at various scales, ranging from a broad basin
analysis to an individual reservoir unit analysis. Static
properties do not usually change with time and include
the size, shape, position, and storage capacity of the flow
units. Dynamic properties vary with time and include the
initial, current, and future distribution of fluids in the
flow units (Figure 2.1).
Ideally, a reservoir description should result in a
conceptual 3D model that describes the spatial distribu-
tion of fluid and rock properties within the gross
thickness and areal extent of the reservoir. However, a
more limited or problem-specific reservoir description,
such as a study of natural fractures, may provide the
reservoir engineer with the information necessary to
identify or treat a conformance problem such as chan-
neling through natural fractures.
Any reservoir description should be based on an inte-
grated dataset (geology, geophysics, petrophysics,
engineering) prepared by a multidisciplinary team
(Figure 2.2). A field-scale reservoir description allows
team members to quickly classify the primary production
mechanism, identify large-scale trends, and incorporate
reservoir heterogeneity when planning secondary or
improved oil recovery.
Reservoir Heterogeneity
and Conformance
Various heterogeneities control the distribution and
movement of fluids in a field and reservoir. These hetero-
geneities include faults, stratigraphic surfaces, flow-unit
boundaries, and fractures (Figure 2.3, Page 2-5).
Because of macroscopic and microscopic features,
porosity and permeability are also heterogeneously
distributed throughout a reservoir and field. Table 2.1
(Page 2-6) shows the impact of various types of reservoir
heterogeneity on fluid distribution and movement.

2-4 Data Collection Chapter 2

HOME
 1. Faults: Oil
Sealing fault
Semisealing fault
Nonsealing fault

2. Boundaries between genetic units

3. Permeability zonation within genetic units

4. Flow baffles within genetic units

5. Sedimentary structures
Lamination
Cross-bedding
Bioturbation

6. Microscopic heterogeneity
Textural types
Pore types
Cements
Clays

7. Fractures
Open
Partially cemented
Cemented
Healed

Figure 2.3—Types of reservoir heterogeneity (modified after Weber, 1992)

Chapter 2 Data Collection 2-5

HOME
CONFORMANCE TECHNOLOGY

Table 2.1—Types of Reservoir Heterogeneity

Reservoir Heterogeneity Reservoir Horizontal Sweep Vertical Sweep ROS in Rock/Fluid
Type Continuity Efficiency Efficiency Swept Zones Interactions
Sealing fault O O — — —
Semisealing fault X O O — —
Nonsealing fault X O O — —
Boundaries
O O O — —
as genetic units
Permeability zonation
— X O — —
within genetic units
Baffles within genetic units — X X X —
Lamination,
— X — X —
crossbedding
Microscopic heterogeneity — — — O X
Textural types — — — O O
Mineralogy — — — — O
Tight fracturing — X — O —
Open fracturing — O — O —
X = Major influence O = Minor influence — = No influence

Figures 2.4 and 2.5 (Page 2-7) illustrate the effects that
reservoir and field-scale heterogeneity have on fluid
distribution and movement on waterfloods and oil produc-
tion. Accurate descriptions and a thorough understanding
of field and reservoir heterogeneity allow design teams to
predict, manage, and even control the movement of
reservoir-related fluids (oil and water) and gas.
A reservoir’s static properties do not generally change
during the life of a field. Therefore, engineers can
delineate the structural features (faults and folds) and
determine stratigraphic surfaces and geometries by
interpreting 2D or 3D seismic data.
Wireline logs provide detailed views of near-wellbore
formation thickness, dip, natural and induced fractures,
and petrophysical properties such as porosity, lithology,
and fluid saturations. Studies of cores and cuttings
provide details on sedimentary structures, rock texture/
fabric, mineralogy, pore types and networks, and other
microscopic heterogeneities. By integrating these
datasets, a design team can construct a stratigraphic
framework and develop structural, depositional, and
diagenetic models. The team can then use these models to
construct a 3D geologic model that represents the
distribution of the various types of reservoir heterogene-
ity throughout the field.
A well-defined geologic model provides the information
necessary for the next phases of field/reservoir develop-
ment. This model must be dynamic, must be updated as
new data is acquired, and must evolve with field
development.
Effective assessment of a reservoir’s dynamic properties
is essential before and during the development phase. To
derive fluid types, properties, and distribution, team
members can examine petrophysical, well-test, and
production data and use advanced reservoir simulators
based on the geologic model.
Simulation is a vital part of the reservoir management
decision-making process because it yields production
forecasts for a variety of production alternatives and
economic scenarios. In mature fields, where production
rates have declined and formation pressures have fallen,
the team may be required to evaluate existing secondary
recovery activity and model possible secondary recovery
options. Strategies for pressure maintenance, infill drilling,
workover, and conformance problems can be improved if
the results of a reservoir simulation are available.
Existing geological, geophysical, petrophysical, and
engineering data may often seem sparse in comparison
with reservoir size and complexity, and acquiring new

2-6 Data Collection Chapter 2

HOME
 data is frequently costly. Table 2.2 (Page 2-8) shows the
value of various data for identifying and quantifying
different types of reservoir heterogeneity.
Finally, the spatial and temporal relationships that exist in
a reservoir are difficult to perceive. Reservoir engineers
have found 3D displays to be powerful tools for interpret-
ing faulting and fluid regimes that may remain hidden or
be obscured in traditional 2D displays, such as maps and
cross sections.

Solutions for Reservoir-Related

Conformance Problems
Injector Producer
A reservoir description solution can be developed for
each of the following reservoir-related nonconformance
phenomena identified in Chapter 1:
K/
Φ
K/ = 7 • coning and cresting
Φ
K/ = 3
Φ • high-permeability channeling
=5
K/
Φ • fingering
=
K/ 2
Φ Φ=
K/
=2
• induced fractures
5
• natural fractures
• permeability barriers

Figure 2.4—Effect of reservoir heterogeneity on a Coning and Cresting

waterflood front [Movement of the water front is irregular
from areal, vertical, and intrareservoir (intralayer or
intrazone) perspectives.]
Cumulative Water Injection
Cumulative Oil Production
Figure 2.5—Cumulative oil production and cumulative
water injection across a field [Distribution of both oil and
water volumes is generally heterogeneous; however, at
least two subtle trends in both the oil and water volumes
may be interpreted (dashed lines).]
As mentioned in Chapter 1, whenever a well is produc-
ing from an oil zone overlaying a water layer (aquifer),
the near-wellbore pressure gradients may deform the
horizontal oil-water contact into a cone or crest. The
height or vertical reach of the cone or crest above the
oil-water contact depends on the pressure gradient
around the wellbore.
The tendency for water or gas to cone is inversely related
to the density difference between existing oil and gas or
water and directly proportional to the viscosity and the
pressure drawdown near the wellbore. The density
difference between gas and oil is higher than the density
difference between gas and water, but gas has a lower
viscosity than water. However, formation permeability
and thickness generally dictate the extent of coning that
occurs because higher-permeability rock has higher flow
rates and requires less drawdown. In practice, most wells
are perforated closer to the oil-water contact than the gas-
oil contact; therefore, water coning is a common con-
formance issue.

Chapter 2 Data Collection 2-7

HOME
CONFORMANCE TECHNOLOGY

Table 2.2 (1 of 2)—Value of Data for the Identification and Qualification of Heterogeneity
Reservoir Standard Special ROS Outcrop or
Heterogeneity Production Well Well Well SWS Analog
Type Logs Logging Logging Logging Cores Cuttings Reservoir
Sealing fault — O X X X — X
Semisealing fault — O — — X — X
Nonsealing fault — O X — X — X
Boundaries
X O O X O X O
as genetic units
Permeability zonation
X O X O O X O
within genetic units
Baffles within genetic
X O X — O — O
units
Lamination,
— O — — O — O
crossbedding
Microscopic
— — — — — — —
heterogeneity
Textural types — — — — — — —
Mineralogy — — X X O X X
Tight fracturing — — — — O — X
Open fracturing O X — — O X X
X = Major value O = Minor value — = No value

Table 2.2 (2 of 2)—Value of Data for the Identification and Qualification of Heterogeneity
Horizontal Vertical
Reservoir Reservoir Reservoir
Heterogeneity Detailed Pressure Pressure Production Pulse Tracer Production
Type Seismic Distribution Distribution Tests Tests Tests History
Sealing fault O O X X O X O
Semisealing fault O O X X X X X
Nonsealing fault O X X — — — —
Boundaries
X O O X X X X
as genetic units
Permeability zonation
— — X X X — —
within genetic units
Baffles within genetic
— — X — X — X
units
Lamination,
— — — — — — —
crossbedding
Microscopic
— — — — — — —
heterogeneity
Textural types — — — — — — —
Mineralogy — — — — — — —
Tight fracturing — — — O — — O
Open fracturing X O X O O X O
X = Major value O = Minor value — = No value

2-8 Data Collection Chapter 2

HOME
Before team members can treat a coning problem, they
must characterize fluids and reservoir-fluid interactions.
To determine the coning or cresting tendencies of
different parts of the reservoir, engineers must measure
the density, gravity, and viscosity of the hydrocarbon
fluids and establish the relative permeability of the
reservoir rocks. For example, homogeneous reservoirs
with active drives are more prone to coning. To under-
stand the distribution of variations in reservoir thickness
and permeability, the team must model the reservoir’s
static properties. In this way, they can evaluate the coning
tendencies of different parts of the field and/or reservoir.
By understanding the reservoir and/or field static and
dynamic properties, the team can anticipate potential
coning problems.
To set production limits that should preclude coning
problems in oil or gas reservoirs, team members can
calculate a critical production rate based on available
reservoir parameters. A reservoir description that includes
the distribution and magnitude of permeability heteroge-
neities and variations in reservoir thickness allows such
calculations to be refined to more accurately represent the
actual fluid dynamics of the reservoir.
High-Permeability Channeling
Reservoirs containing fractures or high-permeability
streaks may suffer from early water breakthrough and
poor sweep efficiency. As fluids are produced from a
reservoir, zones of higher permeability and correspond-
ingly higher flow rates create channels for the preferential
movement of fluids. In the case of water, this condition
can result in premature communication between a
reservoir and an aquifer or premature communication
between an injector and a producer. In either case, sweep
efficiency is diminished.
To eliminate or inhibit channeling, engineers may
recommend placing gels in the high-permeability zones at
the injection wells. These gels plug the high-permeability
zones and force the injected water to sweep the oil-
saturated, low-permeability zones. For such gel place-
ments to be successful, engineers must understand the
lateral and vertical distribution of the permeability zones
to identify interwell flow regimes.
To reduce or prevent the effects of high-permeability
channeling, engineers can map the lateral and vertical
distribution of permeability during reservoir description.
By knowing the distribution of high-permeability zones
(potential channels) across the field or reservoir, the
operations engineer can more easily avoid or control
channeling-related nonconformance.
Chapter 2
HOME
Fingering
Viscous fingering is significant in a waterflood environ-
ment, especially when high oil-water viscosity ratios
exist. Under these conditions, discrete streamers or
“fingers” of displacing water may move through the
reservoir or field. When high oil-water viscosity ratios
exist, instabilities occur at the oil-water interface because
of the driving fluid’s higher mobility. The mobility ratio
compares the driving fluid (water or gas) mobility to the
driven fluid (oil) mobility. Mobility is defined as the ratio
of a fluid’s effective permeability to its viscosity (keff/µ).
Ideally, the mobility ratio should be less than 1; other-
wise, fingering could result.
In a field of several types of reservoirs, the hydrocar-
bons trapped in each reservoir may not be the same. In
some cases, oil gravities may vary substantially from
one reservoir to another, even in the same part of the
field. Therefore, the mobility of some hydrocarbons
relative to water, for instance, may be different in
different parts of a field. In addition, static reservoir
properties and heterogeneities may dictate the preferen-
tial flow of oil, gas, or water, depending on the place-
ment and number of these fluids.
During reservoir description, engineers can estimate the
fractional flow of fluid phases based on laboratory tests
on core samples to determine relative permeabilities and
capillary pressures of the wetting phase. During these
tests, the variation and distribution of fluid types and
fluid properties are characterized and modeled, as well as
the static reservoir properties. By integrating the static
and dynamic properties into a reservoir model, engineers
can predict and plan for zones and scenarios in which
fingering is likely to occur.
Induced Fractures
Injection above the formation parting pressure inadvert-
ently creates stresses in the reservoir zone that exceed the
tolerance of the reservoir rock. These stresses can induce
fractures that can modify expected fluid flow patterns. If
the induced fractures do not extend beyond the reservoir
pay zone, the effect is generally positive (similar to
hydraulic fracture stimulation). However, if the induced
fractures extend into a gas or water zone, they become
high-permeability conduits that allow communication
(channeling) between the reservoir and these zones,
resulting in diminished sweep efficiency and oil recovery.
In-situ reservoir stresses and rock strength control the
initiation, opening, and propagation direction of the
induced fractures. By understanding the in-situ stress
Data Collection 2-9
CONFORMANCE TECHNOLOGY
field and the mechanical strength of the rock at reservoir
conditions, engineers can accurately determine formation
parting pressure and the probable intensity, spacing, length,
and orientation of any induced fractures. With this informa-
tion, the design team can plan or modify injection activities
to minimize or prevent nonconformance problems.
Natural Fractures
Natural fractures are common components of many
reservoirs and can provide significant flow paths for fluid
movement. Natural fractures can connect oil and water
zones and define flow patterns or trends for subsurface
fluids. Fractures can also provide a significant portion of
reservoir quality by contributing permeability, porosity,
or both.
When planning production and injection activities,
engineers must consider the influence and effects that the
fracture system has on hydrocarbon and water distribu-
tion and movement. To understand natural fractures,
engineers must determine fracture geometry, orientation,
intensity, and distribution in 3D space.
The reservoir properties of the fracture system (fluid flow
interaction or crossflow related to the fracture system, and
the fracture system’s contribution to total reservoir quality)
must be qualitatively or quantitatively determined. Rocks
that have a multistage history of deformation may contain
several sets of fractures, each with different characteristics
and effects on reservoir performance.
Permeability Barriers
The assumption that no horizontal or vertical permeabil-
ity barriers exist in a typical reservoir is generally wrong.
Intrareservoir heterogeneities, such as depositional
boundaries (nonconformities), facies changes, diagenetic
effects, sedimentary structures, and irregular pore
networks can all produce permeability barriers.
These barriers disrupt predicted fluid flow, resulting in
diminished sweep efficiency and nonconformance
problems. For example, horizontal permeability barriers
may halt or redirect waterflood fronts, while vertical
permeability barriers directly affect water coning and
could, in some cases, promote a more uniform flood front
or prevent gravity segregation.
Production tests and production/injection profiles often
show the influence and effects of permeability barriers.
Field maps of production and injection data (histories)
also often reflect the influence of reservoir permeability
barriers (“dead zones”). However, in most cases, a
2-10 Data Collection
HOME
detailed geologic study is required before permeability
barriers can be identified, quantified, and mapped.
If the design team chooses to inject fluid to stabilize or
repressure a reservoir, they must carefully consider the
distribution and geometry of the permeability barriers in
the interwell space; otherwise, the production plan will
likely contain inefficient production and injection designs.
Development Planning
In addition to identifying and providing solutions to
reservoir-related conformance problems, reservoir
description can provide valuable information for field
development and production planning. Specifically,
reservoir description can significantly enhance the
quality and accuracy of performance predictions for the
following:
• waterflooding
• infill drilling
• horizontal/highly deviated wells
• improved/enhanced oil-recovery schemes
• stimulation applications
Field Development
During reservoir description, team members characterize
and model the fluid types, fluid properties, and field-scale
heterogeneities. This information can then be applied to
well-pattern planning. For example, reservoir conditions
quantified by the reservoir description model can be used
to simulate the results of various injection schemes based
on a variety of common patterns for injection and
producing wells. In addition, special features of the
reservoir and/or field, such as natural fracture distribution
and orientation and permeability trends, can be included
in the evaluation of optimal well patterns.
By identifying, understanding, and mapping both the
permeability barriers and reservoir continuity, designers
can determine effective well spacing and assess sweep
efficiency based on their understanding of the static and
dynamic properties of the reservoir provided in the
reservoir description.
If the reservoir is not well understood, fluid movements
may occur outside modeled predictions and unexpected
heterogeneity may occur in production and injection
volumes across the field. Poor reservoir understanding
will fail to uncover reservoir heterogeneities that can
significantly impact the fluid distribution and movement
Chapter 2
in the field or reservoir, limit options for field develop-
ment, and negatively impact the sweep efficiency and
ultimate oil recovery.
Production Planning
When wells are completed too near the fluid contacts, in
the transition zones, or out of zone, expensive conform-
ance problems may result early in the life of the well. For
example, an early high gas-oil ratio (GOR) may result in
the loss of reservoir pressure, or high water cuts could
force premature revisions of the lift equipment. Both
problems could have been avoided with better reservoir
understanding.
In addition to identifying and mapping fluid contacts,
engineers can use reservoir description to determine
reservoir thickness and distribution, which allows them to
delineate zones for completion (and stimulation). By
understanding in-situ reservoir stresses, pressures, and
rock fabric and strength, engineers can help eliminate
wellbore and near-wellbore damage.
When a truly effective reservoir description exists, the
design team can better understand reservoir behavior and
develop more effective development strategies. Ideally,
reservoir descriptions should be updated throughout the
life of the field, from the exploration phase through
abandonment. The underlying objective of reservoir
description is effective reservoir management, which can
increase production, maximize economic value, and
minimize capital investments and operating expenses.
Reservoir Monitoring
Reservoir monitoring integrates reservoir description and
reservoir simulation with multiple-reflection seismic
surveys. Reservoir monitoring allows engineers to track
the movement of fluid saturations in a reservoir and
predict how the fluids will move in the future.
Engineers can achieve better well conformance (1) by
observing the detailed 3D horizontal and vertical move-
ment of oil-water, oil-gas, gas-water, and thermal inter-
faces, and (2) by being able to predict the breakthrough
of injected fluids or the coning of reservoir fluids under
the current scenario or alternate scenarios. With this
information, they can delay or prevent breakthrough.
If breakthrough has already occurred, and a 3D seismic
baseline survey is available, engineers may be able to
determine whether lateral heterogeneity, vertical hetero-
geneity, or coning was the cause. By identifying the cause
of breakthrough and observing fluid movement patterns,
Chapter 2
HOME
engineers can identify, design, and accurately place the
proper conformance treatment to optimize the production
of reservoir fluids.
Reservoir monitoring does not replace reservoir descrip-
tion or reservoir simulation. Instead, it integrates both
technologies to allow engineers to more accurately
describe a reservoir and predict its future performance. In
other words, the purpose of reservoir monitoring is not
merely to obtain a better reservoir description by integrat-
ing more focused surface reflection seismic data with
well-log, well-test, and well-performance information.
Instead, it results in an overall integrated reservoir-
monitoring process that combines this description with
fluid-front measurement and simulation.
If fluid movement in a producing hydrocarbon reservoir
is accurately monitored, improved recovery may result.
For example, reservoir monitoring may lead to better
reservoir management, better placement of infill wells,
and breakthrough deferral. Reservoir monitoring may
also result in lower costs as a result of fewer wells being
drilled and reduced water and gas handling. As long as
formation thicknesses are sufficient for seismic detection,
reservoir monitoring is applicable onshore and offshore
to depths of more than 10,000 ft for both sandstones and
carbonates.
The success of reservoir monitoring is based on two
fundamental principles: the seismic principle and the
simulation principle. The fundamental seismic principle
is that a change in fluid saturations within a reservoir will
change the reservoir’s seismic response. The fundamental
simulation principle is that the additional data points in
space and time provided by a direct measurement of fluid
saturation within a reservoir add substantially to the data
set used for history-matching; therefore, the data substan-
tially improve the accuracy of the results.
The Reservoir-Monitoring Process
Figure 2.6 (Page 2-12) shows the steps in a reservoir-
monitoring study from seismic data acquisition through
final integration. Each step focuses on the reservoir and
integrates with the other steps to allow reservoir monitor-
ing teams to obtain the most accurate solution possible.
Seismic Data Acquisition
In this first step, members of the monitoring team design a
seismic data-acquisition program to greatly enhance their
ability to monitor fluid-contact movement. Their primary
focus is on maximized resolution and repeatability.
Data Collection 2-11
CONFORMANCE TECHNOLOGY

Seismic Data recalibration of log traces, log analysis, and generation of

Acquisition the final database and displays.

Seismic The log analysis should include complex lithology

Processing determination and a log model of rock facies in addition
to the standard results such as porosity, saturation, and
Seismic Data Well Log estimates of permeability.
Interpretation Analysis
During this analysis, logging analysts should edit and
Well Test Geological correct sonic and density logs for synthetic seismograph
Analysis Model
generation and plot the corrected logs in two-way time
Seismic Model for display on seismic sections. The lithologic results
Building must be tied to the seismic signature of each well.

Seismic
Verification Well Test Analysis
During this phase, team members should analyze well
Simulation tests as they would for a normal reservoir description
Model Building
study. Specifically, members should determine permeabil-
Simulation ity and barrier locations to situate geologic changes
Verification within the reservoir.

Final Integration Geologic Model

and Verification
Reservoir Fluid
Saturation Distribution
Figure 2.6—Reservoir monitoring process flowchart
Seismic Processing
During the seismic processing phase, team members
perform normalizations, both between successive surveys
and well logs. These surveys consist of information
regarding positioning, amplitudes, two-way times, and
wavelets. The normalizations are based on the known
invariance of subsurface geology over calendar time.
Least-squared-error cross-equalization filters as well as
temporal and spatial shifting filters are used.
Seismic Data Interpretation
During the interpretation stage, team members use
conventional seismic data to begin developing a detailed
reservoir description.
Well Log Analysis
During this phase, a standard field development or
reservoir exploitation log analysis should be performed.
This study includes data preparation, data editing, depth
shifting, environmental correction, normalization or
A geologic model that best exemplifies the initial conclu-
sions regarding deposition environment and structural
modification can then be constructed. This model allows
engineers to integrate all seismic, well log analysis,
production engineering, and geologic information.
The resulting reservoir description would normally be
used in reservoir simulation projects. During the simula-
tion portion of the project, engineers would modify the
description as necessary to match actual reservoir
performance, based on measured pressure and production
data at each well as the matching criteria.
Seismic Verification
The initial seismic model honors both the structure
contained in the seismic data and the high vertical
resolution from the wells. However, it need not tie exactly
to the seismic amplitudes at each trace nor to the ob-
served values of the optimal seismic indicators derived
from the seismic interpretation. Engineers use these
seismic amplitudes and indicators to update the model so
that its fine structure not only ties together at the wells,
but also ensures that the model predicts the seismic
attributes at each trace location.
Fluid movements in the reservoir are not expected to
change structural characteristics, but the different fluids
in that structure will change its seismic response. As a
result, the detailed structural model derived from the base
survey also applies to the monitor surveys.

2-12 Data Collection Chapter 2

HOME
Simulation Model-Building
After completing the previously described phases, team
members develop a complete, detailed reservoir descrip-
tion, which includes the integration of all seismic data,
well log data, and pressure-transient test results with a
geologic model. The combination of these data forms the
reservoir model that the team uses to simulate fluid flow
throughout the reservoir.
During this phase, engineers verify the simulation by
history-matching all the time-dependent data through the
changes in the reservoir description within geologic
bounds. This step is similar to the normal history-
matching process except, in addition to production and
pressure information at well points, the information to be
matched includes saturation profiles obtained from the
surface-reflection seismic portion of the reservoir
monitoring process. Therefore, a great deal more data are
available for the reservoir simulation verification process,
making the results of the process more detailed than the
results for a standard history match.
The result is a match of all of the production and monitor-
ing information and a final reservoir description as
expressed by the data in the reservoir simulator.
Reservoir Fluid Saturation Distribution
The resulting reservoir simulation is as accurate and
detailed as possible from available data. Engineers can
use the simulation to generate saturation maps describing
the current distribution of fluids or to predict future
reservoir response to various production and develop-
ment scenarios.
Example
Figure 2.7 is a single-layer map of a reservoir. The
increases in gas saturation from the first time interval to
the second time interval are in the highlighted area that
was swept by gas during the interval. The white areas on
the map indicate areas where displacement and gas
saturation were unchanged. The simulation does not
include seismic time-lapse data.

N
Sg Difference, OSEBERG 3

100
0.05
23
0.20

0.35
20 4
Meters

0.50
50
0.65

24 0.80

0.95

Wells shown at Base Brent positions

900 850 800 750 700 650 600 550 500 450
Meters

Figure 2.7—Gas-saturation difference map showing gas-displaced area estimated by simulation (Courtesy Norsk Hydro,
Bergen, Norway)

Chapter 2 Data Collection 2-13

HOME
CONFORMANCE TECHNOLOGY

Figure 2.8 is a seismic amplitude difference map for the Conclusions

same reservoir, showing the difference in seismic data
values from surveys taken 16 months apart. Because
seismic reflections from formation interfaces should not
change, the map shows the difference in gas saturations
between the two points. However, since conditions cannot
be exactly duplicated from one survey to the next, noise,
in the form of colored areas, also appears on the map.
The area considered to show actual gas movement is the
magenta and red band east of Well 20. (Note the resem-
blance to the band in Figure 2.7, Page 2-13.) This band
shows how the gas front has moved in the time interval
between surveys.
Because they are relatively small compared to the
reflections at formation interfaces, the seismic reflections
at changes in fluid saturations cannot be readily seen
from a single seismic survey. However, since difference
maps subtract the features of the reservoir that do not
change, engineers can use these maps to locate a fluid
front and determine how it is moving through a reservoir.
Although this particular example is for a single horizontal
slice, vertical fluid positions and movement can also be
determined from these maps.
Through the use of well testing, reservoir descriptions,
and reservoir monitoring, engineers can more effectively
plan and implement a successful conformance control
treatment. Chapter 3 provides specific information
regarding the methods and equipment available for
reservoir evaluation and problem identification.
Bibliography
Archer, S.H. and Martinez, R.D.: “A Comparison of
Petrophysical Equations for Extrapolation of Lithol-
ogy Beyond Well Locations Using Seismic Data,”
presented at the 53rd Meeting of the European
Association of Exploration Geophysicists, Florence,
May 1991.
Archer, S.H., King, G.A., and Uden, R.C.: “An Inte-
grated Approach to Reservoir Characterization Using
Seismic and Well Data,” paper F03 presented at the
1993 Meeting of the European Association of Explo-
ration Geophysicists, Stavanger, Norway, June 7-11.

1989-1991 Difference 12-40 Hz 2356

100
0.04
23
0.08

0.12
20
Meters

4 0.16
50
0.20
24
0.24

0.28
0

Wells shown at Base Brent positions

900 850 800 750 700 650 600 550 500 450
Meters

Figure 2.8—Gas saturation difference map showing actual gas-front position (Courtesy Norsk Hydro, Bergen, Norway)

2-14 Data Collection Chapter 2

HOME
Archer, S.H., King, G.A., Seymour, R.H., and Uden, R.C.:
“Seismic Reservoir Monitoring - The Potential,”
First Break (Sept. 1993) 11 No. 9, 391-97.
Breitenbach, E.A.: “President Breitenbach Defines
Challenges for SPE, Industry,” JPT (Oct. 1993) 918.
Clark, V.A.: “The Effect of Oil Under In-situ Conditions
on the Seismic Properties of Rocks,” Geophysics (July
1992) 57 No. 7, 894-901.
Cornish, B.E. and King, G.A.: “Combined Interactive
Analysis and Stochastic Inversion for High-Resolution
Reservoir Modelling,” presented at the 50th
Meeting of the European Association of Exploration
Geophysicists, The Hague, June 1988.
Domenico, S.N.: “Effect of Water Saturation on Seismic
Reflectivity of Sand Reservoirs Encased in Shale,”
Geophysics (Dec. 1974) 39 No. 6, 759-69.
Dunlop, K.N.B., King, G.A., and Breitenbach, E.A.:
“Author’s Reply to Discussion of Monitoring Oil/
Water Fronts by Direct Measurement,” JPT
(Dec. 1991) 1525.
Dunlop, K.N.B., King, G.A., and Breitenbach, E.A.:
“Monitoring of Oil/Water Fronts by Direct Measure-
ment,” JPT (May 1991) 596.
Dussan, E.B. and Sharma, Y.: “Analysis of the Pressure
Response of a Single-Probe Formation Tester,”
SPEFE (June 1992) 151.
Earlougher, R.C. Jr.: Advances in Well Test Analysis,
Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME (1977)
New York, 105-122.
Earlougher, R.C. Jr.: Advances in Well Test Analysis,
Societyof Petroleum Engineers of AIME (1977)
New York, 123-146.
Greaves, R.J., Beydoun, W.B., and Spies, B.R.: “New
Dimensions in Geophysics for Reservoir Monitoring,”
SPE Formation Evaluation (June 1991) 141-50.
Hao Zhi-xing and Shen Lian-di: “Mechanism of Transit
Time Increase and Its Interpretation After Water
Injection Into Reservoir M in the Lao Jun Miao Oil
Field,” SPE Formation Evaluation (June 1988)
471-79.
Johnstad, S.E., Seymour, R.H., and Dunlop, K.N.B.:
“The Feasibility of Monitoring Fluid Movements
During Production from a Norwegian Oilfield Using
Chapter 2
HOME
Repeated Seismic Surveys,” presented at the 52nd
Meeting of the European Association of Exploration
Geophysicists, Copenhagen (May 1990).
Johnstad, S.E., Uden, R.C., and Dunlop, K.N.B.:
“Seismic Reservoir Monitoring Over the Oseberg
Field,” First Break (May 1993) 11 No. 5, 177-85.
King, G.A.: “The Application of Seismic Methods for
Reservoir Description and Monitoring,” presented at
the 1988 SEG/CPS Production Geophysics Meeting,
Daqing, Sept.
Maritvold, R.: “Frigg Field Reservoir Management,”
North Sea Oil and Gas Reservoirs II, Norwegian
Institute of Technology, Graham and Trotman (1990)
155-63.
Martinez, R.D. et al.: “An Integrated Approach for
Reservoir Description Using Seismic, Borehole, and
Geologic Data,” paper SPE 19581 presented at the
1989 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, San Antonio, Oct. 8-11.
Martinez, R.D. et al.: “Complex Reservoir Characterization
by Multiparameter Constrained Inversion,” presented at
the 1988 SEG/EAEG Research Workshop on Reservoir
Geophysics, Dallas, Aug.
Revoy, M.: “Frigg Field Production History and Seismic
Response,” presented at the Offshore North Sea
Conference, Stavanger (1984).
Seymour, R.H. and Archer, J. S.: “Some Requirements
from Seismic Methods for Use in Reservoir Simula-
tion Models,” North Sea Oil and Gas Reservoirs II,
Norwegian Institute of Technology, Graham and
Trotman (1990) 139-46.
Seymour, R.H. et al.: “The Potential Contribution of
Surface Seismic Surveys to Monitoring Offshore
Oilfields,” presented at the 1989 51st Meeting of the
European Association of Exploration Geophysicists,
Berlin, May.
Shell: “Science & Technology,” Brochure, SIPM Group
Public Affairs, ref. PAC/223, Shell Centre London
(Dec. 1990).
Wayland, J.R. and Lee, D.: “Seismic Mapping of EOR
Processes,” Geophysics: The Leading Edge
(Dec. 1986) 36-40.
Data Collection 2-15

Many technologies can help engineers
determine the source of a conformance
problem, foresee a potential conform-
ance problem, or evaluate a conform-
ance treatment. This chapter describes
three of these technologies: tracer
surveys, logging services, and
downhole video services.
Fluorescent Dyes as
Waterflood Tracers
Acknowledgment
Halliburton Energy Services thanks
The Tertiary Oil Recovery Project
(TORP) for granting permission to
publish the material presented in this
section.
Summary
In cases where very rapid communi-
cation (about 5 days) is thought to
exist between an injector and a
producer, fluorescent dyes are
considered excellent tracer materials.
These dyes are adsorbed to some
extent on typical reservoir rocks, but
even trace amounts can be detected
visually in the produced water
without elaborate chemical analysis.
Detection of water flow communica-
tion between wells can confirm the
presence of channels and help size
and plan corrective treatments.
The usual placement method is to
inject a concentrated “slug” of the
tracer while the normal waterflood is
maintained. Producers offset to the
injection well are monitored for the
presence of tracer. Fluorescent dyes
are easily detected by the naked eye
Chapter 3
Chapter 3
at 1 ppm concentration, equivalent
to 1 lb/2,850 bbl of water. A “black Testing
light” is used to illuminate the water
samples for detection of 50 parts
per billion of dye. The extreme
Methods
sensitivity of this detection method
allows the use of dyes, provided and
residence time in the reservoir is not
too long and despite high adsorption
on rock surfaces.
Equipment
The two most readily available
fluorescent tracers are sodium
fluorescein, also known as uranine,
which is yellow-green, and Rhoda-
mine B, which is red fluorescence.
Uranine is available from Halliburton
(Part No. 70.15632). Pylan Products
Co., Inc., 1001 Stewart Avenue,
Garden City, NY 11530, (516) 222-
1750 supplies both dyes. Several
other sources exist, and most labora-
tory chemical supply houses have
these dyes.
The amount of dye to use in a
particular situation depends primarily
on how much the tracer will be
diluted. A pound of dye in an injection
well that takes 200 to 500 BWPD is a
suggested starting point. This amount
provides sufficient dye for some
dilution and adsorption while still
allowing the dye to be detected at the
end of a channel.
These dyes are readily water-soluble,
and placement is simple. The dye can
be dissolved in water, 1 lb/5 gal, and
placed into an injection well by any
convenient method. If the well will
go on vacuum, the dye solution can
be dumped in. It can also be added
through a lubricator or injected with
the waterflood pump. If pumping the
Testing Methods and Equipment 3-1
HOME
CONFORMANCE TECHNOLOGY
tracer is necessary, using a tracer volume of a few barrels
of water to give the pump truck enough fluid to prime the
pump would be simpler. (Everything the truck pumps for
a day or two may be dyed after pumping these materials.)
After placement of the dye, return the well to normal
injection to displace the tracer.
Monitor offset producers fairly often over the next
several days for the presence of the dye. The tracer
typically “spreads out” in the formation and continues to
show up for some time after initial breakthrough. The
initial appearance is the piece of data that allows observa-
tion to estimate the shortest path between the injector and
offset producers.
If more quantitative calculations are required, such as mass
balances, use other nonadsorbing tracers. Several are
available that require only simple lab (or field) chemical
testing. A good reference on these is listed below.
Terry, R. E., et al.: Manual for Tracer Test Design and
Evaluation, published by Tertiary Oil Recovery Project,
4008 Learned Hill, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS
66045. Co-Directors: Don W. Green and G. Paul Willhite.
The majority of the manual published by TORP follows.
Manual for Tracer Test Design and
Evaluation
Abstract
The purpose of this information is twofold: (1) to provide
background information on a technique that utilizes
chemical tracers to describe fluid flow in reservoirs and
(2) to provide information that will assist an operator in
the design, implementation, and analysis of a tracer study.
Background Information
As the need for implementation of enhanced oil recovery
processes increases, the need for better reservoir and
fluid-flow description also increases. Enhanced oil
recovery processes often use expensive chemicals, such
as polymers, surfactants, and cosurfactants. A knowledge
of the path those chemicals will traverse in the reservoir
is necessary to make wise and efficient use of them. Well
logs and core permeability data provide some information
about the region near the wellbore.
A knowledge of previous waterflooding history can add
useful information about interwell communication. Also,
pressure transient tests, which can be rather expensive,
can supply information about fluid flow between wells.
3-2 Testing Methods and Equipment
HOME
Another source of information of reservoir behavior is to
trace injected water with a chemical and observe when
and where that chemical is produced. Several tracer tests
have been reported in the literature (Page 1-5) that
provide design and analysis techniques. A well-planned
and executed tracer test can provide information in some,
if not all, of the following areas.
Directional Flow Trends
When a chemical tracer is injected into an injection well
and the surrounding producing wells are monitored,
different arrival times for the tracer could indicate
preferred flow paths or directional flow trends. These
preferred flow paths would be from the injector to the
specific producers that receive the most tracer at the
earliest time. Adjustment of injection and withdrawal
rates could alter these directional flow trends, giving an
improved sweep efficiency.
Identification of Rapid Interwell Communication
If a channel or high-permeability streak exists between an
injector and a producing well, a tracer experiences a very
early breakthrough. This early breakthrough identifies
problem injection wells that could require a treatment to
alter permeability.
Volumetric Sweep
Through a knowledge of injection and production rates,
pattern layout, and the pore volume in the reservoir,
breakthrough of tracers often yields an estimate for the
volumetric sweep efficiency. Very small injected volumes
of floodwater to breakthrough indicate the existence of a
channel or high-permeability streak and give an estimate
for the volume of that zone. Larger injected volumes to
breakthrough indicate a more uniform permeability
distribution, and again, a volume of the swept zone could
be estimated.
Delineation of Flow Barriers
If a fault or some other barrier to fluid flow is thought to
exist near a producing well, tracers can be injected into
injection wells surrounding the suspect producing well.
The failure to observe one or more tracers in the produc-
ing well could be the result of a flow barrier.
Two other areas where the use of tracers provide useful
information are (1) evaluation of sweep improvement
techniques and (2) evaluation of relative flow of two
different fluids, such as brine and polymer. The former
requires that a tracer study be conducted before and after
the application of a sweep improvement process. The
Chapter 3
latter requires the injection of a different tracer in each
fluid of interest.
If the measured breakthrough times are different for the
tracers, then the fluids could be assumed to have con-
tacted different portions of the reservoir and thus have
different flow characteristics.
Greenkorn described the ideal tracer as “one that would
follow the fluid of interest exactly as the fluid front.” But
the ideal is impractical to attain because adsorption-
desorption effects cause the tracer to lag behind the front.
These effects, plus diffusion-dispersion effects, cause the
tracer front to spread out more than the fluid front.
Carpenter et al. have set forth the following requirements
for a tracer to be satisfactory in measuring the movement
of flood water in secondary recovery operations.
1. A tracer should be quantitatively determined in less
than 10 ppm concentration.
2. It should be either absent or present only at low
concentrations in the displaced and injected waters.
3. It must not react with the injected or displaced waters
to form a precipitate.
4. It must not be adsorbed by the porous
medium.
5. It must be cheap and readily available.
There are four general types of tracers for use in aqueous
systems: radioisotopes, fluorescent dyes, water-soluble
salts, and water-soluble alcohols. The radioisotopes
provide an advantage because they are easily detectable
in small concentrations and have insignificant adsorption
losses in the reservoir. Tritium as tritiated water is one of
the most widely used tracers in the field. However, a firm
licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is
required to handle and inject all radioisotope materials.
Frequently, when radioactive materials are used, it is
necessary to work with state agencies as well. The
fluorescent dyes can also be detected in very small
concentrations, but they have the disadvantage of being
highly adsorbed on reservoir rock. The dyes should only
be used in cases where there is thought to be a very rapid
(5 days or less) communication between an injector and a
producer.
When radioactive tracers are prohibited because of a lack
of a licensed firm to do the handling, water-soluble salts
and alcohols are the tracers most frequently used. A few
of the common water-soluble salts and alcohols are listed
below.
Preferred Water Tracer Materials
Ammonium Thiocyanate (NH4SCN)
Chapter 3
HOME
Ammonium Nitrate (NH4NO3)
Sodium or Potassium Bromide (NaBr or KBr)
Sodium or potassium Iodide (NaI or KI)
Sodium Chloride (NaCl)
2-Propanol (IPA)
Methanol (MeOH)
Ethanol (EtOH)
Analytical techniques to measure the concentrations of
each of the tracers mentioned are described in the
Chemical Analysis of Data section. Unfortunately, not all
of the analysis techniques can be performed with ease in
the field. This requires using a supportive laboratory for
some of the chemical analyses.
Care should be taken to determine the background levels
in field waters of any ions that might interfere with the
analysis of those ions that are considered tracers. High
levels could inhibit the measurement of tracer concentra-
tions in produced samples. Compatibility tests should
also be made on the proposed tracers with the injected
brines. Adsorption of ions onto the reservoir rock surface
could be detrimental to using a particular water-soluble
salt.
The water-soluble alcohols, with the possible exception
of 2-propanol, are susceptible to biodegradation and
therefore should be used with bactericides where the
bactericides are usually in concentrations of about 50
ppm. Produced samples should also be treated with the
bactericide to prevent alcohol degradation before the
samples are analyzed. 2-Propanol does have a limited
solubility in some crude oils, which could cause retention
of the alcohol in the reservoir. All of these factors should
be considered before selecting a tracer.
Information Necessary to Plan
a Tracer Test
Before a tracer test can be designed, a pilot or pattern
area needs to be defined. Once a pilot area is chosen and
well pattern and isopach maps are collected, all available
reservoir data are analyzed to determine reservoir
permeability, pore volume, water saturation, and forma-
tion thickness. These data, combined with production
data, including injection and withdrawal rate information,
are needed to calculate the required amounts of tracers
and to model tracer breakthrough. Information pertaining
to the effectiveness of a waterflood that may have been
conducted in the pilot area is also useful in the design and
analysis of a tracer test.
The importance of keeping good records of all production
and injection data and workover information for each
Testing Methods and Equipment 3-3
CONFORMANCE TECHNOLOGY

well in the pilot area cannot be overemphasized. These For example, consider the injection well in Figure 3.1
records need to be kept for each well in the pilot area. It and the corresponding reservoir data.
is not enough to know the production rate for the entire
field or pattern area. A test on each production well once
or twice a month would be sufficient to identify the
individual well rates. The individual well production and
injection rates are necessary to make material balance
calculations and also, as mentioned above, to provide
input data for the mathematical treatment of the data. The
material balance calculation is useful in determining
expected breakthrough times and places.
Before any tracers are injected, the reservoir must be
“pressured up.” This requires that the reservoir be on
waterflood long enough to fill any void space, therefore
minimizing potential loss of tracer material.
Another major consideration in designing a tracer test is
the information obtained from the analysis of field brines
and supply waters used in injection wells. Background
levels should be determined for all chemicals being
considered as tracers. Often, a chemical analysis has been
conducted on a water sample. This analysis usually

DN001136
provides concentrations of Na+ and Cl- ions, bivalent ions,
such as Ba2+, Ca2+, and SO42-, and the amount of total
dissolved solids, density, viscosity, and turbidity of the Figure 3.1—Pattern Layout for Tracer Amount
water sample. A synthetic brine can be made using the Calculation.
compositions determined from the water analysis. Syn-
thetic brines are usually easier to work with than actual
field brines, and as a result, tracer analysis techniques are Average reservoir thickness, h = 20 ft
typically developed in the synthetic brine. However, before
Average reservoir porosity, φ = 25%
a specific tracer is finally chosen, it is necessary to
determine the background level and test the analysis Average water saturation, Sw = 55%
procedure for the tracer in the actual field brine and/or Density of tracer solution, 350 lb/bbl
supply water. If a tracer is not compatible with the field The areal extent of the reservoir associated with this
brine or the field brine contains ions that interfere with the injection well will be given by:
tracer analysis test, that tracer should not be used.
Area = d2
A knowledge of which, if any, chemicals are being used
The distance between producing wells (d) can be calcu-
as treating agents is also useful in the design of a tracer
lated from:
test. Oxygen scavengers or bactericides are frequently
used to keep corrosion to a minimum. If bactericides are 2 (2002) = d2
used, the water-soluble alcohols become prime candidates d = 283 ft
for use as tracers. The pore volume associated with this injection well is:
Calculation of Tracer Amounts Pore Volume = (Area) (h) (φ)
The amount of a tracer that should be used for a given PV = (80,000) (20) (0.25)
application can be calculated by several different meth- PV = 400,000 ft3 or 71,238 bbl
ods. This section isolates one of those methods. The water pore volume can be obtained by multiplying by
If the pore volume associated with a given injection well the water saturation.
can be determined, the amount of tracer can be calculated (PV) Sw = 71,238 (0.55) = 39,181 bbl
by assuming the tracer will dilute the entire pore volume.

3-4 Testing Methods and Equipment Chapter 3

HOME
If the density of the tracer solution is multiplied by this
volume, the result is the mass (in pounds) of the tracer
solution that would occupy the entire water-pore volume
associated with the injection well.
Mass of tracer occupying entire water pore volume, mpv.
mpv: 39,181 (Density) = 39,181 (350) = 13.71 x 106 lb
If the required concentration is 10 ppm of tracer in the
effluent, the amount of tracer (m) that needs to be inject-
ed will be:
m = (mass) (concentration in effluent)
m = (13.71 x 106) (10/106)
m = 137 lb
Frequently a safety factor is used in engineering calcula-
tions. The magnitude of the safety factor is in the range of 2
to 5 but can be higher, depending on the operator. A safety
factor of 2 means that 274 lb of tracer would be required.
Summing up the calculations and combining them into one
equation gives the following expression for m.
Eq. 3.1:
m = 0.356 (Area) (h) (φ) (Sw) (Density) (Desired Concen-
tration)
The constant contains a safety factor of 2 and a conver-
sion factor, 5.615 ft3/bbl, to convert the pore volume in ft3
to barrels.
If the area is known in acres, the equation becomes:
Eq. 3.2:
m = 15,516 (Area) (h) (φ) (Sw) (Density) (Required
Concentration)
Assuming a desired breakthrough concentration of 10
ppm and a density of 350 lb/bbl, Eqs. 3.1 and 3.2
become:
Table 3.1—Solubilities and Recommended Injection Concentrations
Solubility in
Distilled Water
Tracer (lb/bbl)
Ammonium Thiocyanate
Ammonium Nitrate
Sodium Bromide
Potassium Bromide
Sodium Iodide
Potassium Iodide
Sodium Chloride
Chapter 3
HOME
Eq. 3.3:
m = 0.001247 (Area) (h) (φ) (Sw)
Eq. 3.4:
m = 54.3 (Area) (h) (φ) (Sw)
Injection and Sampling
Tracers are injected into the reservoir as rapidly as
possible. The alcohols and other liquid tracers should be
diluted at least 50% with the injection water before
injection. The solid tracers, usually obtainable in 50- to
100-lb bags, need to be mixed with the injection water.
Care should be taken to stay well below the solubility of
the tracers in the brine water. Table 3.1 lists solubility
data for several common tracers in distilled water.
The solubility of the tracers in actual field brines is less
than those listed in Table 3.1. Once a concentration is
determined, it should always be tested in the actual field
brine. This test gives the operator an indication of how
much mixing time will be required to dissolve the tracer
and confirms that it will be soluble. The third column in
Table 3.1 gives recommended concentrations. These
recommended concentrations can be used as starting
points for specific applications.
Figure 3.2 (Page 3-6) is a schematic representation of an
injection system. The system consists of a pumping unit,
mixing tank, and lubricator. The mixing tank should have
a capacity of about 10 bbl. The lubricator should have a
capacity of about 2 bbl. The solution of water-soluble
salts can be prepared easily in the mixing tank using the
pump to recirculate the water. While the water is circu-
lated, the tracer is added to the system. The circulation
action is usually enough agitation to solubilize the tracer.
Recomm ended
Injection Concentration
(lb/bbl)
420 200
1,280 200
278 100
187 100
556 100
446 200
125 50
Testing Methods and Equipment 3-5
CONFORMANCE TECHNOLOGY

Alcohols
Lubricator For tracing water flow, only water-soluble alcohols, such
as methanol (methyl alcohol), ethanol (ethyl alcohol), 1-
Pump propanol (n-propyl alcohol), and 2-propanol (isopropyl

DN001137
Pump alcohol) are useful. Analysis of any of these alcohols
requires equipment not normally found in the oil field.
Mixing Tank
The easiest and most rapid method of analysis for water-
Figure 3.2—Typical injection system. soluble alcohols is by gas chromatography. Operating the
equipment can be performed by field personnel. How-
ever, setup, maintenance, and interpretation of unusual
results requires trained personnel. Since analysis of
Table 3.2—Sampling Frequency in Terms alcohols by gas chromatograph does not lend itself to
of Expected Breakthrough onsite analysis, no details of analytical procedure are
Breakthrough Sampling Interval included in this version of the (TORP) manual.
1 day 1 to 2 hours For completeness, the advantages and disadvantages of
2 days 2 to 3 hours alcohol tracers are listed below.
3 days 4 to 8 hours
4 to 7 days 8 to 16 hours Advantages
1 to 2 weeks once a day 1. Alcohols listed above are compatible with injection
2 to 4 weeks every other day waters.
1 or more months once a week 2. Four tracers can be detected and determined in one
analysis.
3. Analysis procedure lends itself to automation in the
laboratory.
Sampling the produced water in the surrounding produc- 4. Alcohols are relatively inexpensive.
ing wells is a very important part of the tracer program. Disadvantages
Samples need to be taken often enough that the initial
breakthrough of tracers is not missed. On the other hand, 1. Alcohols are susceptible to biological
the more often samples are taken, the more analytical degradation.
work needs to be done, which adds expense to the 2. Propanol has some solubility in oil.
program. A rule of thumb for sampling frequency in terms 3. Analysis does not lend itself to rapid onsite determi-
of expected breakthrough is presented in Table 3.2. nation by field personnel.
Any information the operator has on the field, i.e., 4. Alcohols are flammable and can be
response to waterflood, etc., should be used to help dangerous.
determine a sampling frequency. 5. Alcohols are sometimes found in well-
treating fluids.
Chemical Analysis of Data
Salts
A variety of chemicals have been used to follow the flow
Various inorganic salts have been used to trace the flow
of water through porous media. An ideal tracer is a
of water. A salt is comprised of two parts: the cation and
material that is easy to detect, does not interact with the
an anion, which provides two distinct entities when
rock or the oil, is inexpensive, and free of environmental
dissolved in water. For example, sodium chloride
hazards. All these characteristics cannot be found in a
dissolves in water to give sodium cations and chloride
single substance. However, several chemicals have been
anions. Each ion is a tracer. Chloride anion can be
identified that meet part of the criteria and have been
determined easily, but the sodium cation is determined
successfully used to monitor flow of water in oil reser-
with difficulty. Using chloride anion as a tracer does not
voirs. Only two classes of chemicals are considered in
depend on the sodium cation.
this (TORP) manual: alcohols and salts.
Thus, potassium or ammonium chloride could be substi-
tuted for sodium chloride, if chloride is the tracer.

3-6 Testing Methods and Equipment Chapter 3

HOME
Three salts have been used as tracers, ammonium
nitrate, sodium bromide, and ammonium thiocyanate.
Each of these tracers is discussed separately. The
discussion includes a description of an analytical
method of determination.
Nitrate
Nitrate is determined colorimetrically by the reduction of
nitrate by cadmium metal in acid solution in the presence
of gentisic acid to give a colored material. The proper
proportion of reagents is conveniently combined in a
commercial product by Hach Chemical Company of
Loveland, Colorado. The analysis procedure follows.
Procedure
1. Place 25 mL (2 tablespoons) of water sample in a
small bottle. It is convenient to use a two-ounce
bottle and fill it one-half full of the sample.
2. Add contents of NitraVer V reagent pillow to bottle.
3. Shake bottle for 1 minute.
4. Let stand for 5 minutes.
5. Compare the intensity of amber color to set of standard
solutions or to a color wheel, or measure the intensity of
the color in a spectrophotometer at 500 nm.
For field work, the color cube of a color comparator
wheel available from Hach Chemical works well.
Detection and estimation of amount of nitrate can be
performed by non-experienced personnel.
Advantages
1. Ammonium nitrate is readily available from fertilizer
suppliers and venders.
2. It is inexpensive.
3. Analysis can be performed in the field by non-skilled
personnel.
4. It is a minimal biohazard.
Disadvantages
1. Ferric iron in the water can cause high results. Large
amounts of chloride cause low results.
2. Barium in the water causes turbidity that can cause
color comparison difficulty.
3. Colored substances in the water can look like the
amber color developed during the reaction.
4. Ground waters can contain nitrate from runoff from
adjacent fields.
5. Using nitrate as a tracer has met with mixed success
in the field.
Chapter 3
HOME
Thiocyanate
The presence of thiocyanate in water can be detected by
ferric thiocyanate complex, which colors the water red.
The intensity of the red color indicates the amount of
thiocyanate present. Certain materials in the water can
interfere with the formation of the ferric thiocyanate
complex. The salt in 20,000 ppm brine decreases the
intensity of the red coloration by about one-half. Copper,
zinc, and lead form an insoluble precipitate with thiocy-
anate. As a result, the thiocyanate is no longer available
for forming the red ferric thiocyanate complex.
Reagent Solutions
1. Ferric chloride
a. Weigh out 10 g FeCl3 • 6H2O and place in one-
liter flask. Measure out 15 mL concentrated HCl
and add to flask. (Caution: HCl fumes are
irritating to eyes and nose.) Add distilled water
to make 1 L of acid ferric chloride reagent, or
b. Weigh out 1.5 oz of FeCl3 • 6H2O and place in
1-gal glass or plastic container.
Measure 1.5 fluid oz (3 tablespoons) of concentrated
hydrochloric acid and add to a 1-gal container. Add
distilled water to make 1 gal of acid ferric chloride
solution.
Note: Concentrated HCl is 12 normal. If six normal HCl
is available, double the amount stated. The six normal
acid is less irritating to handle than the concentrated acid.
Procedure
1a. Take 100-mL of sample water and add 10 mL of
ferric chloride solution. A red color develops
immediately if thiocyanate is present, or
1b. Take one cup, 8 oz, of sample water and add one
tablespoon of ferric chloride solution. A red
color should develop immediately on mixing if
thiocyanate is present.
2. Compare intensity of color with that of standard
samples or measure color intensity in spectrophotom-
eter at 450 nm.
Standard Solutions
Solution 1
1. Weigh out 1.3 g of ammonium thiocyanate and
dissolve in 1 L of water. This gives 1,000 ppm
NH4SCN solution.
2. Take 100 mL of NH4SCN solution and dilute to 1 L.
This gives a 100-ppm NH4SCN solution.
Testing Methods and Equipment 3-7
CONFORMANCE TECHNOLOGY
3. Take 10 mL of 100-ppm solution and dilute to 1 L.
This gives a 10-ppm NH4SCN solution, or
Solution 2
1. Weigh out 2 oz of ammonium thiocyanate (NH4SCN)
and dissolve in 1 gal of water. This gives a 11,430-
ppm NH4SCN solution.
2. Take 8 oz of NH4SCN solution and dilute to 1 gal.
This gives a 700-ppm NH4SCN solution.
3. Take 8 oz of 700-ppm solution and dilute to 1 gal.
This gives a 45-ppm NH4SCN solution. If necessary,
prepare other concentrations of NH4SCN by dilution.
Since 20,000-ppm brine causes a decrease in color
intensity, it is convenient to use produced water to
make the NH4SCN solution.
Advantages
1. Thiocyanate can be detected in the field by field
personnel.
Disadvantages
1. Copper, lead, and zinc in the produced water
interfere with the formation of red ferric thiocyanate.
2. High brine concentration reduces sensitivity of the
test.
3. Bromide is determined colorimetrically by the
oxidation of bromide to bromine in acid solution by
potassium bromate. The intensity of the reddish
brown color of bromine in water can be used to
estimate the amount of bromide. As an alternative,
the bromine can be extracted into chloroform or
carbon tetrachloride. This is helpful if the water
sample is yellowish in color.
Reagent Solutions
1. Potassium bromate
a. Weigh 1 g of KBrO3 and dissolve in 1 L of
distilled water, or
b. Weigh 1/2 ounce of KBrO3 and dissolve in one
quart of distilled water. Take 2 oz and dilute to 1
quart with distilled water.
2. Acid buffer solution
a. In a well-ventilated area, measure out 85 mL of
concentrated hydrochloric acid (HC1) and pour
into 1-L flask. Measure out 70 mL of concen-
trated phosphoric acid (H3PO4) and add to liter
flask. Add distilled water to make 1 L of acid
buffer solution, or
3-8 Testing Methods and Equipment
HOME
b. In a well-ventilated area, measure out 3 oz of
concentrated hydrochloric acid in a plastic or
glass measuring cup and pour into quart glass or
plastic container. Measure out 2 1/2 oz of
concentrated phosphoric acid and add it to a
quart container. Add distilled water to make one
quart of acid buffer solution.
Procedure
1. Take 100 mL of water sample.
2. Add 50 mL of acid buffer solution.
3. Add 10 mL of potassium bromate solution.
4. Shake or mix solutions together A reddish-brown
color is indicative of bromine.
5. Optional - Add 25 mL of carbon tetrachloride or
chloroform and shake. Reddish-brown color indi-
cates bromine is present.
Alternate
1. Take 4 oz, 1/2 cup, of water sample.
2. Add 2 oz of acid buffer solution.
3. Add 1/2 ounce, 1 tablespoon, of potassium bromate
solution.
4. Mix or shake the sample. A reddish-brown color to
water is indicative of bromine.
5. Optional - Add one ounce of carbon tetrachloride or
chloroform and shake. Reddish-brown color indi-
cates bromine is present.
6. Measure the color intensity in a spectrophotometer at
390 nm.
Advantages
1. Bromide can be detected in the field by field personnel.
Disadvantages
1. Many brine waters contain approximately 100 ppm
bromide.
2. Quantitative determination of bromide does not lend
itself to measurement in the field.
3. Presence of iodide can interfere with bromide results.
Chapter 3
Logging Methods
FracPressure Analysis
Engineers can combine full-wave sonic measurements
with bulk-density log data to predict fracture height as a
function of the differential pressure between downhole
treatment pressure and fracture closure pressure.
The log shown in Figure 3.3 (Page 3-10) shows a
FracPressure analysis. Engineers predicted fracture height
before the treatment to ensure that the job design limited
fracture growth and avoided the water table. Track 1
contains the gamma ray and stress profiles.
Fracture pressure is the amount of pressure equal to the
least principal stress; this pressure is computed from the
rock properties measured by sonic and density logs. This
stress profile identifies barriers to fracture growth and
stress contrasts between producing zones.
Track 2 of Figure 3.3 shows the calculated static fracture
extension. The fracture extension pressure is the pressure
necessary for the fracture to extend vertically. The
pressure blocks indicate the extent of the fracture with the
length of their right-most edge. Track 3 shows formation
lithology as determined from an openhole log analysis.
TracerScan Analysis
To determine the effectiveness of hydraulic fracture
treatments, engineers may choose to inject radioactive
tracers during the frac job. These tests can be run in two
ways: a different isotope can be used in each of several
zones or a fluid stage or a sand stage can be simulta-
neously tagged with different isotopes and evaluated with
a spectral gamma ray log.
Figure 3.4 (Page 3-11) shows a TracerScan analysis of a
spectral gamma ray log run after materials used in a
hydraulic fracture job were tagged with two isotopes. The
foam pad was tagged with scandium-46, and the proppant
was tagged with iridium-192. The gamma ray concentra-
tions on the log indicated that each of the three intervals
remained isolated. The scandium relative-distance curves
indicate that the fracture in each zone extended beyond
the perforated intervals, particularly in the upper zone,
where the fractures propagated more than 50 ft above the
perforations. However, the iridium relative-distance curve
Chapter 3
HOME
confirms that the propped intervals did not communicate
with one another. Therefore, the TracerScan log con-
firmed the fracture height modeling and fracture design,
and analysts deemed the operation a success.
Logging Services
Many logging services are available for detecting and
predicting potential conformance problems. The follow-
ing primary logging systems are available:
• Openhole logs
• Cement evaluation logs
• Casing evaluation logs
• Pulsed neutron logs
• Production logs
Table 3.3 (Page 3-12) provides a general overview of
how each of the logging types can be used for conform-
ance control.
Openhole Logs
Openhole logs allow analysts to determine the possible
causes or contributors to unwanted water or gas produc-
tion. Caliper logs reveal severe borehole washout areas
that can contribute to poor cement bonding. Gamma ray
and SP logs can help delineate shale beds from possible
water- or hydrocarbon-producing reservoirs. When they
are combined, resistivity and porosity logs (sonic,
density, and neutron) can help analysts determine water
and pay zones. These zones can later be compared to
cased-hole logs, allowing analysts to monitor changing
water levels of coning in producing reservoirs.
Figure 3.5 (Page 3-13) is an example of a typical
openhole logging suite. Figure 3.6 (Page 3-14) is a
computer-processed interpretation that provides informa-
tion on the potential of the various reservoirs.
Most openhole logging tools have an outside diameter
(OD) of 3 5/8 in. and are rated to 400°F and 20,000 psi.
Hostile-environment (small borehole-diameter and high-
temperature or high-pressure) tools are also available for
more difficult applications.
Testing Methods and Equipment 3-9
CONFORMANCE TECHNOLOGY

DN001138

Figure 3.3—FracPressure analysis log.

3-10 Testing Methods and Equipment Chapter 3

HOME
 HN01224

Figure 3.4—TracerScan analysis.

Chapter 3 Testing Methods and Equipment 3-11

HOME
CONFORMANCE TECHNOLOGY

Table 3.3—Areas of Application for Well Logs

Openhole Cement Evaluation Casing Evaluation Pulsed Neutron Production
Problems Logs Logs Logs Logs Logs
Acid job went to water X
Bottomwater coning X X X
Bottomwater shutoff X
Casing leaks X
Channel behind casing X X X X
Channel from injector
Early water breakthrough
Frac job went to water X
High-permeability streak X X X
No shale barrier X X X
Plugging well
Injection out of zone
Lost circulation X X X

3-12 Testing Methods and Equipment Chapter 3

HOME
 DN000849

Figure 3.5—Typical openhole logging suite.

Chapter 3 Testing Methods and Equipment 3-13

HOME
CONFORMANCE TECHNOLOGY

DN000850

Figure 3.6—Computer-processed interpretation of openhole log.

3-14 Testing Methods and Equipment Chapter 3

HOME
Nuclear Magnetic Resonance
Intensive research and development has led to successful
downhole porosity measurements employing pulsed
Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR) technology. NMR
hardware, as well as interpretation methods, have been
improved significantly. Currently, log analysts can use
powerful NMR interpretation methods for estimating
bound and free fluids, and for direct hydrocarbon-typing,
including gas detection.
NMR technology can help analysts determine
petrophysical parameters that cannot be obtained from
traditional logging methods. The MRIL tools can provide
the following information:
• A lithology-independent porosity
• Formation permeability
• Free and bound water volumes and saturations
(Sw-Swirr)
• Hydrocarbon detection
• Hydrocarbon typing
• Grain-size sorting and identification of reservoir
heterogenities
• Linkage to clay type
Unlike the neutron/density combination, which is sensitive
to hydrogen bound in the formation and in fluids, NMR
measurements are sensitive only to hydrogen in fluids.
Thus, NMR measures the amount of bound and free fluid
in a tool-dependent rock volume (the “sensitive volume”).
Combining the advantages of NMR with new interpreta-
tion software allows conformance evaluation, design, and
placement improvements. This process, called StiMRIL,
is a total analysis of the reservoir, consisting of produc-
tion data, reservoir history, and other analytical tools to
achieve a high degree of reservoir and fluid knowledge.
Figure 3.7 (Page 3-16) is a StiMRIL flow presentation.
Within the depth track on the left side of the log are pay
flags and the numbers assigned to the selected zones, as
determined by the zoning process. The red lines across all
the tracks delineate the zones that were chosen based on
NMR permeability (MPERM). The tracks contain the
following information:
• Track 1 contains gamma ray, caliper, bit size,
temperature, and T2 bin information.
• Track 2 presents the clay-bound-water T2 variable-
density image.
Chapter 3
HOME
• Track 3 presents the variable density image of the
T2 distribution generated from echo trains acquired
with long polarization time.
• Track 4 contains the NMR analysis, which
includes effective porosity, bound water, movable
water, and hydrocarbons.
• Track 5 presents permeability calculated from
NMR measurements.
• Track 6 provides five different flow calculations to
help operators determine the economic potential of
each zone. The inflow analysis is based on classic
reservoir engineering principles and includes a
variety of inputs such as estimates of fracture half-
length, skin, flowing sandface pressure drop, etc.
Track 6 also displays two normalized curves that help
operators interpret zones of interest: permeability feet
(NKH) and porosity feet (NPORH). Both are normalized
from 0 to 1 over the entire well. These curves provide a
comparison of porosity and permeability in each zone and
can be used in pipe-setting economics.
Visual analysis of the log based on the pay flags and on the
NMR analysis reveals that Zones 4, 6, and 8 could be
candidates for completion and possible stimulation. These
three sands seem to exhibit comparable properties based
on the log display. Without StiMRIL information, all three
zones would likely be completed and fractured together
with standard production-enhancement procedures.
An inflow profile for each zone is calculated based on
reservoir pressure information and NMR permeability.
The family of flow potentials presented is based on ideal
infinite fracture conductivity half-lengths. For high-
permeability reservoirs and matrix acidizing, the inflow
analysis is based on a family of skin values rather than
fracture half-length. This idealized inflow analysis is the
first step in profit optimization. Combining flow informa-
tion with treatment costs (consisting of both initial
stimulation and possible conformance) is the first step in
determining economics.
Testing Methods and Equipment 3-15
CONFORMANCE TECHNOLOGY

DN001117

Figure 3.7—StiMRIL presentation showing flow estimates and zoning based on permeability.

3-16 Testing Methods and Equipment Chapter 3

HOME
Cement Evaluation Logs
The primary reason for cementing casing into a wellbore is
to achieve hydraulic isolation between formations. Often,
unwanted fluids can flow into the casing because of
improper cementing procedures, bad borehole conditions,
well age, or workover operations. Cement bond logs
(CBLs) help analysts determine the current condition of the
cement annulus and diagnose potential fluid-flow paths.
Cement evaluation logs are produced by conventional CBL
tools or ultrasonic bonding tools. Most of these tools have a
3 5/8-in. OD and are rated for at least 350°F and 20,000 psi.
A few of the tools are available in 1 11/16-in. diameters for
through-tubing applications.
Conventional Bond-Logging Tools
Conventional bond-logging tools have a single acoustic
transmitter and two receivers. The receivers are typi-
cally spaced approximately 3 ft and 5 ft from the
transmitter. The acoustic signals generated during each
transmitter pulse travel to the receivers along various
paths through the borehole fluid, casing, cement, and
formation. The logging system records the waveforms
and determines travel times and amplitudes of signals
reaching the receivers.
The first signal that arrives at the near receiver generally
corresponds to the first acoustic signal that traveled from
the transmitter, through the borehole fluid, the casing,
through the borehole fluid again, and back to the receiver.
This signal is often called the pipe arrival. The associated
transmitter-to-receiver travel time is recorded on the log
as the travel-time curve.
In free pipe, the travel-time curve can be used to indicate
tool centralization. In a particular size of unbonded
casing containing a particular fluid, the travel time should
be constant, except when collars are encountered. A
varying travel time may indicate that the tool is not
centered in the casing; therefore, the signal amplitude
measurements may not be accurate.
If a sufficient bond exists between the pipe, cement, and
formation, formation signals appear in the wave train.
These signals traveled through a portion of the formation
(and through cement, casing, and borehole fluid) before
returning to the receiver. In slow formations, such as
sandstones, the acoustic wave travels more slowly
through the formation than through the casing. As a
result, the first formation signal, or formation arrival,
arrives at the receiver after the pipe arrival.
Chapter 3
HOME
In fast formations, such as low-porosity limestones and
dolomites, the acoustic wave travels more quickly
through the formation than through casing. As a result,
the formation arrival can occur before pipe arrival. If
such circumstances exist, variations in the travel-time
curve can correspond to variations in the formation and
do not necessarily indicate whether the tool is centered in
the borehole.
The far receiver indicates the amplitude of the pipe
signal. This signal is displayed on the log as the pipe
amplitude curve. This receiver records the entire acoustic
waveform. Analysts can qualitatively analyze waveform
displays to determine if the following conditions exist:
• Free pipe
• No cement bond to formation
• Partial cement bond to formation
• Good cement bond to formation
Figure 3.8 (Page 3-18) shows conventional bond-log
responses to some of those conditions, and the general
waveform appearance is illustrated for each of the
conditions shown.
Free pipe is not firmly bonded to the cement sheath in
Figure 3.8a. It vibrates freely with little signal attenuation.
Both the pipe amplitude curve and the X-Z display show
high-amplitude pipe signals in a free-pipe zone. The
alternating dark and light streaks on the X-Z display appear
as straight traces. Casing collars appear as “w” patterns.
When cement is bonded to the pipe but not the formation,
the pipe cannot vibrate freely, and poor acoustic coupling
occurs between the cement and the formation. The signal
cannot travel effectively from the transmitter, through the
formation, and back to the receiver. As a result, the log
records low-amplitude pipe and formation signals, which
appear on the X-Z display as a lack of well-defined traces.
A partial bonding of cement and pipe can result from
channels in the cement or from a microannulus between
the pipe and cement (Figure 3.8b). This condition is
indicated on the X-Z display by pipe and collar signals
that are accompanied by strong formation signals.
Additionally, the pipe amplitude curve is high. If a
microannulus is suspected, the logger can increase the
wellhead pressure and relog across the zone of interest. If
the X-Z display on the relogged interval indicates a good
bond, a microannulus exists. If a good bond does not
exist, the cement may contain a channel.
Testing Methods and Equipment 3-17
CONFORMANCE TECHNOLOGY

DN001118

Figure 3.8—Example log showing (a) free pipe, (b) partially bonded, and (c) fully bonded.

3-18 Testing Methods and Equipment Chapter 3

HOME
A strong, identifiable formation signal with no pipe signal
suggests effective zone isolation and a good bond
between both the cement and the pipe and the cement and
the formation (Figure 3.8c). Under these conditions, the
pipe amplitude curve should be low.
Normal CBL interpretation assumes that changes in pipe-
signal amplitude are caused by changes in bonding only,
but other factors can cause variations in pipe-signal
amplitude. If they are not recognized, bonding conditions
could be misinterpreted. These factors include changes in
the following:
• Pipe diameter, weight, and thickness
• Borehole fluid density
• Cement thickness and compressive strength
• Transmitter signal strength
• Receiver sensitivity
Several of these factors can be eliminated. For example,
the depths where pipe-size changes exist are usually
known. For cement-sheath thicknesses greater than 3/4 in.,
changes in cement thickness have little effect on signal
attenuation.
Ultrasonic Bond-Logging Tools
Conventional bond-logging tools are generally omnidi-
rectional. The acoustic signals that their transmitters
generate travel away from the tool in all directions, and
their receivers are sensitive to acoustic waves arriving
from all directions. At a particular instant, the signal
amplitude at a receiver is the result of all the acoustic
signals arriving at the receiver. As a result, the bond
quality determined from these tools is a circumferential
average of the bonding around the casing. These two
cases are difficult to distinguish because circumferentially
averaged amplitude and attenuation can be the same for
high-strength cement containing a channel and for evenly
distributed low-strength cement.
For annular cement to attenuate the signal, a good shear
mechanical bond must exist between the cement and the
casing outer wall. If a gap exists, such as a microannulus
between cement and casing, the log can indicate poor
bonding even if the gap is so thin that it prevents fluids
from flowing.
Ultrasonic tools provide the most beneficial data when
evaluating cement placement and bonding. Instead of a
separate source and receiver, the ultrasonic source and
receiver are packaged together as a transducer. Early
Chapter 3
HOME
ultrasonic tools consisted of eight ultrasonic transducers
in a helical array. The new generation of these tools
consists of one rotating transducer. The ultrasonic
scanning or imaging acoustic tool uses a single rotating
ultrasonic transducer to produce high-resolution, circum-
ferential data. The Circumferential Acoustic Scanning
Tool (CAST-V) acquires data for both cement evaluation
and casing evaluation in the same run or pass. The
rotating transducer can provide 36 to 200 measurements
per depth sample, depending upon the service company.
Depth-sample rates range from 2 to 12 samples per foot,
again depending upon the service company.
Not only can channels in cement be detected, but the
orientations of the channels can be determined and the
proper squeeze or remedial action can be performed.
Because of the high horizontal sample rate, the data are
normally presented in a color-coded image instead of a
single curve. The color coding is based on the imped-
ances of gas, water, and cement.
To overcome the limitations of conventional bond
logging tools, Halliburton originally developed the
ultrasonic Pulse Echo Tool (PET) and the newer CAST-V.
PETs contain eight ultrasonic transducers equally spaced
in a helical pattern around the main tool body. For
ultrasonic tools, each transducer generates an acoustic
wave that travels toward the casing, perpendicular to the
casing wall. Most of the energy arriving at the inner wall
reflects back and forth within the casing, allowing casing
thickness to be more easily determined. Some energy is
transferred outside the casing at each reflection, so the
amplitude of the reflected wave is reduced at each
reflection. For a casing of a specified size and weight
containing a specified fluid, the rate at which the ampli-
tude decreases depends on the acoustic impedance of the
annular material.
The fixed 8-transducer PET and the rotating CAST-V
measure borehole fluid velocity with an additional
transducer. The distance from each transducer to the
casing wall can be determined from combining this
information with the two-way travel time from the
transducers to the casing inner wall. This will be dis-
cussed with more detail in the casing inspection section.
The acoustic impedance of a material is the product of its
density and acoustic compressional velocity. The train of
reflected waves returning to the transducer provides
information about the annular material, which allows
analysts to distinguish cement, liquid, and gas in the
annular space.
Testing Methods and Equipment 3-19
CONFORMANCE TECHNOLOGY
The output frequency of the ultrasonic tool ranges from
approximately 300 to 600 kHz. However, in the region of
a gas-filled microannulus (or in cement containing gas
bubbles), the ultrasonic bond log may indicate free pipe.
The preferred cement evaluation program combines the
CBL and the CAST-V tools. As illustrated in Figure 3.9,
the combined data from both logs provides a more
complete and reliable evaluation.
The tracks provide the following information:
• Track 1 provides correlation data, average
impedance, and tool centralization information.
Figure 3.9—Standard CAST-V/CBL presentation showing a channel.
3-20 Testing Methods and Equipment
HOME
• Track 2 provides information from both the CBL
(amplitude curves) and CAST-V (FCBI) about the
cement to pipe bond. High-amplitude readings
indicate free pipe while low amplitude readings
indicate good bonding. The FCBI curve is generated
from the impedance map and is a method to show
the percent of cement to casing bond.
• Track 3 consists of the CBL waveform, which
indicates both the cement-to-pipe bond and
cement-to-formation bond. In fact the CBL tool is
the only tool available to help determine the
cement-to-formation bond.
DN001119
Chapter 3
• Track 4 presents the standard impedance image
from the CAST-V, which is corrected to the low
side of the hole. This information will help deter-
mine if the cement problem is correctable or not due
to pipe position in the wellbore. The channel on the
impedance image indicates less than perfect zonal
isolation. Depending upon the reservoir, the cement
may not provide the necessary zonal isolation to
prevent unwanted fluid production.
Figure 3.10 examines the same zone of Figure 3.9. The
tracks provide the following information:
• Track 1 provides correlation data, average
impedance, and tool centralization information.
Figure 3.10—Segmented presentation with the impedance map showing the activity level and impedance values.
Chapter 3
HOME
• Track 2 consists of the standard impedance image
from the CAST-V.
• Tracks 3 through 11 are the segmented curves from
the impedance map. The impedance map is broken
into nine segments, and five equally spaced curves
from each segment are plotted. Because the map is
oriented to the low side of the hole, Segment E will
always be on the low side, while Segments A and I
will be on the high side. This curve segmentation
allows the actual impedance from each curve to be
shown and provides a measure of the activity level
of the data. The channel is clearly identified on both
the impedance map and the segmented curves. The
impedance of the material in the channel is about
1.7, which indicates water.
DN001120
Testing Methods and Equipment 3-21
CONFORMANCE TECHNOLOGY
This activity level, called the statistical variation process
(SVP), allows analysts to discern solid crystalline
structures, such as cements, from fluids. Solid-free
liquids have a consistent or steady activity level on logs
while solids, when mixed with either fluid or gas, have an
irregular activity level. Cement, with a mixture of solids,
liquids, or gases, should exhibit a high degree of variabil-
ity in the impedance measurement. A consistent phase,
such as water, gas, or drilling mud, will exhibit less
variation in the computed impedance. After tool position
is taken into account, analysis of the vertical rate of
impedance change can easily determine whether foamed
cement or liquid is present.
SVP processing assumes that cements are not consistent,
but it does not use the impedance values directly in
determining if the material is solid or liquid. Combining
the SVP processing methods with the original impedance
data provides an easier method for determining the pipe-to-
cement bond. Because liquids should have both low
impedance and low activity level, this information can help
determine if the annular material is solid or liquid. This
new image combines the original impedance data with the
variance data to create a new image called cement.
Adapting this technique to the CBL waveform data
highlighted information not currently being used in the
evaluation of cement bonding. The essential portions of
this interpretation are collar response and the waveform
amplitudes and behavior in free, bonded, partially
bonded, and microannulus situations. Subtle changes in
the CBL waveform can be seen by the naked eye. Such
changes would be lost when presented in the conventional
MSG display. Applying the SVP processing to the entire
acoustical waveform and determining the variance
between vertical sample points makes these subtle
changes recognizable. Normally the variance processing
results are added to the standard CBL waveform, high-
lighting both the high-amplitude portion of the CBL
waveform and the differences.
This entire process is known as Advanced Cement Evalua-
tion (ACE). ACE can expand cement evaluation for any
service company and tools, including segmented bond logs
and other ultrasonic tools, stationary or rotational.
Figure 3.11 (Page 3-23) illustrates a complete new
analysis of both the CBL and ultrasonic data over the
same well as Figures 3.8 to 3.10. The tracks provide the
following information:
• Track 1 provides correlation data, average
impedance, and tool centralization information.
3-22 Testing Methods and Equipment
HOME
• Track 2 provides information from both the CBL
(amplitude curves) and CAST-V (ZP BI, CEMENT
BI) about the cement-to-pipe bond. ZP BI is the
normal bond index from the impedance map
without any further processing. CEMENT BI is the
bond index from the cement image. These curves
should track the amplitude curve from the CBL
because both measurements are an indication of
cement-to-pipe bond.
• Track 3 consists of the CBL waveform, which
indicates both the cement-to-pipe bond and
cement-to-formation bond.
• In Track 4, the CBL variance shows the difference
between vertical samples of the acoustic wave
form. The initial vertical distance between the two
sides of the wedge is about five feet, the same as
the distance between the CBL source and receiver.
As the pipe-to-cement bond increases, the ends of
this wedge narrow and approach five feet. As the
quality of the cement bond increases, the collar
response disappears almost entirely. The colors
change as the bond increases from the top to the
bottom of the log.
• Track 5 presents the standard impedance image.
• Track 6 consists of the cement image, which is
determined from the impedance and variance
calculation. The channel is still present and
probably will not allow zonal isolation over the
interval.
Casing Evaluation Logs
Many water-entry problems are caused by poor mechani-
cal integrity of the casing. Holes caused by corrosion or
wear and splits caused by flaws, excessive pressure, or
formation deformation can allow unwanted reservoir
fluids to enter the casing. Halliburton uses the following
mechanical, electromagnetic, and ultrasonic logging tools
to inspect casing:
• Multi-Arm Caliper tool
• Casing Inspection tool (CIT)
• Pipe Inspection tool (PIT) using Flux Leakage/
Eddy Current (FL/EC)
• Circumferential Acoustic Scanning tool (CAST)
• Pulse Echo tool (PET)
Chapter 3

Figure 3.11—New analysis of both the CBL and ultrasonic data over the same well as Figures 3.8 to 3.10.
Mechanical Logging Devices
Mechanical devices use independent, spring-loaded feeler
arms or fingers to measure the internal radius of the
casing. The number of arms can vary from 15 to 80,
depending on casing size and tool type. Mechanical
calipers only provide information about internal casing
condition. Their major deficiency is that they inspect only
a small circumferential fraction of the casing. The size of
this fraction depends on the number of feeler arms, the
width of the arms, and the casing size and weight. For
example, a tool with 40 arms inspecting a 7-in., 35-lb/ft
casing (6.004-in. ID) would cover only 17.0% of the wall
Chapter 3
HOME
DN001121
(using a feeler width of 0.08 in.). In a 5.5-in., 17-lb/ft
casing, the fractional wall coverage is approximately
21.0%. As a result, locating small holes or splits with a
mechanical caliper requires multiple passes with the tool.
The logs produced by most mechanical calipers present
minimum diameter (MINID), maximum diameter
(MAXID), and remaining wall thickness (REMWAL)
curves, as shown in Figure 3.12 (Page 3-24). To compute
the remaining wall thickness, analysts subtract the
measured internal radius of the casing from the casing
nominal outside radius.
Testing Methods and Equipment 3-23
CONFORMANCE TECHNOLOGY
REMWAL
0 Inch .5 8 Inch
8 Inch
Figure 3.12—Multi-Arm Caliper log for casing inspection.
Electromagnetic Phase-Shift Devices
Electromagnetic phase-shift devices measure the attenua-
tion and phase shift of a transmitted electromagnetic
signal to determine circumferential averages of casing
thickness and diameter.
Casing Inspection Tool
The Casing Inspection Tool (CIT) is an electromagnetic
phase-shift device. The CIT casing-thickness measure-
ment is made by the transmitter and the near receiver on
a one-transmitter, two-receiver coil array. A 30-Hz
pulsed electromagnetic field from the transmitter
induces eddy currents in the casing. The eddy currents
generate an electromagnetic field that is sensed by the
near receiver. Analysts can determine the casing
thickness by examining the phase shift between the
transmitter and near-receiver signals.
On the standard raw-data CIT the resulting curve is
designated as the thickness index. The measurement has a
vertical resolution of approximately 18 in. Because this
measurement is omnidirectional and has a somewhat
coarse resolution, it cannot clearly detect small anomalies.
A second phase-shift is measured between the near and
far receivers. This measurement detects casing anomalies
over a short length of the casing. It has a vertical resolu-
tion of about 2.5 in., and the associated curve on the CIT
log is designated as the differential index. On this curve,
a large deflection to the right followed by a large deflec-
tion to the left indicates an increase in metal. A large
3-24 Testing Methods and Equipment
HOME
MAXID
10
MINID
10
DN001139
deflection to the left followed by a large deflection to the
right indicates a decrease in metal.
The CIT also measures casing ID, but with a coil array
that consists of one transmitter and one receiver. The
transmitter coil is driven by a continuous 30-kHz
source. The resulting electromagnetic field induces eddy
currents on the inside surface of the casing. The eddy
currents, in turn, generate an electromagnetic field that
the receiver coil detects. The phase shift between the
transmitted and received signals is a function of the
casing’s ID. This measurement is presented on the log as
the caliper index curve.
One limitation of the CIT is that it cannot clearly distin-
guish perforations because perforation diameters are
significantly smaller than the measurement’s vertical
resolution. If perforation diameters are small and shot
densities are low, the volume of metal over a perforated
section of casing is not much different from the volume of
metal over an unperforated section. Therefore, the
differential readings are small, and perforations are
difficult to identify. The CIT can, however, distinguish
intervals perforated at high shot densities.
The Multifrequency Electromagnetic Tool
The Multifrequency Electromagnetic Tool (METG) is used
to gauge casing thickness for detection of defective or
damaged casing. This multi-frequency electromagnetic tool
measures the casing’s magnetic properties, casing ID, and
phase shift to accurately compute the casing thickness.
Chapter 3
The METG detects oilwell casing flaws, such as corro-
sion, casing wear, mill defects, burst pipe, erosion, and
crushing. A noncontact, nondestructive, electromagnetic
remote eddy current technique is used for determining
areas of metal loss, such as large-scale corrosion, holes
larger than 2 in., and vertical casing splits. The METG is
currently the only method for detecting casing flaws on
the outer strings of multiple-string casings.
Electrical caliper measurements are commonly used to
determine the inner diameter of the innermost casing in the
string. These measurements help determine whether
damage to the casing is on the inside or outside of the pipe,
and its electrical properties. This caliper measurement is
not affected by nonmagnetic mineral-scale buildup.
Figure 3.13—METG results compared to the CAST-V in the pipe-inspection mode.
Chapter 3
HOME
Typically, the METG tools are designed to be run in
combination with other casing-inspection tools. With
through-wiring, other tools, such as PIT or CAST-V, can be
run in combination with the METG. This combination can
provide qualitative information concerning casing integrity.
Figure 3.13 compares the result from the METG with that
of the CAST-V. The following information is provided:
• Track 1 consists of the gamma, eccentricity, and
ovality.
• Track 2 consists of two calibrated ID (CIDL, CIDS)
curves from the METG and average ID from the
CAST-V.
DN001122
Testing Methods and Equipment 3-25
CONFORMANCE TECHNOLOGY
• Track 3 consists of the ID from CASE and shows
some internal wear.
• Track 4 compares two thickness curves (TH1L,
TH2L) with the average thickness from the CAST-V.
• Track 5 shows the thickness image from the CAST-V.
• Track 6 provides thickness information from the two
receivers of the METG at two frequencies.
Pipe Inspection Tool
The PIT is a FL/EC type of tool. FL/EC devices are
widely accepted for evaluating metal loss. The PIT
provides 360° wall coverage with high vertical resolution
by using an array of pad-mounted coils. FL/EC tools
identify flaws in casing or tubular goods and then
discriminate between flaws on the external or internal
surface of the pipe.
• Flux Leakage. The flux leakage (FL) measurement
is made by an induction coil near the pipe surface
that is positioned between the north and south poles
of a DC electromagnet. Current through the electro-
magnet causes lines of magnetic flux in the pipe wall.
Normally, this flux is contained within the walls of
the casing, but when holes, pitting, or other defects
exist in the wall of the pipe, perturbations in the flux
lines cause some flux to spill out of the confines of
the wall. When the inductive sensor is passed over
these perturbations, a voltage is generated in the coil.
The FL coil responds to holes and inner and outer
wall defects.
• Eddy Current. An eddy current (EC) excitation coil
is driven by an AC source. The sensor is designed so
that in clean pipe, any signal induced into one
receiver coil is canceled by an equal signal in the
other receiver coil. Several factors control the depth
that the current travels into the pipe wall, although
current frequency is the primary factor. Normally, the
depth of penetration is very shallow.
When the PIT tool passes a defect on the inner wall, the
receiver coils become imbalanced, first in one direction,
then the other. In this manner, a characteristic signature is
produced for the defect on the inner wall, but no response
occurs for flaws on the outer wall or internal flaws beyond
the skin depth of penetration of the excitation current.
By comparing the response of the FL and EC signals,
analysts can determine whether the defect is on the outer
wall only, the inner wall only, or is a through-hole
defect. FL curves can reveal holes with diameters as
small as 0.1 in. The EC measurements detect defects
3-26 Testing Methods and Equipment
HOME
with diameters as small as 0.125 in. To help analysts
visualize the pipe condition, FL/EC logs provide plots
of the raw FL/EC curves from each pad as well as
detailed 360° maps of the flux leakage and eddy current.
The PIT tool and associated software allow identification
of casing damage. Once a defect is located, the type, size,
and percent of penetration are shown in Figure 3.14
(Page 3-27). The PIT processing algorithm allows the
standard joint counter and grading programs to be used.
The tracks provide the following information:
• Track 1 provides the gamma, tension, and hall effect,
which indicates casing damage and/or quality control.
• Track 2 provides the processed eddy curves that are
plotted on the same scale range with a different offset.
• Track 3 provides the processed flux curves that are
plotted on the same scale range with a different offset.
• Tracks 4 and 5 indicate whether the defects are on
the inside or outside of the casing. The extent to
which the defects penetrate the casing (as a fraction
of casing thickness) determines the grade as shown.
Casing grade is determined by defect penetration
(again, as a fraction of casing thickness).
• Track 6, the rightmost track on the log, flags casing
defects and identifies each defect as either isolated or
circumferential.
The log example shown in Figure 3.14 is from a well
without cement allowing pipe recovery. The pipe was
retrieved and examined showing a hole at 93 meters. The
pipe was photographed as shown in Figure 3.15a (Page
3-27). The high sampling rate and full pipe coverage of
the PIT allows accurate 3D images to be generated as
shown in Figure 3.15b. The two images have an excel-
lent match showing the casing damage. The hole was
determined to be approximately 1/8 of an inch across.
Ultrasonic Casing Tools
Two types of ultrasonic tools are commonly used for
casing inspection: (1) the Circumferential Acoustic
Scanning Tool (CAST) and (2) the Pulse Echo Tool
(PET).
Circumferential Acoustic Scanning Tool
The CAST has a rotating ultrasonic transducer that can
accurately measure casing ID, casing thickness, casing
ovality, and tool centralization. When the transducer is
pulsed or fired in the “transmit” mode, a narrow acoustic
beam propagates through borehole fluids toward the
Chapter 3
 DN001123
Figure 3.14—Casing damage on the outside at 93 meters.

DN001124

Figure 3.15—Video capture of the pipe in Figure 3.11 with 3D image of the casing damage using PIT data.

Chapter 3 Testing Methods and Equipment 3-27

HOME
CONFORMANCE TECHNOLOGY
borehole wall. This beam reflects off the borehole wall
and travels back through the borehole fluids to the
transducer. The transducer then acts as a receiver to
record the travel time and amplitude of the reflected
signal. The travel time (or time of flight) is the elapsed
time between the transducer’s firing and the instant when
the highest amount of reflected energy arrives back at the
transducer. Amplitude is a measure of that peak amount
of returning ultrasonic energy.
The CAST-V operates in either image mode or cased-hole
mode. In image mode, the tool acquires data from the
interior diameter of the pipe or formation. In cased-hole
mode, data is acquired from the casing ID, the casing
thickness, and the annular space between the casing OD
and surrounding formation. Both the amplitude and
travel-time data from both modes may be used to help
determine the conditions of the casing or riser. The
navigational package is required to provide geometry of
the casing or hole. This will allow casing wear to be
monitored accurately.
• Image Mode. In image mode, the scanner evaluates
only the “inner” surface of the target (the formation
bounding the wellbore or the inner wall of the casing).
The high vertical resolution (60 samples per ft), and
extensive azimuthal sampling (200 shots or radial
measurements per sample depth) provide the neces-
sary information needed for 2D and 3D images. The
travel time and amplitude of the acoustic waveform
can provide both visual and digital data to indicate
casing integrity or problems. These images are useful
for evaluating casing integrity by revealing distortion,
wear, holes, parting, and other anomalies on the inner
wall of the casing.
• Cased-Hole Mode. The ultrasonic scanner also
operates in cased-hole mode for a thorough casing
assessment including wall thickness or pipe-to-
cement evaluation. The cased-hole mode determines
both the internal radii of the casing and the casing
thickness. Casing thickness combined with the ID
measurements can be used to indicate defects on the
exterior of the casing. The normal tool operation will
provide a vertical resolution of four samples per ft,
and azimuthal sampling of 100 shots per sample
depth. This data can be recorded at 12 samples per ft,
but the logging speed needs to be reduced. The
amplitude and travel times are also recorded to
provide image-interpretation capabilities.
The acoustic waveform is processed in cased-hole mode.
Casing thickness is calculated by a Fast-Fourier transfor-
mation of the frequency content of the waveform itself.
3-28 Testing Methods and Equipment
HOME
Because the resonant frequency of casing decreases as
casing thickness increases, transducer frequency must be
selected according to casing thickness. Further waveform
processing provides information about the material in the
annular space between the casing and the wellbore wall.
This annular space is normally filled with cement, drilling
mud, water, gas, and other substances. The ultrasonic
tools determine the impedance value of these materials
and indicate the amount of pipe-to-cement bonding.
Waveform processing achieves cement evaluation and
casing inspection at the same time, without requiring
additional passes. Thus, high telemetry data rates, intense
processing capabilities, and selective transducer frequen-
cies are required. Before deciding to log with a CAST,
engineers must consider the wellbore fluid and the casing
wall condition. If the wellbore fluid contains large
quantities of solids, the solids attenuate and disperse the
transmitted and reflected signals. If the casing wall
contains scale, paraffin, or other disruptive materials, the
reflected signal can be significantly attenuated and
scattered, and the data will be useless.
Another major consideration in CAST logging is the
distance from the transducer head to the casing’s inner
wall. If the transducer head is too close to the wall, a
near-field phenomenon causes the data to be difficult to
interpret. Under these conditions, the acoustic wave is
unable to travel a sufficient distance from the transducer
to produce a wave front that is planar when it impacts the
casing wall. This planar condition is necessary for good
data. If the distance is too great, the acoustic amplitude of
the received signal is greatly reduced. Therefore, the
proper transducer head size must be used to ensure
optimal standoff distance.
After the data is acquired in either mode to accurately
evaluate the internal casing wear, tool position and
eccentering need to be accounted for. Spiral or patterns
similar to a barbershop pole are indications of eccentric-
ity problems, not necessarily casing wear. Special
processing, provided both real time and post acquisition,
allows the travel time image to be corrected for the tool
eccentering.
After the raw data is corrected, several different programs
will allow complete interpretation of the data to com-
pletely evaluate the casing damage. Figures 3.16 to 3.18
(Pages 3-29 through 3-30) provide detailed information
about packer damage on 7-in., 26-lb/ft casing. These
figures range from the raw data to 3D images. Figure
3.16 shows where the packer was set and did not release
properly (B). The metal was peeled up when the packer
Chapter 3
 DN001125
Figure 3.16—Raw data from the image mode, allowing easy visualization of the casing damage.

DN001126

Figure 3.17—Computed results showing casing radius for the packer damage.

Chapter 3 Testing Methods and Equipment 3-29

HOME
CONFORMANCE TECHNOLOGY

DN001127

Figure 3.18—Raw data along with three-dimensional image show casing damage.

was pulled. The amplitude and both the travel time
images in Figure 3.16 show the channels of the packer
pins. They also show that peeled metal is still in the
casing immediately above the damage (C).
• Track 1 provides tool and casing eccentricity and
ovality data
• Track 2 provides information about the travel time of
the fluid in the casing along with wellbore deviation
• Track 3 is the amplitude of the first arrival in the
image mode. This will show the greatest detail
concerning any casing damage; Howeve,r the data
cannot be used in any further quantitative evaluation.
• Track 4 is the uncorrected travel time for tool
eccentricity. This travel time will be used along with
the fluid travel time to determine the casing radius.
• Track 5 is the corrected travel time for tool eccen-
tricity. The post-processing software will correct the
data for slight eccentricity errors.

3-30 Testing Methods and Equipment Chapter 3

HOME
The computed results of Figure 3.17 show the amount of different times, the casing is oval. If all eight transit times
metal removed to be approximately equal to the metal are different, the tool is eccentered.
remaining above the damage. The indicated damage at
Figure 3.19 (Page 3-32) is a PET casing profile plot with
(D) is circumferential and seems to have been caused by
casing ovality, eccentricity, average thickness, and other
the packer compressing against the casing wall. The
standard curves plotted in Track 1. In Track 4, the nominal
segmented presentation in Figure 3.17 provides a
thickness of the casing is displayed as the distance between
detailed analysis of the casing damage. The maximum
two adjacent vertical gridlines. The actual thickness that
depth of the two grooved pits is about 0.125 in. deep
each transducer measures is plotted as a solid black trace
(Segments B, G, and H). In the nondamaged area, the
inset between the nominal-thickness grid lines. Each
average, minimum and maximum radius curves all
transducer curve is plotted next to its opposing transducer.
indicate the known casing radius.
Figure 3.18 uses a standard imaging package to display Pulsed Neutron Logs
the calculated pipe radius in a 3D view. While these
Two types of pulsed neutron logs are available: (1) pulsed
images correlate well with both the calculated and raw
neutron capture (PNC) logs, which are usually run in
data, it is difficult to measure actual casing damage with
areas with high-salinity formation waters, and (2) pulsed
these 3D images. 3D images allow excellent visualiza-
neutron spectrometry (PNS) logs, which are usually run
tion of casing damage and corrosion; However, these
in waters in which the salinity is low or unknown. These
images do not provide the necessary, minute detail
cased-hole logs can sometimes be used in openhole
required for monitoring.
applications. When these logs are combined with either
Pulse Echo Tool openhole or earlier pulsed neutron logs, changes in water
level or coning can be evaluated.
Although it is primarily a cement evaluation tool, the
Pulse Echo Tool (PET) can also determine casing ID and Pulsed neutron tools can detect and quantify water
thickness. The PET has a helical array of eight transduc- flowing past the tool during logging. When water moves
ers, each acting as both a transmitter and a receiver, past the generator, oxygen is activated by the high-energy
evaluating the adjacent segment of casing. The transduc- neutrons and forms a radioactive isotope of nitrogen. This
ers emit a short pressure pulse with a center frequency isotope is unstable and decays with a 7.35-second half-
close to the resonant frequency of the casing (approxi- life. As water flows past the logging tool, the tool’s
mately 400 kHz). When the pulse arrives at the casing, it detectors register the gamma rays emitted during the
generates both a large reflected wave and casing reso- decay. This technique detects (1) channels outside the
nance waves, all of which are sensed by the transducer, casing, (2) leaking tubulars, and (3) water production,
which measures time of flight (t) of the reflected waves particularly in highly deviated wells.
and the frequency of the resonance waves.
Thermal Multigate Decay Logs
A ninth transducer and a reference reflective surface are
The Thermal Multigate Decay (TMD) log is Halliburton’s
mounted in a tool cavity that is exposed to the borehole
PNC log. The TMD is a dual-detector tool that can help
fluid. To determine the borehole’s acoustic interval transit
detect water flow by identifying increased background
time (Dtf), analysts must first measure the acoustic
count rates on the quality log. To quantify flow rates, the
signal’s time of flight from the transducer to the reflective
logging service makes several passes with the tool over the
surface and back before determining the known distance
flowing interval. Analysts can then determine flow rates by
from the transducer to the reflective surface. The casing
noting the depth changes where the activation appears on
ID is derived from t and Dtf, while casing thickness is
the background curves. TMD tools have a 1 11/16-in. OD
calculated from resonant-wave frequency.
and are rated for at least 300°F and 15,000 psi.
To determine casing ovality and tool eccentralization,
analysts compare the interval transit times of each
transducer. If diagonally opposing pairs of transducers
have the same transit time and adjacent pairs have

Chapter 3 Testing Methods and Equipment 3-31

HOME
CONFORMANCE TECHNOLOGY

DN001140

Figure 3.19—Ultrasonic pulse echo log used for casing inspection.

3-32 Testing Methods and Equipment Chapter 3

HOME
The example TMD log in Figures 3.20 and 3.21 Pulsed Spectral Gamma Logs
(Pages 3-33 and 3-34) is from a well involved in a log-
The Pulsed Spectral Gamma (PSG) log is a PNS logging
inject-log project that determines the residual oil satura-
device. The single-detector PSG tool detects water by
tion in a reservoir before a waterflood. The log was run
measuring the activated oxygen in a spectral window
during the early injections of brine. The LS-BKG curve
placed around the main oxygen peak in the capture
increases significantly on the quality log above the packer
gamma ray spectrum. Because of its single-detector
at X490 ft. This background increase (together with an
design, only qualitative interpretation is available. If
absence of high natural gamma activity) indicates water
water is flowing past the tool, the log registers an increase
flowing upward in the casing-tubing annulus because of a
in the count rate of the oxygen-activation curve. PSG
leak in the packer assembly. The increased LS-BKG
tools usually have a 3 3/8-in. OD and are rated for at least
response from X640 ft to X625 ft indicates a channel
300°F and 15,000 psi.
outside the casing. The count rates are much lower and
more variable for channels than for flow inside the casing
because of the smaller, more variable volume.

DN000853

Figure 3.20—TMD log showing water movement from packer leak and a channel outside pipe.

Chapter 3 Testing Methods and Equipment 3-33

HOME
CONFORMANCE TECHNOLOGY

DN000854

Figure 3.21—PSG log showing oil/water contact and leaking squeezed perforations.

3-34 Testing Methods and Equipment Chapter 3

HOME
The example PSG log in Figure 3.22 (Page 3-36) is from
a well that analysts logged to monitor reservoir depletion
by comparing open- and cased-hole saturation interpreta-
tions. The oxygen-activation curves (OAI) from the field
log were placed on the computing center analysis in
Track 1 to aid in the interpretation. The activation
increases at each of the two bottom sets of perforations,
X400 to X408 ft and X352 to X356 ft. The activation
returns to near-zero at the top perforations at X326 to
X332 ft. These activation increases indicate water
flowing upward past the logging tool and entering the
upper set of perforations because of reservoir pressure
differentials.
The presence of flowing water under shut-in conditions
helps explain the overly pessimistic oil-depletion calcula-
tions over this interval. The inelastic gamma ray measure-
ments from the PSG log used to calculate oil saturation
have a very shallow depth of investigation and were
heavily influenced by the flowing water.
Reservoir Monitoring Tool
New developments in tool electronics detectors have
allowed a new through-tubing reservoir monitoring tool
(RMT) to assist in the monitoring and management of the
production of hydrocarbon reserves. Halliburton’s RMT
Elite is a unique through-tubing pulsed neutron logging
tool that consists of carbon/oxygen (C/O) system and has
two to three times higher measurement resolution than
other systems. Its high-density Bismuth Germanium
Oxide (BGO) detectors let the RMT Elite achieve
resolutions previously available only with larger diameter
C/O systems. The tool length is 27.2 feet long with an
outer diameter of only 2 1/8 in.
The advanced modular design provides a highly versatile
system that has multiple operating modes and capabili-
ties, allowing operators to make simultaneous C/O,
Sigma, and water flow measurements. Because the system
is modular, it can be combined with a complete string of
production logging tool sensors for detailed production
analysis. RMT Elite allows logging speeds two to five
times faster than any competing system. This combination
of speed and precision allows the RMT Elite to perform
the following functions:
• Accurately determine oil and gas saturations in high
salinity or fresh water formations
• Identify bypassed reserves
• Pinpoint formation fluid contacts
• Identify lithologies and mineralogies
Chapter 3
HOME
• Provide porosity information within the completion
interval
• Evaluate gravel-packs and lithology with silicon
activation
• Detect water flow inside or outside the pipe
Because the RMT Elite can accurately evaluate the time-
lapse performance of hydrocarbon producing reservoirs
without requiring tubing to be pulled from the well,
operators can do the following:
• Increase production more cost effectively
• Monitor changing conditions and fluid movement
• Tap into bypassed hydrocarbon reserves
• Optimize, manage, and produce reservoirs more
efficiently
• Avoid production problems through enhanced
diagnostics
• Make faster decisions on workovers and completions
The RMT Elite can also affect the economics of the well
intervention and associated costs by reducing or eliminat-
ing the following:
• The cost of killing the well
• The cost of pulling tubing out of the well
• Operational cost and lost production revenue from
additional workovers
• Potential production losses due to formation damage
from well-kill fluids
• The cost of recompleting the well by re-running
tubing
Figure 3.23 (Page 3-37) is an example of the RMT Elite
in a steam flood environment. This example not only
shows the remaining oil saturation, and the injected steam
saturation, but also indicates where water is moving
behind the casing. Remember that conformance is not
only the study of unwanted water production but can also
include the production of gas or steam:
• The depth track recorded at the far left side of the log
displays water flow measured by the RMT Elite
outside the casing.
• Track 1 is the openhole density neutron porosity.
Steam measured in the formation at the time of the
log is indicated by the gray shading between the
curves.
Testing Methods and Equipment 3-35
CONFORMANCE TECHNOLOGY

DN000855

Figure 3.22—PSG log showing water crossflow between reservoirs.

3-36 Testing Methods and Equipment Chapter 3

HOME
 DN001128

Figure 3.23—RMT Elite in a steam flood environment showing fluid saturations, bypassed reserves, and fluid
movement behind casing.

Chapter 3 Testing Methods and Equipment 3-37

HOME
CONFORMANCE TECHNOLOGY
• Track 2 displays the inelastic and capture ratios
measured from the RMT Elite. The red shading
indicates the current location of steam in the reser-
voir. This example indicates that the steam chest has
changed when compared to the original formation
contacts.
• Track 3 displays the Carbon Oxygen and the Calcium
Silicon ratio curves. The green shading between the
two curves indicates hydrocarbons in the formation.
Also displayed in the track are the natural gamma ray
measurement and the simultaneous recorded forma-
tion sigma.
• Track 4 of the example displays the computed oil
saturation (shaded in green) and the gas saturation
(shaded in red). These saturations were computed
using a combination of C/O and formation Sigma.
Spectral Flow (SPFL)
The Spectral Flow tool is designed to measure simulta-
neous up and down water flows. This tool was intended
for use with additional production logging tools to
accurately determine water entry and movement. The
SPFL is a high-energy PNS tool that activates the oxygen
in water for a short time, allowing the oxygen to emit
gamma rays of specific energy. These gamma rays are
sensed and measured by detectors in the tools, and the
resulting measurements are used to determine water-flow
velocities inside, as well as outside, casing.
The SPFL tool uses two spectral gamma ray detectors and
a pulsed neutron generator with a special timing sequence
designed to emphasize activation measurements. These
spectral measurements enhance velocity estimates by
allowing gamma rays from oxygen activation to be
distinguished from those arising from iron activation,
silicon activation, and natural activity.
Furthermore, spectral measurements permit analysis of
Compton scattering to indicate whether water is flowing
inside or outside the casing. The detectors are located far
enough from the source that oxygen decay in stationary
water, mud, formation or cement is not observed. Oxygen
activation measurements clearly identify where the water is
moving and at what velocity. This allows the Spectra
FlowSM Service to accurately detect and quantify downhole
water flow to enhance the planning and improvement of
conformance and water management. Updating previous
reliable tools and interpretation software allows the SPFL
service to achieve the following:
• Accurately identify the water entry points and chan-
nels for timely planning of effective remedial action.
3-38 Testing Methods and Equipment
HOME
• Evaluate downhole flow patterns
• Create quality injection profiles that can lead to
improved conformance measures
• Reduce water disposal costs
Precise water velocity measurements using spectral data
are provided with continuous logs and stationary impulse
step-down tests:
• Use of a count-rate ratio from the two spectral
gamma detectors, which provides a continuous log
but requires well calibrated detectors.
• Use of an impulse/shutdown sequence, which is
performed while the tool is stationary and is calibra-
tion independent.
Logging techniques have been developed that use a
combination of continuous and stationary logging
measurements. This procedure allows water velocity
greater than 3 ft/min to be detected and, depending on the
flow volume and location, accurate quantitative velocities
as low as 5 ft/min can be measured. For velocities over
50 ft/min, improved accuracy is obtained by using the
more distant natural gamma ray detector.
The example well for this SPFL was producing almost
2,000 BWPD and 770 BOPD. The results of the station-
ary impulse tests with the tool in inverted configuration
indicated downward water flow in a channel outside the
casing. Measurements made with the natural gamma ray
detector at the top of the tool showed simultaneous
upward water flow inside the casing. Variations in the
water-flow velocity from test to test suggest that the
cross-sectional area of the channel is not constant.
The left side of Figure 3.24 (Page 3-39) shows the plots
of the SPFL continuous logs run with the SPFL tool in
normal mode; the right part of this figure shows the
plots of the continuous logs run with the SPFL tool in
inverted mode. The normal-mode logs measured two
water-flow entry points at 9,806 ft and 9,720 ft as
indicated by the OAI measurements. The CRAT mea-
surements in Track 1of the log indicate the water flow
inside the wellbore.
The OAI and CRAT measurements obtained in inverted
mode indicated water channeling behind pipe starting at
9,642 ft, with most entering the wellbore from perfora-
tions at 9,722 ft. The inverted-mode logs also weakly
indicate a second channel beginning at 9,736 ft and
continuing to the lower set of perforations. The arrows on
the CBL-GR plot the combined water-flow measured by
the SPFL tool.
Chapter 3

Figure 3.24—SPFL in normal and inverted mode.
In addition to measurements made by the new water-
velocity tool, a full set of production logs was recorded
on this well. The PL computed analysis is shown in
Figure 3.25 (Page 3-40). The analysis indicated that most
of the water was being produced by the lower perfora-
tions at a rate of 1,880 BWPD and 420 BOPD. The upper
perforations showed that fluid was being produced out of
the top 8 ft. This zone was only producing 75 BWPD and
350 BOPD.
Chapter 3
HOME
DN001129
Track 7 of the log in Figure 3.22, labeled Velocity, plots
the velocity calculated from the PL spinner and the
continuous velocity measured by SPFL tool in normal
mode. The velocity from the new tool is lower than the
velocity from the spinner, which indicates that the oil was
flowing faster than the water. As the flow stabilized around
9,760 ft, the two velocities were nearly equal. The veloci-
ties differed again with oil entry from the upper set of
perforations and stabilized with an equal rate at 9,712 ft.
Testing Methods and Equipment 3-39
CONFORMANCE TECHNOLOGY

DN001130

Figure 3.25—SPFL with PL analysis.

3-40 Testing Methods and Equipment Chapter 3

HOME
In summary for this example, the logs indicated three
sources of water. The lower perforations were producing
water from the zone and as well as a small amount from a
channel in the cement. The upper perforations were
producing water from a higher channel.
Production Logging Tools
The normal production logging string consists of the
following five tools:
• fluid-density tool
• hydro tool
• spinner tool
• pressure tool
• temperature tool
Two new tools have been developed by Halliburton and
its suppliers to improve the calculation of holdup. Holdup
tools normally consist of the fluid density and hydro
tools, which are center-sample devices. These center-
sample devices are adequate when the fluids are well
mixed and are flowing in a steady state. Unfortunately,
this environment is not usually encountered in horizontal
or deviated wells. The Gas Holdup Tool (GHT) and
Capacitance Array Tool (CAT) are part of the new
generation of fullbore holdup tools. The GHT measures
gas holdup in all types of environments, including
deviated and horizontal wells. The CAT tool can actually
measure all three holdups (gas, oil, and water simulta-
neously). These new tools are discussed in detail.
These 1 11/16-in. tools are rated for 350°F and 15,000 psi.
Either individually or in combination with each other,
these tools can indicate the presence of water or gas
influx. Fluid-density and hydro devices indicate the type
and amount of fluid present in the wellbore. Flowmeters
indicate both the rate and direction of flow. Temperature
and pressure tools provide valuable reservoir parameters
for additional analysis. All these measurements can be
combined in Halliburton’s production logging analysis
(PLA) program, which provides a complete analysis of
fluid flow. This analysis consists of both fluid identifica-
tion and flow rate for the well.
Fluid-Density Logs
The fluid-density tool continuously measures wellbore
fluid densities. Changes in density can indicate either
contact of two different fluids or fluid entry into a well. In
the latter case, the tool can locate perforations or verify
leaks in the casing or tubing.
Chapter 3
HOME
The fluid-density tool consists of a collimated gamma
source and a collimated gamma detector mounted at
opposite ends of a sample chamber. The gamma rays
emitted by the source are absorbed at a rate proportional to
the density of the fluids passing through the sample
chamber. The detector counts the gamma rays that are not
absorbed. The fluid density is inversely proportional to the
number of gamma rays reaching the detector. This tool
allows users to determine the density of wellbore fluid,
locate zones where fluids are entering the well, locate
tubing or casing leaks, determine the depth of contact
between different fluids, and determine fluid holdups.
Hydro Logs
The hydro tool is sensitive to the dielectric constant of
fluid mixtures in the wellbore, which enables it to detect
water and hydrocarbons. The sensor section of the hydro
tool consists of two concentric plates. The annular area is
designed to minimize effects of fluid flow and its charac-
teristics. As fluids with differing dielectric constants pass
through the annular area, the probe capacitance changes,
subsequently changing the output frequency of the tool’s
oscillator circuit. The response is sensitive to the pres-
ence and amount of water in the flowstream because of
the considerable difference between the dielectric
constants of water (80) and hydrocarbons (2 to 4). The
tool allows users to determine hydrocarbon-water ratios,
fluid holdups, and fluid entry.
Gas Holdup Tool (GHT)
The gas holdup tool is a 1 11/16-in. OD production logging
tool that measures the volumetric fraction of gas in any
cased or screened wellbore. The fullbore measurement is
based on the combined effects of back scattering and
photoelectric absorption. The GHT employs a low-energy
cobalt-57 source and a scintillation detector to measure
the gas fraction in the annulus between the tool and the
casing. Gamma rays are radiated through the low-energy
(titanium) housing, and are backscattered from the fluid
in the annulus, then counted by the scintillation detector.
The low energy source ensures that the gamma rays are
effectively attenuated through photoelectric absorption by
the casing, which prevents gamma rays that escape the
casing from reentering the cased wellbore and influencing
the measurement.
Because count rates are not directly related to only the
density of the fluid, the GHT may not be used as a fluid
density tool. In many instances, the GHT may obviate the
need for the center-sample radioactive fluid-density tool,
because the GHT obtains gas holdup directly.
Testing Methods and Equipment 3-41
CONFORMANCE TECHNOLOGY
The conventional center-sample radioactive fluid-density
tool employs a cesium-137 source and a Geiger-Mueller
counter to measure the attenuation of the gamma rays in
the volume between the source and the detector, a
measurement that may not be representative of the entire
well cross-section. This limitation could lead to measure-
ment inaccuracies, particularly in deviated and horizontal
wells, where stratified flows are common.
The GHT has a gas holdup accuracy of 3% and a resolu-
tion of 1% in two-phase flow, given the pressure and
temperature as an input. It has a vertical resolution of
approximately 1 ½ in.
Another feature of the GHT is its insensitivity to the well-
flow regime. The tool makes an accurate gas holdup
measurement, regardless of how the gas is mixed with
wellbore fluids. For a given fractional volume of gas,
approximately the same fraction is measured whether the
gas bubbles are floating on top of the liquid phase or are
more uniformly mixed. This characteristic makes mixing
fluids unnecessary and provides a more accurate mea-
surement independent of the well conditions. This
insensitivity to well flow patterns is especially important
because exploitation of a reservoir requires recognition of
the gas and its entry points.
Two holdup devices are required to obtain the informa-
tion necessary for three-phase flow calculations. The
fluid density tool is normally used in conjunction with
the capacitance tool to calculate holdups for each phase.
The example logs in Figures 3.26 (Page 3-43) and 3.27
(Page 3-44) will show that capacitance tools are inaccu-
rate during high water holdup, which causes short-
circuiting between the measurement plates. The new
technique capitalizes on the capability of the gas holdup
tool to determine the gas holdup, independent of fluid
density. Once the gas holdup is determined, a gas-free
fluid density can be calculated, leading to determination
of the water and oil holdups. This technique, using GHT
and fluid-density sensors only, has been successfully
used on several wells throughout the world, providing
calculated surface production rates that agree with
actual production rates.
Below XX900, the raw data log (Figure 3.26, Page 3-43)
shows that the hydro (capacitance) tool is short-circuited,
and offers only a straight-lined reading. The FDEN shows
3-42 Testing Methods and Equipment
HOME
a small degree of activity, while the GHT shows more
activity than the other tools. Very little gas production is
seen below XX850. Above XX850, the logs show gas
and fluid entry in both the raw data log (Figure 3.26) and
the computed log (Figure 3.27). The computed analysis
log shows that a consistent bubble flow regime is present,
composed of oil and water.
The temperature deflection at XX840 shows a heating
anomaly, indicative of fluid entry, as confirmed by
increased spinner rates. The raw data shows that the well
has not been stabilized, as indicated at approximately
XX840. Here, the curves from each of the three tools
(FDEN, HYDRO, and GHTCO) diverge between
different passes, showing a different depth for the fluid-
entry zone with each logging pass.
GHT-computed analysis uses PVT correlations to
accurately calculate volumes of free gas and solution gas
for the total gas flow-rate analysis. The Gas Flow Rates
track displays free gas in solid red, while using pink
bubbles to show solution gas. Computer analysis empha-
sizes the difference in interpretation of data gained by
center-sample tools versus the fullbore GHT.
Gas entry is indicated on the raw data log from XX788 to
XX795 by a slight temperature decrease accompanied by
increased spinner rate. With typical center-sample tools
(fluid density and hydro), the major oil/gas entry point at
depth X788 to X795 could easily be misdiagnosed as a
major gas/water entry point. The Fluid Density/Hydro
analysis indicates an increasing water and gas flow rate at
X788, as indicated on the computer analysis (Figure 3.27,
Page 3-44) by an increase in the QLIQN curve, which
shows the water production rate. However, the Fluid Flow
Rates track, which uses GHT and Fluid Density readings,
shows a consistent QLIQ (water production rate curve),
thereby indicating no water entry. Instead, it actually
indicates increased oil production.
This example highlights some of the problems faced in
conformance work. Conformance treatments may be
deemed a failure due to continued fluid production. In
reality the problem could be misdiagnosing of the
conformance problem and an incorrect solution being
applied to the reservoir or well.
Chapter 3
 DN001131

Figure 3.26—PL raw data with GHT. Zones 1,3,5, indicate that the hydro is inactive, due to the high water
holdup. Zone 9 shows that all three sensors are now working properly.

Chapter 3 Testing Methods and Equipment 3-43

HOME
CONFORMANCE TECHNOLOGY

DN001132

Figure 3.27—Interpretation of the raw data of Figure 3.26. The interpretation on the left uses the GHT/fluid
density, and the one on the right uses the hydro/fluid density combination. The hydro/fluid density combo
indicates water entry from Zone 8 while the GHT/fluid density combination indicates that the water is entering
from Zone 6.

3-44 Testing Methods and Equipment Chapter 3

HOME
Capacitance Array Tool and FloImager Applications
The Capacitance Array Tool (CAT™) greatly enhances
the ability to gather reliable holdup data (gas, oil and
water) in highly deviated and horizontal wells. This
application is extremely useful in highly deviated and
horizontal wells with multiphase flow. Applications for
detecting three-phase fluid entry can be performed at any
angle. Combined with the FloImager and FloImager3D
software packages, this service provides the highest
resolution three-phase fluid entry detection and flow
image at a broad range of well angles.
This is the latest advancement in the production monitor-
ing capabilities that Halliburton provides. Using data
from the CAT, FloImager identifies fluid entry and fluid
distribution in a borehole cross-section and reliably
calculates water holdup in horizontal, highly deviated,
and undulated wells.
FloImager uses data from the CAT, which consists of an
array of 12 micro-capacitance sensors that are radially
distributed in the wellbore to accurately measure fluid
holdup. Because this holdup measurement is fullbore,
tool position does not affect the readings in horizontal
wells as compared to a center-sample device. The arms
are retracted going downhole, then extended when
logging up, and the process is repeated as often as
necessary. Readings are taken with the tool stationary at
any depth or with continuous up-logs. It can be run in
combination with Reservoir Monitoring tools and other
conventional production logging sensors.
FloImager improves interpretation of the flow patterns in
all wells due to the increased number of sensors at the
same depth. Since the relative position of the CAT is
known at all times, the images and logs are corrected to
the high side of the hole, allowing accurate holdups to be
determined.
CAT and the FloImager software offer the following
benefits:
• FloImager provides more value because it reduces
client operating expenses by increasing confidence in
well problem diagnostics.
• Excellent wellbore coverage with array of 12
sensors allows superior data and improved flow
characterization.
• FloImager provides continuous holdup curves, fluid
distribution mapping, and a view of the fluid distri-
bution in cross-section.
Chapter 3
HOME
• FloImager can obtain reliable holdup measurements
and high resolution fluid entry detection, location
and orientation in deviated and horizontal wells
• FloImager can obtain fluid-phase distribution maps
from 12 sensors in a cross section and enable quality
and speedy decision making.
A multitude of applications exist for the FloImager and
FloImager3D. In addition to measuring fluid holdup, the
FloImager can be used to detect water entry and its
orientation relative to high side of pipe at any well
deviation. FloImager can successfully show three-phase
fluid segregation since each fluid has its own log re-
sponse. FloImager provides an accurate visualization of
the undulating horizontal wellbore when TVD data is
combined with the CAT data. Combining the calculated
fluid holdup with additional PL sensors allow an accurate
and complete three-phase analysis.
Figure 3.28 (Page 3-46) is an example log of the CAT
data and FloImager software. This well is a horizontal
well that produces approximately 30 Mscf/day gas, 300
STB/day oil and 12 bbl/day water.
• Track 1 provides correlation data gamma ray (GR),
pressure (P), temperature (T), spinner rate (SR),
cable speed (CS), and relative bearing (RB).
• Track 2 is the horizontal image generated in
FloImager. This image is corrected for relative
bearing so that the high side of the hole is on the left
and right while the low side is in the middle. The
white curve shows the low side or center of the
image. The spectrum grades from blue (water), to
green (oil) to gas (red), so naturally the lighter
phases should be on the upper side of the wellbore.
• Track 3 is holdup data from the three tools run in this
well. The fluid density and hydro are center-sample
devices while the ACAPN is the average of the 12
sensors from the CAT. Notice how tool position
affects the readings especially around X418-X430
and X454-X468.
• Track 4 is the vertical image generated from the
FloImager software. Because relative bearing is
recorded, determining each sensor position relative
to the vertical plane is possible. The image from left
to right is going from low side to high side of the
hole. The yellow curve is the calculated water
holdup while the black curve is the calculated gas
holdup. Again, the white line shows the vertical
center of the image.
Testing Methods and Equipment 3-45
CONFORMANCE TECHNOLOGY

DN001133

Figure 3.28—FloImager presentation of an horizontal well. This shows the ability of the CAT tool to locate
entry points of the wellbore fluids.

3-46 Testing Methods and Equipment Chapter 3

HOME
• Track 5 is the calculated holdup from the FloImager
software. This holdup is determined by the vertical
position of each sensor and is not just a straight
average of the sensor response.
FloImager3D allows the user to view, rotate, and manipu-
late the CAT data to understand the flow patterns and
character of the well.
FloImager3D allows complete a complete picture or
profile of the downhole holdup pattern. FloImager3D
allows the user to view, rotate, and manipulate the CAT
data to understand the flow patterns and character of the
well. Since the sensors are normalized in FloImager, the
same color pallet can be used for each sensor providing a
precise image. FloImager3D provides a superior technique
to both calculating and displaying multiphase holdup.
Because the CAT records both sensor data and relative
bearing, the resultant logs can be corrected to the high side
of the hole, allowing accurate visualization of the fluid
segregation. However, because this segregation depends
upon total fluid flow, each sensor has the capability to
measure phase holdups of gas, oil, and water. Both
FloImager3D and FloImager have several options to
calculate total holdup of the wellbore, allowing the user to
determine the best possible solution to this complicated
issue. The final holdup then can be used in the PLA
programs to help determine both the downhole and surface
flow rates for each phase. Although the 3D imaging
Figure 3.29—Cross-sectional display showing depth and holdup calculation from the log in Figure 3.28.
Chapter 3
HOME
capabilities of FloImager are difficult to show in a two
dimensional figure, one of the outputs is the cross-sectional
display shown in Figure 3.29. This correlates to the depths
A425 and B523 shown in Figure 3.25.
Flowmeter Logs
Continuous, fullbore, and basket flowmeter tools accu-
rately measure velocity and direction of flow in the
wellbore.
The continuous flowmeter consists of an impeller mounted
on sapphire jewels and surrounded by a cage that is
mounted on the bottom of the logging tool. The sapphire
jewel mountings of the impeller minimize friction,
allowing the tool to make accurate low-velocity measure-
ments. The impeller turns at a rate proportional to the
speed of the borehole fluid in the center of the pipe.
The fullbore flowmeter consists of multibladed spinners
that extend in casing to encompass the entire wellbore.
This tool is designed for specific casing sizes and must be
chosen accordingly. The design allows for fluid-velocity
measurement across the entire wellbore and is efficient in
both deviated and low-velocity wells.
The basket flowmeter is a stationary measurement tool
that funnels the wellbore fluids to a small spinner. This
tool is designed for deviated wells and segregated flow.
The maximum flow rate for this tool is approximately
2,000 B/D.
DN001134
Testing Methods and Equipment 3-47
CONFORMANCE TECHNOLOGY
Pressure Logs
Pressure tools continuously measure pressure in the
borehole. Two types of tools are available: the strain-
gauge pressure tool (SPT) and the quartz pressure tool
(QPT). The SPT uses a strain gauge to measure the
downhole pressure, and the tool is designed to minimize
the effects of temperature. The QPT uses quartz sensors
specifically designed for gas and oil wells. The rugged
quartz sensors have high-resolution measuring capabili-
ties. A temperature sensor built into the quartz sensor
section accurately compensates for temperature effects.
Temperature Logs
Temperature logging tools continuously measure tem-
perature in the borehole and can detect liquid or gas
movement behind pipe. A highly sensitive resistance
thermometer in the tool provides reliable temperature
measurements.
Since the temperature tool detects changes in borehole
temperature, it can locate cement tops and gas-entry
points. When it is near curing cement, the tool senses the
increased temperature caused by the heat of hydration. At
gas-entry points, the tool detects reduced temperatures
caused by the gas expanding as it enters the wellbore.
Depending on the temperature of fluid entering the
wellbore, the tool may be capable of indicating whether the
fluid is from the adjacent formation or if it has channeled
from above or below. A temperature that is cooler than
expected may indicate channeling from a cooler formation,
which is normally higher in the wellbore. Similarly, a
temperature that is warmer than expected can indicate a
channel from below the formation.
Temperature abnormalities can also indicate possible flow
behind casing or tubing. These abnormalities are high-
lighted when the temperature gradient is compared to the
normal temperature gradient that was observed with the
well shutin. Increased temperatures indicate flow from
below the formation. Reduced temperatures indicate either
flow from above the formation or the presence of gas.
Examples
Well 1
Well 1 was a gas-production well with high water produc-
tion. This well was logged with fluid-density, temperature,
pressure, and spinner tools that provided information for
the production logging analysis (PLA) program.
3-48 Testing Methods and Equipment
HOME
The fluid-density log indicates the type of fluid present.
Figure 3.30 (Page 3-49) consists of the fluid-density log, a
wellbore schematic, and temperature, gamma, and collar
logs. Below X077 ft, the fluid density read 1.03 g/cm3,
indicating that the wellbore fluid was all water. From X073
to X077 ft, the density decreased to 0.73 g/cm3, which
indicated gas production. Between the perforation depths
of X055 to X060 ft, the fluid density again decreased from
0.73 g/cm3 to 0.62 g/cm3, suggesting additional gas
production.
Figure 3.31 (Page 3-50) presents the temperature
information in the forms of amplified and differential
temperature logs. The amplified temperature log is the
temperature log presented with a more sensitive scale that
allows analysts to identify minute differences. At X100 ft,
the amplified temperature log shows a warming anomaly,
which indicates that liquids are entering the wellbore.
Temperature decreases indicate gas entry caused by the
gas expansion. According to the amplified temperature
log, gas is entering the wellbore at X090 and X060 ft.
The differential temperature is the difference between two
temperature measurements at a set interval. The differential
temperature log showed differences in the geothermal
gradient, providing an excellent indicator of fluid move-
ment. The differential temperature log indicates a normal
geothermal gradient below X105 ft. Between X105 and
X091 ft, the log becomes negative, which indicates that
liquid is entering the wellbore. At the depth of X090 ft, the
differential temperature becomes positive, which suggests
the cooling temperatures that indicate gas entry.
By overlaying the fluid-density and temperature logs,
analysts can determine additional information. For
example, in Figure 3.32 (Page 3-51) the density log by
itself does not indicate fluid movement at X100 ft. The
temperature log, however, indicates water production.
Multiple sensors provide additional valuable information
for analysts to determine downhole performance.
Production logging analysis uses the available data to
provide the answers shown in Figure 3.33 (Page 3-52).
The fluid density is used to calculate holdup, the area of
the pipe occupied by the phase. Below the bottom set of
perforations, the wellbore is completely filled with water.
Above the top set of perforations, the pipe contains 60%
water and 40% gas.
Chapter 3
 DN000856

Figure 3.30—Fluid-density log with a wellbore schematic and temperature, gamma, and collar logs.

Chapter 3 Testing Methods and Equipment 3-49

HOME
CONFORMANCE TECHNOLOGY

DN000857

Figure 3.31—Temperature information in the forms of amplified and differential temperature logs.

3-50 Testing Methods and Equipment Chapter 3

HOME
 DN000858

Figure 3.32—Combination of fluid-density and temperature logs.

Chapter 3 Testing Methods and Equipment 3-51

HOME
CONFORMANCE TECHNOLOGY

DN000859

Figure 3.33—Production log anaylsis (PLA).

3-52 Testing Methods and Equipment Chapter 3

HOME
The flow rates at surface conditions show water produc-
tion of 475 STB/D and gas production of 450 Mscf/D.
Further analysis of the data indicates that from X094
and X103 ft, more than 250 STB/D of water is being
produced. Therefore, a treatment in this zone would
eliminate most of the water without significantly
reducing gas production.
Well 2
Well 2 was a producing well that had a three-phase flow
of gas, oil, and water. For proper analysis, operators ran
fluid-density and Hydro tools on the well to calculate
fluid holdups. They also used a continuous spinner to
determine fluid velocity and temperature and pressure
tools to calculate reservoir properties.
Fluid-density and hydro tools must both be run when
three-phase flow occurs below the bubble point. Figure
3.34 (Page 3-54) shows the data from these tools. Below
X700 ft, both holdup tools indicate only water in the
wellbore. At X697 ft, the decreased fluid density and the
increased hydro count rate indicate hydrocarbons entering
the wellbore. Since the fluid-density measurement is
0.62 g/cm3, the hydrocarbons are probably primarily gas.
A slight decrease in the hydro count above the top set of
perforations at X640 ft indicates that either water or oil is
entering from those perforations.
Figure 3.35 (Page 3-55) presents the raw spinner data
and the cable logging speed. Negative cable speeds
indicate that the tool is logging up the hole; positive cable
speeds indicate that the tool is logging down. Higher
spinner count rates should occur when the tool is logged
against flow, as shown in Figure 3.35. Analysts examine
data from multiple passes of the tool to calculate fluid
velocities, which they use to determine flow rates. By
studying the raw data, analysts can determine where fluid
is entering the wellbore. Below X721 ft, the spinners
show very little change, suggesting that no flow exists.
Between X718 and X721 ft, and again between X692 and
X698 ft, the large changes in spinner response indicate
fluid entry. The other regions show very little change in
spinner response, indicating neither production nor loss
of fluids.
Figure 3.36 (Page 3-56) provides the PLA analysis of the
logging data. Again, the holdups are calculated from the
fluid-density and hydro data. The data show 100% water
below the bottom set of perforations and about 45%
water, 15% oil, and 40% gas above the perforations.
The flow rates indicate the surface production of each
Chapter 3
HOME
phase (2,000 STB/D of water, 500 STB/D of oil, and 900
Mscf/D of gas). Zonal analysis of the well indicates that
most of the water comes from the bottom perforated
interval, with smaller amounts produced uphole. Gas is
being produced primarily from the second perforated
interval, while oil is produced almost equally from the
upper two zones. Therefore, treatments on the lower zone
would likely decrease the amount of water production
without adversely affecting hydrocarbon rates.
Downhole Video Services
Real-time downhole video services allow analysts to
(1) identify wellbore problems, (2) plan reservoir and
wellbore treatments, (3) monitor well treatments while
in progress, and (4) confirm post-treatment of well
conditions. The video images permit viewers to
determine exactly where reservoir fluids and particu-
late matter enter the wellbore. The images also reveal
fluid turbulence and flow direction to help viewers
identify fluid migration through the wellbore and into
thief formations.
When used with other reservoir analysis tools, downhole
video visually confirms analysis models about reservoir
behavior. It can also reveal low-volume fluid entry that
conventional well-data acquisition methods may not
normally detect.
Application in Oilwell Environments
A common misconception is that oil entry into a wellbore
causes turbulent fluid mixing, resulting in the formation
of opaque emulsions. In reality, at low to moderate flow
rates, crude oil generally enters into the wellbore as
amorphous bubbles of oil that float through standing
water to the water/oil interface. This reaction results in a
“lava-lamp” effect, where the fluids remain distinct and
separate rather than being mixed in an emulsion. The
resulting medium has proven to be very adequate for the
use of video; in fact, the possibility of the camera flowing
up the well is more likely to constrain the use of video
than the degree of fluid emulsification.
Video services are also effective in low water-cut oil
wells. Sometimes a low water-cut oil well is assumed to
have a proportionately low percentage of water in the
wellbore. If this assumption were true, video service
could be performed in an oil well only after the well was
shut in and the target viewing interval was displaced with
a clear fluid.
Testing Methods and Equipment 3-53
CONFORMANCE TECHNOLOGY

DN000860

Figure 3.34—Fluid-density and hydro tool data.

3-54 Testing Methods and Equipment Chapter 3

HOME
 DN000861

Figure 3.35—Flowmeter with raw spinner data and cable logging speed.

Chapter 3 Testing Methods and Equipment 3-55

HOME
CONFORMANCE TECHNOLOGY

DN000862

Figure 3.36—PLA analysis of logging data.

3-56 Testing Methods and Equipment Chapter 3

HOME
Actually, the water-oil ratio in the well can be much
greater than the water-oil ratio produced because the oil
tends to flow to the surface more readily than water. The
oil bubbles travel to the top, where they are produced,
while the water ascends more slowly. As a result, a high
percentage of water may appear to be standing in the
wellbore. This water provides an excellent medium for
the video system to monitor the flow activity in the well.
Video services have been effective in wells producing as
little as 7% water cut.
Detection of Fluid and Particulate Entry
Oil can bubble into the wellbore gradually without
significantly disrupting the well fluids. As a result, oil entry
can be difficult or impossible to detect if the perforation
interval cannot be visually observed. If the oil gradually
enters the wellbore over a significant length of perforated
casing, much of the perforated interval actually producing
the oil can be mistakenly assumed to be nonproductive. By
monitoring the perforated interval with a downhole video
camera, viewers can easily determine where oil is entering
the wellbore. In Figure 3.37, oil is identified as black
bubbles rising through standing water.
Gas entry into the wellbore is usually more turbulent.
Depending on the velocity and condensate content of the
gas, gas entry may appear as a spray of bubbles, a smoke-
like jet or plume, or waves of distortion in otherwise clear
fluid. If the turbulence is strong enough, the fluids can
become locally stirred so that any bubbles of oil could
mix with the water to cause a semitransparent or opaque
emulsion. The emulsion will generally be isolated to the
turbulent-flow area. Above the turbulence, the fluids tend
to separate.
DN001141
Figure 3.37—Downhole video camera picture.
Chapter 3
HOME
In localized areas of emulsion, operators can detect fluid
entry by observing the motion of particulate matter that is
suspended in the fluid. Fluid entry is detected as the
particulate matter moves sideways or in circular eddies in
response to a sideways flow disturbance.
Oil entry into an existing emulsion is more difficult to
detect if the oil is bubbling in at a low rate. Although the
dark oil bubbles themselves are easy to identify, their
source can be more difficult to determine. If the well is
shut in for a short time, the emulsion should stratify into
components, allowing the targeted viewing interval to
clear. Alternatively, well fluids can be displaced to shift
clear fluids into the targeted viewing interval. Once clear
fluids are established in the target viewing area, the well
can be allowed to flow, permitting viewers to observe
fluid entry before emulsification occurs.
The entry of sand and particulate matter into the wellbore
is easily recognizable and helps trace the entry and
movement of clear fluids, such as water. Similarly,
changes in the movement of falling sand and suspended
matter near fluid entry points can signal entry of clear
fluids into the wellbore.
Viewers can further track the motion of clear fluids in the
wellbore by monitoring the motion of flexible members,
such as a piece of string fastened in front of the camera.
In injection wells, operators can use dyes to locate fluid
entry points in the producing wells and to better under-
stand the water migration patterns between the injection
and producing wells.
Logging
Wells are generally shut in for 24 hours before a video log
is run so that any opaque fluids can separate into distinct
fluid layers. This shut-in increases the probability of water
or clear liquid existing in the interval of most interest. If
opaque fluid is located in the interval targeted for viewing,
the fluid in the wall may have to be partially displaced with
filtered water, brine, production gas, or some other clear
fluid to provide a clear viewing medium. Frequently, the
opaque fluid layer is above the interval of interest.
To begin video logging, operators run the downhole
video camera on cable or coiled tubing to the lowest
point in the well. If necessary, the well can be brought on
at this point as the camera ascends. The entry of fluids
and solids can be observed as the camera passes perfora-
tions or other fluid entry locations.
Testing Methods and Equipment 3-57
CONFORMANCE TECHNOLOGY
Depth and temperature displays are superimposed on the
video monitor during video operations so that the viewer
can correlate the observed well features and conditions to
the well tally.
Problem Identification and Remedial Treat-
ment Planning
Because so many effective conformance control methods
are available, engineers must thoroughly understand the
exact nature of fluid entry to determine the target treat-
ment area and select the best treatment. Downhole video
services reveal wellbore conditions and help viewers
pinpoint locations requiring treatment.
In-Progress Monitoring
If the treatment medium is relatively clear and the
physical operating limits of the camera and cable are not
exceeded, video can successfully monitor well and
reservoir treatments. For example, operators could use
downhole video cameras during a fracturing job to verify
the location of the proppant.
Post-Treatment Confirmation
After a reservoir or wellbore treatment, a video run can
confirm that the treatment accomplished the intended
result. By using video to confirm treatment conditions,
the viewer can learn more about treatment effectiveness.
Operating Limits
Clear Fluid Medium
Video service requires a relatively clear fluid medium in
the viewing area. Most wells, however, have enough
standing water or gas to accommodate video. When
opaque fluids, such as crude oil and mud, are displaced,
the video camera can clearly show the target areas of the
well. Coiled tubing can also be used to displace the local
target interval without displacing the entire well.
Pressure and Temperature
The camera, cable system, and all wetted components are
designed for operation at 10,000 psi and 225°F. Video
logging has been successfully performed at temperatures
greater than 250°F, although the picture quality was
compromised. All components exposed to well tempera-
tures can withstand temperatures over 250°F without
permanent damage.
3-58 Testing Methods and Equipment
HOME
Depth
The maximum operating depth for the cable-deployed
system is 17,000 ft. This depth can be achieved because
the 7/32- or 1/4-in. diameter cable permits the camera
assemblies to be run against pressure without the need for
weight bars.
When it is deployed on coiled tubing, the video system
maximum depth depends on the coiled-tubing system depth
capability. Coiled tubing deployment provides two advan-
tages over cable: (1) it allows operators to use downhole
video services in deviated wells, and (2) operators can pump
nitrogen through it to bring on the well during video
operations.
Regardless of depth, the picture quality remains excep-
tional because the video images are transmitted through a
fiber optic member to the surface. The cable assembly
also contains electrical conductor wires to power the
camera and lights.
Chemical Resistance
The cable armor design is similar to electric conductor
line because both are resistant to wear and chemicals.
Special polishes with surfactant wetting agents are used
on the camera lens and light sources to cause oil bubbles
to slide off without leaving an opaque film, and chemical-
resistant coatings and treatments for the cable are
available for special applications.
Other Applications
In addition to conformance control, downhole video can
also be used for the following applications:
• Inspecting casing, tubing, and downhole equipment
• Performing corrosion surveys
• Detecting fractures and their orientation
• Verifying well treatments and other service operations
• Locating and identifying fish
• Performing well-appraisal analysis
Chapter 3
Conclusions
The examples of logging tools and computer software
show how conformance problems can be properly
diagnosed. Conformance treatments not properly chosen
for the well or reservoir conditions fail. Correct inter-
pretation of the downhole environment can remove
errors in the treatment of the conformance problem. In
this vein, a composite log called ConformXpert was
developed to highlight the entire well from openhole
images to casing/cement evaluation to reservoir moni-
toring. Lack of a cement evaluation log could be
significant if a water-bearing zone is nearby, so proper
analysis of the entire system could justify acquisition
costs. Figure 3.38 (Page 3-60) provides an example of
the ConformXpert presentation:
• The depth track shows a pay flag generated from the
openhole logs along with a zonal number used in the
production logging analysis.
• Track 1 provides an amplitude image from the
CAST-V of the openhole section. This will highlight
rock textures, fractures, and other reservoir features
that could influence conformance applications.
• Track 2 is a standard volumetric analysis of the
openhole logs. Rock types and lithologies could also
determine the proper conformance treatment applied.
• Track 3 provides comparisons of the initial openhole
water saturation and later reservoir monitoring water
saturation. If the zones are adequately swept, the best
treatment may be abandonment of the zone.
Chapter 3
HOME
• Track 4 consists of the openhole fluid analysis. This
will highlight water vs. producing zones.
• Track 5 consists of the openhole permeability
calculations. This will highlight zones or formations
that might have a premature water breakthrough
either through water flooding or natural water drives.
• Track 6 provides a typical CBL log that shows the
condition of the cement sheath. This will allow
operators to determine whether zonal isolation is the
conformance problem.
• Track 7 consists of the CAST-V cement image
providing detail about the cement-to-casing bond.
The Tracks 6 and 7 when examined together provide
accurate information regarding the zonal isolation of
the well.
• Track 8 is the pipe inspection data from the CAST-V.
If casing damage is present, the conformance
treatment could be simple or complex, depending on
the type and cause of the damage.
• Track 9 provides production logging data. This
shows the what and where of fluid production.
Reservoir conditions can be more accurately determined
through the use of tracers, logging tools, and downhole
video. Once conditions are known, design teams can use
computer programs to identify conformance problems
and recommend effective treatments. Chapter 4 provides
information regarding Halliburton’s XERO Water-
Control Expert System.
Testing Methods and Equipment 3-59
CONFORMANCE TECHNOLOGY

DN001135

Figure 3.38—ConformXpert log combines all the available well log data into one easy to use image. Missing
segments are shown to allow determination of the proper conformance treatment. Further data acquisition
could make the correct conformance treatment selection easier and the treatment results could be excellent.

3-60 Testing Methods and Equipment Chapter 3

HOME

Introduction
This chapter describes two software
packages recommended for conform-
ance solutions—the QuikLook
simulator and the XERO water control
expert system. The QuikLook
simulator can be used to design a
conformance treatment, while the
XERO system is used to help diag-
nose problems from a production
profile. The QuikLook simulator
section of this chapter includes basic
background, features, and testing of
the simulator. To learn how to run the
simulator, refer to the QuikLook
software user manual.
QuikLook Simulator
The QuikLook simulator is a new tool
primarily intended for reservoir fluid
management. It is the first simulator
designed specifically for conformance
applications and for use by practicing
engineers. QuikLook is a “black-oil”
three-dimensional, three-phase, four-
component, non-isothermal reservoir
simulator that numerically solves the
differential equations for multidimen-
sional fluid and heat flow through a
porous medium.
The simulator is used to optimize the
design of a conformance treatment
and to evaluate the efficiency of the
conformance solution. Specifically,
the simulator can be used to help
perform the following tasks:
• Predict the effect of a conform-
ance treatment on reservoir
performance
• Forecast results of treatments
applied to complex reservoirs
and/or complex wells
Chapter 4
Chapter 4
• Reduce economic operational
risk by employing better candi- Computer
date selection
• Achieve a better understanding
Programs
of reservoir mechanics
• Reduce cycle time by shortening
the decision-making process
• Optimize the design of a con-
formance treatment to maximize
value to customers
• Investigate new placement
techniques
• Train engineers in conformance
technology
The QuikLook simulator has a user-
friendly graphical user interface
(GUI) that allows users to enter data,
launch the simulation, monitor the
simulation run, and analyze the
results. It also provides a convenient
way to enter the complex data
required for numerical simulation
with the help of interactive graphics,
consistency checks, supplemental
plots, and other simple tools.
Several important features make the
QuikLook simulator especially
valuable for helping solve conform-
ance problems. These features do not
usually exist in conventional black-
oil simulators.
• In addition to numerically
solving the partial differential
equations that govern 3-D flow
of oil, gas, water, and the
conformance fluid, QuikLook
also numerically solves the
energy balance (heat flow)
equation. This feature is critical
Computer Programs 4-1
HOME
CONFORMANCE TECHNOLOGY

to conformance applications in
two respects: (1) simulating the
injection of conformance
material into a formation that
may have been cooled down by
circulation and (2) in calculating
and understanding the process of
polymer gelation as a function of
time and temperature.
• In addition to calculating the
flow of oil, gas, and water,
QuikLook contains a fourth
phase that represents the
injection and flow of the
conformance fluid. This phase
enables the software to track the
location of the conformance

fluid, leading to significantly
better solutions and predictions
of reservoir performance than
the conventional black-oil
simulators. This option also
allows the user to modify the
placement technique to maxi-
mize the return and benefit of
the conformance treatment.
• QuikLook simulates the con-
formance fluid rheology and
polymer thickening (gelation)
with time and temperature.
• Several Halliburton conformance
fluids are built in to QuikLook,
eliminating the need to enter the
properties of those fluids.
• QuikLook is linked to the
WELLCAT wellbore simulator.
• QuikLook is designed to have a
user-friendly GUI.
QuikLook capabilities are accessed
through its GUI (Figure 4.1), into
which all data are entered. The GUI
controls the processing of the data by
QuikLook and WELLCAT software
packages. The QuikLook solver and
WELLCAT model are completely
integrated to simulate a flow of fluids
in the wellbore and the reservoir.
Figure 4.1–QuikLook Graphical User Interface
WELLCAT can be turned off so that
wellbore calculations cannot be
made. When WELLCAT is turned
off, the data assumes no change in
temperatures, pressures, and compo-
sitions of fluids traveling from the
surface to the bottom of the hole or
vice versa.
Purpose and Philosophy
of QuikLook
The main purpose of QuikLook is to
provide Halliburton Engineers with a
software tool designed to investigate
the feasibility of applying a
Halliburton proprietary conformance
treatment to oil or gas wells that
exhibit conformance problems. The
software simulates the application of
conformance treatments for a given
situation and provides guidance for
choosing among options for conform-
ance fluids and treatment design. The
program is designed to enable the
user to identify a problem, quickly
investigate the effects of various
DN002238
remedies, and choose an optimal
treatment. The effect investigated
here is in terms of reservoir response
(rate and total production). QuikLook
is designed to help engineers estimate
the value of a project as illustrated in
Figure 4.2 (Page 4-3).
The basic philosophy behind the
simulator is to sacrifice some of the
accuracy to gain speed in both
simulation and turnaround rate. The
goal is to achieve at least 85%
accuracy but reduce the turnaround
rate to four hours or less. However,
the user should recognize that some of
the features incorporated in QuikLook
are truly unique and do not exist in the
commercially available simulators.
Some of these features include the
heat flow, a fourth component, and the
linkage with a wellbore simulator.
With the addition of these features, it
may be argued that the QuikLook
results may be more accurate than the
results from a conventional simulator.

4-2 Computer Programs Chapter 4

HOME

Figure 4.2—QuikLook conformance solution process
QuikLook Theory
QuikLook is a sophisticated numeri-
cal simulator. Like all numerical
simulators, QuikLook solves a set of
differential equations that describe
flow of fluids and heat through a
wellbore and porous media. These
equations are solved by first convert-
ing the differential equations into a
set of difference equations for each
cell in the reservoir. The difference
equations would form a set of linear
algebraic equations. This set of
equations is solved numerically using
matrix solution techniques. Descrip-
tions of how the difference equations
are formulated and solved are
provided in other literature.1,2
Chapter 4
DN002239
Conformance Fluids
Modeled by QuikLook
The chemical sealants that are used
for conformance are normally
designed to be placed at a low
viscosity and react in situ to form a
more viscous (usually highly
crosslinked) gel. In the QuikLook
simulator, conformance fluids are
assumed to consist of a monomer and
an activator that catalyzes the
conversion of the monomer to a
gelled or partially gelled polymer.
The following Halliburton conform-
ance fluids are built into QuikLook:
• H2Zero
• Injectrol
• PermSeal
• PermTrol
HOME
Some of these general types of
conformance fluids include sub-types
that differ by the type of activator
used. Chapter 5 of this book provides
a detailed discussion of these fluids.
WELLCAT Software
WELLCAT is a Landmark Graphics
software package that includes
several modules that can model a
variety of wellbore applications. Only
the WS-PROD module is used in the
QuikLook simulator. The WS-PROD
module simulates fluid flow and heat
transfer in wellbores during comple-
tion, production, stimulation, testing,
and well-servicing operations. It
handles both steady state and
transient single and multiphase flow.
The WS-PROD module of
WELLCAT software is used to
calculate pressure and temperature
profiles in a wellbore for both
flowing and shut-in conditions.
The WELLCAT capability in
QuikLook is required to help
determine the true state of the
conformance fluid as it enters the
formation at the bottom of the well.
In practice, conformance fluid
pressure, temperature, and related
properties are measured only at the
surface during treatment. Conform-
ance fluid properties at bottomhole
conditions where fluid goes from the
wellbore into the reservoir and/or
behind casing should be calculated.
These calculations are the main
function of WELLCAT software
within the QuikLook simulator.
Computer Programs 4-3
CONFORMANCE TECHNOLOGY
General Data Requirements
The QuikLook simulator requires the
following basic engineering data:
• Geological reservoir characteris-
tics (e.g. porosity, permeability
and thickness of the producing
formation)
• Rock properties such as relative
permeability and pore volume
compressibility (cr)
• Well drainage radius, current
reservoir pressure, oil-water and
gas-oil contacts
• Fluid properties for the reservoir
fluids (e.g. viscosity, density and
compressibility of the reservoir
oil, gas and water)
• Historical production and
injection data for the well or
wells to be treated (e.g. oil
production rates, pressures)
• Tubular goods configuration
(e.g. casing, tubing, packers) and
completion intervals
The simulator has default values for
certain fluid and rock property data.
In general, these default values will
not be appropriate for all situations,
so at least approximate values for all
of the data should be available. In
addition to the data listed for conven-
tional petroleum reservoir simulation,
QuikLook requires fluid properties of
the conformance fluids.
Validation of the QuikLook
Simulator
This section attempts to validate the
QuikLook simulator by comparing
the output of the simulator to output
from existing commercial simulators.
Two different sets of runs were
implemented. In the first set of
examples, the basic validity of the
simulator was confirmed by compar-
4-4 Computer Programs
ing its results to results reported in
two SPE comparative simulation
studies. In these two studies, the
QuikLook simulator was run as a
conventional black-oil simulator. In
the second set of examples, the
validity of QuikLook as a conform-
ance simulator was investigated using
a commercially available simulator.
Among available simulators, only
STARS and QuikLook could simulate
the performance of a conformance
treatment. The QuikLook simulator
has a distinct advantage of consider-
ing both the wellbore and tempera-
ture effects. However, both simula-
tors have a fourth component to
simulate the presence of a conform-
ance fluid. After the validity of the
simulator was established, the
features specially developed to
simulate conformance studies were
used in a series of runs.
Example 1—First SPE
Comparative study
In an article that was published in
1982,3 seven operating, software and
consulting companies participated in
a study to compare the results of their
Table 4.1–Data and Constraints for Example 1
Initial reservoir pressure (psi)
Depth (ft)
Gas injection rate (MMCF/D)
Maximum oil production rate (STB/D)
Minimum oil rate (STB/D)
Minimum flowing pressure (psi)
Maximum saturation change during
Porosity at 14.7-psi base pressure
Wellbore radius (ft)
Skin factor
Capillary pressure (psi)
Reservoir temperature (°F)
Gas specific gravity
Maximum project time (yr)
Maximum GOR (SCF/STB)
HOME
three-dimensional black-oil simula-
tors. These companies were Amoco,
Exxon, Mobil, Shell, Intercomp
Resource Development, Computer
Modeling Group (CMG), and
Scientific Software Corp.
The reservoir geometry was simple: a
rectangular reservoir consisting of
three layers. Both a producer and a
gas injector are in this reservoir. The
injection well was located in one
corner of the reservoir and completed
in the top layer only, while the
production well was placed in the
opposite corner and perforated in the
bottom layer.
Table 1 lists the reservoir properties
and constraints specified for the
study. PVT data and detailed descrip-
tions of the problem can be found in
Reference 3. This reference also
gives descriptions of the various
models used by the participating
companies. All simulators were 3-D,
three-phase black-oil simulators, and
none of the simulators considered
heat flow.
The 10 × 10 × 3 reservoir grid system
used for this first SPE comparative
study is shown by the areal view in
4,800
8,400
100
20,000
1,000
1,000
0.05
0.3
0.25
0
0
200
0.792
10
20,000
Chapter 4
Figure 4.3. Figure 4.4 shows the
cross-sectional view of the near-
wellbore area of the injector and the
producer.
The QuikLook simulator was run to
simulate the conditions specified in
the article3 and results were compared
to those reported. First the initializa-
tion results (i.e. the calculated fluid in
place from the QuikLook simulator)
were in excellent agreement with the
simulators used in the first SPE
comparative study. Results from this
simulation run are shown in Figures
4.5 through 4.9.
Figure 4.3–Cartesian grid system for SPE Comparative Project 1
Figure 4.4–Cross-sectional view of the near wellbore area of (a) injector and (b) producer
Chapter 4
Figure 4.5 (Page 4-6) presents the oil
production predicted by the various
simulators. All the simulators initially
produce at the maximum allowable
rate of 20,000 STB/D. Production
rate starts declining at the minimum
allowable flowing pressure of 1,000
psi. At this point the simulator
switches to a constant flowing
pressure, allowing the rate to decline.
As Figure 4.5 shows, all simulators
reached this point approximately four
years from the start of production.
They all show decline in productivity
with time reaching a rate of about
DN002240
HOME
6,000 STB/D at about 10 years from
start of production. Although the
QuikLook simulator was not exactly
an average of the simulators, its
response was excellent. It agreed
more with Shell’s simulator.
Figure 4.6 (Page 4-7) shows the how
the gas-oil ratio (GOR) changed with
time. For a little more than three
years the GOR was constant and
equal to the solubility of gas in oil,
indicating that up to that point the
reservoir pressure was above bubble
point pressure. When the flowing
pressure fell below the bubble point
pressure, gas began to come out of
the solution, building up the gas
saturation inside the formation, which
in turn led to the building up of
formation permeability to gas.
This effect is seen in the very fast
increase in GOR. In the QuikLook
simulator, the flowing pressure
reached the bubble point pressure at
about the same time as for most
simulators. In addition, the GOR
profile was comparable to the other
simulators.
DN002241
Computer Programs 4-5
CONFORMANCE TECHNOLOGY

DN002242

Figure 4.5–Oil production ratio vs. time for SPE Comparative Solution 1

4-6 Computer Programs Chapter 4

HOME

Figure 4.6–GOR vs. time for SPE Comparative Solution 1
Figure 4.7 (Page 4-8) provides the
producing pressure vs. time for the
various simulators. Although the
QuikLook simulator reached a little
higher peak at a slightly later time, it
generally agreed with the rest of the
simulators throughout the life of the
project.
Chapter 4
Figure 4.8 (Page 4-8) presents the gas
saturation history at the bottom layer
where the production well is located.
(The simulators are in general
agreement.) Figure 4.9 (Page 4-9)
shows the pressure profile at the
injection well. (The simulators are in
general agreement.) However, similar
HOME
DN002243
to Figure 4.7, the peak pressure
reached by the QuikLook simulator is
a little higher than the rest. These
results could be caused by the
differences in how the individual
simulators handle the wellbore
geometry.
Computer Programs 4-7
CONFORMANCE TECHNOLOGY

DN002244
Figure 4.7–Gridblock 10, 10, 3 pressure vs. time for SPE Comparative Solution 1

DN002245

Figure 4.8–Gridblock 10, 10, 3 gas saturation vs. time for SPE Comparative Solution 1

4-8 Computer Programs Chapter 4

HOME

Figure 4.9–Gridblock 1, 1, 1 pressure vs. time for SPE Comparative Solution 1
Example 2—Second SPE
Comparative Study
In an article that was published in
1986,4 eleven companies partici-
pated in a study to compare the
results of their three-dimensional
black-oil simulators. These
companies were Arco, Chevron,
Gulf, Shell, Intercomp Resource
Development, Scientific Software
Corp, D&S Research and Develop-
ment, Franlab Consultants,
Harwell, McCord Lewis Energy
Services, and J. S. Nolen &
Associates. LGC’s VIP is based on
a simulator developed by J. S.
Nolen, while the QuikLook
simulator is based on a simulator
that was owned by D&S. As in the
Chapter 4
DN002245
case of the first study, many of The given reservoir dimensions
these companies no longer exist. represent a drainage area of approxi-
mately 303 acres, or 3,634 ft ×
The problem submitted to the
3,634 ft square drainage area. The
various companies was essentially a
corresponding drainage area is
water-coning problem. Figure 4.10
shown by the Cartesian grid system
(Page 4-10) shows a cross-section of
in Figure 4.11-a (Page 4-10). Half of
the 15-layer reservoir. Basic reser-
a vertical cross-section along the
voir properties are presented in
gridblocks in which the well is
Table 4.2 (Page 4-10). Detailed
located is presented in Figure 4.11-b
reservoir, fluid, and simulation data
(Page 4-10), showing the location of
are listed in Reference 4.
the perforations.
The problem is obviously artificial in
As in the first study, the initializa-
several aspects.4 The planned
tion results (i.e. calculated the
production rate changes were
amount of fluid in place) from the
unlikely to occur in real situations,
QuikLook simulator agreed with the
and the GOR was very high for the
simulators used in the first SPE
specified oil. This makes the problem
comparative study.
difficult to solve and possibly a better
test for the various simulators.
Computer Programs 4-9
HOME
CONFORMANCE TECHNOLOGY

Production
Well

DEPTH
9000 FT
GOC - 9035
Block (1.7)
Block (1.8) 359 FT
WOC - 9209FT NZ =15

DN002247
rw = 0.25 FT 2050FT
NR = 10

Figure 4.10–Reservoir model for SPE Comparative Solution 2

Table 4.2–Data and Constraints

Initial reservoir pressure (psi) 3,600
Depth (ft) 9,035
Radial extent (ft) 2,050
Number of layers 15
Minimum flowing pressure (psi) 3,000
Wellbore radius (ft) 0.25
Skin factor 0
Capillary pressure (psi) 0

DN002248

Figure 4.11–Cartesian grid system and cross-sectional view of vertical layers

4-10 Computer Programs Chapter 4

HOME
Figure 4.12 presents oil production
rate as a function of time. The
QuikLook simulator is not different
from the rest of the simulators.
Although the predicted the water cut
followed the general trend of the
various simulators (Figure 4.13) its
value was underpredicted by a small
margin. For example, after 400 days
the various simulators predicted a
water cut ranging from 0.335 to 0.36;
the QuikLook simulator predicted a
water-cut of 0.322.
Figure 4.14 (Page 4-12) presents the
GOR vs. time for all the simulators.
Results of the QuikLook simulator
are consistent with the majority of
the simulators. The same observa-
tion applies to the bottomhole
flowing pressure vs. time profile
shown in Figure 4.15 (Page 4-12)
and the pressure drawdown vs. time
in Figure 4.16 (Page 4-13).

DN002249
Figure 4.12–Oil production rate vs. time (SPE Comparative Solution 2)

DN002250

Figure 4.13–Water cut vs. time (SPE Comparative Solution 2)

Chapter 4 Computer Programs 4-11

HOME
CONFORMANCE TECHNOLOGY

DN002251
Figure 4.14–GOR vs. time (SPE Comparative Solution 2)

DN002252

Figure 4.15–Bottomhole pressure vs. time (SPE Comparative Solution 2)

4-12 Computer Programs Chapter 4

HOME

Figure 4.16–Pressure drawdown vs. time (SPE Comparative Solution 2)
QuikLook as a Conform-
ance Simulator
In this section, the capabilities of the
QuikLook simulator as a conformance
simulator are demonstrated. These
capabilities are first matched against
STARS, then examples of QuikLook
used for simulating channeling and
coning problems are illustrated. The
examples demonstrate the use of the
QuikLook engine, thermal model, and
its linkage to WELLCAT for design-
ing and optimizing the size and
placement of a conformance treatment
so that reservoir performance is
maximized.
For this comparison, the following
three specialized data sets were used.
Each data set reflects the application
of sealants for controlling the
production of unwanted water from
both oil and gas reservoirs.
1. Water channeling between
injector/producer in a black-oil
reservoir (PermSeal solution)
Chapter 4
2. Water coning of a single gas
producer (H2Zero and PermSeal
solutions)
3. Water coning of a single oil
producer (PermSeal solution)
Case 1–Water Channeling
in an Injector-Producer
System (PermSeal Solution)
Case 1 is an example of a five-year
production and water injection in a
13-layer black-oil reservoir system.
Figure 4.17 (Page 4-14) shows the 21
× 21 × 13 ft Cartesian grid system,
with the two wells in this reservoir,
and a vertical cross-section across the
wells illustrating the refined grids in
the near-wellbore area.
This reservoir has an impermeable
layer at the middle of the productive
zone (Layer 7), with high-permeabil-
ity layers at the top of this barrier and
low-permeability layers below it. A
cross-sectional view of the produc-
tion and injection intervals is shown
HOME
DN002253
in Figure 4.18-a (Page 4-14). The
treatment interval is shown in Figure
4.18-b (Page 4-14).
This producer was flowed at initial
oil rate of 1,000 STB/D simulta-
neously with water injection in the
injector. The injection pressure was
maintained at a maximum value of
2,000 psia. Oil, gas, and water
production histories are presented in
Figure 4.19 (Page 4-15) and are
compared with STARS results for the
base case using the simulators as
black-oil simulators. The comparison
is excellent.
Additionally, the predicted pres-
sures, both flowing and average
pressure, show a very good match
between the two simulators. Figure
4.20 (Page 4-15), a plot of average
pressure and bottomhole pressure
profiles for both QuikLook and
STARS simulation runs, shows a
very good comparison between
QuikLook and STARS results.
Computer Programs 4-13
CONFORMANCE TECHNOLOGY

DN002254
Figure 4.17–Cartesian grid system used for Case 1 and cross-sectional view across the wells

DN002255

Figure 4.18–Cross-sectional view of (a) producing and injection intervals and (b) treatment interval for Case 1

4-14 Computer Programs Chapter 4

HOME
 DN002256
Figure 4.19–QuikLook and STARS oil, gas, and water production rates (base case)

DN002257

Figure 4.20–QuikLook and STARS average reservoir and bottomhole pressures vs. time (Case 1)

Chapter 4 Computer Programs 4-15

HOME
CONFORMANCE TECHNOLOGY
As expected, a major portion of the
injected water flooded the highly
permeable layers located at the top,
with water breakthrough in this
region occurring about 200 days from
the beginning of production. This
situation is graphically illustrated in
Figure 4.21, which shows very high
water saturation in the high-perme-
ability layers. Figure 4.21 also shows
the water breakthrough at approxi-
mately 200 days as manifested by the
Figure 4.21–2-D QuikLook water saturation profile at water breakthrough
4-16 Computer Programs
jump in water production from
essentially zero to over 400 bbl/D
and remaining almost constant
thereafter. Meanwhile, the layers with
low formation permeability remained
unswept, causing the oil rate to
remain low.
Because the preferred path of the
injected water, in this case, is the
already swept high-permeability
layers, conformance treatment
HOME
intervention is necessary to produce
oil from the lower-permeability
layers. An appropriate treatment in
this case is to inject PermSeal into
the high-permeability layers.
PermSeal will form a barrier that will
prevent injected water from getting
into the high-permeability layers.
Instead, injected water will be
diverted into the lower-permeability
layers, sweeping these layers.
DN002258
Chapter 4
For the treatment case, the upper
layers in the injector were treated
with 100 bbl of PermSeal. The well
was then shut in for five days to
allow the polymer to set, and later
put back on injection. Figure 4.22
shows that this conformance treat-
ment forced the injected water to
sweep the bottom layers, thereby
modifying the injection profile in
this injector.
Figure 4.22–QuikLook water saturation profiles four years after the conformance treatment
Chapter 4
QuikLook may be also used to
graphically illustrate the placement of
the treatment in greater detail. Figure
4.23-a (Page 4-18) shows a 2D
polymer gel profile in the near-
wellbore area of the injection well
just after the conformance treatment.
The conformance gel profile is
uneven across the treatment interval,
as shown in the expanded graph in
Figure 4.23-b (Page 4-18). Layers 3
and 4, which have lower
HOME
permeabilities of approximately 60
md, had a shallow gel penetration.
Layers 1 and 2 with permeabilities of
140 md, and Layers 5 and 6 with
permeabilities of 100 md, had
relatively deeper gel penetration.
The post-treatment production rates
predicted by both QuikLook and
STARS simulators are plotted in
Figure 4.24 Page 4-18). The graph
shows an excellent agreement
between the two simulators.
DN002259
Computer Programs 4-17
CONFORMANCE TECHNOLOGY

DN002260
Figure 4.23–QuikLook conformance fluid saturation profiles five days after treatment

DN002261

Figure 4.24–QuikLook and STARS oil, gas, and water production rates (treatment case)

4-18 Computer Programs Chapter 4

HOME
QuikLook simulation of reservoir
performance with and without the
conformance treatment is presented
in Figure 4.25. This graph shows the
significant impact of the polymer gel
treatment for reducing water
production from 400 bbl/D to almost
zero; oil production rate did not
significantly change. In addition, the
plot demonstrates the QuikLook
simulation capability of profiling
modification jobs.
Figure 4.25–QuikLook oil, gas, and water production rates (with and without treatment)
Chapter 4
The main objective in this example
was to reduce water production.
Using PermSeal to shut down the
upper layers that have already been
swept stopped the water from
channeling through the reservoir.
From that point on, all injected water
went into the lower zone. Because of
the injection pressure limitation, the
injected water rate going into the
lower zones was not increased.
HOME
Consequently, oil rate was not
increased. In this case, a constant oil
production rate was achieved with a
significantly lower water injection
rate and lower water production. The
lower cost of water injection and
surface processing of produced fluids
very favorably impacted the econom-
ics of the project.
DN002262
Computer Programs 4-19
CONFORMANCE TECHNOLOGY
Case 2–Water Coning of a
Single Gas Producer
(H2Zero and PermSeal
Solutions)
Case 2 involves a 640-acre dry gas
reservoir with a producer located at
the center. In this case, the effect of
H2Zero and PermSeal conformance
treatments on reservoir performance
is examined. Figure 4.26-a shows the
Cartesian grids used in the simulation
of the reservoir system. A cross-
Figure 4.26–Cartesian grid system with locally refined grids used for Case 2
Figure 4.27–Cross-sectional view of (a) producing interval and (b) injection interval for Case 2
4-20 Computer Programs
section along the well showing both
the areal and vertical grid refinement
is presented in Figure 4.26-b.
The producing interval (perforations)
is placed at the very top of the forma-
tion so as to minimize water produc-
tion, as shown by Figure 4.27-a. The
5-ft injection zone, used for conform-
ance treatment of this well, is shown
by the cross-sectional view in Figure
4.27-b. This treatment interval was
placed almost 10 ft below the bottom
of the perforations–as close as
HOME
possible to the lowest perforations
while avoiding invasion of conform-
ance fluid into the producing interval
during treatment.
This well was produced at an initial
gas rate of 10 MMcf/D. As shown in
Figure 4.28 (Page 4-21), water
coning began approximately two
months after the start of gas produc-
tion. The comparison between
QuikLook and STARS water-
production histories is quite good.
However, following coning, the
DN002263
DN002264
Chapter 4
 QuikLook simulator shows a faster
increase in water production, finally
reaching the water production limit of
100 bbl/D approximately a year from
the start of production. STARS
reached that same level about three
months later. The difference in results
between the two simulators is within
the range for simulation discussed in
the SPE comparative studies.
On the other hand, the predicted
pressure values (both the average and

DN002265
flowing bottomhole pressure) from
QuikLook and STARS match very
well. This match is illustrated in
Figure 4.29.
Figure 4.28–QuikLook and STARS gas and water production rates vs. To solve the coning problem,
time (base case) approximately 170 bbl of H2Zero was
used to treat this gas producer. Figure
4.30 (Page 4-22) presents the gas and
water production rates for both the
base and treated cases. The polymer
was injected into the formation two
months after the start of production.
This event appears as a discontinuity
in the water and gas rates, reflecting
the change in condition from produc-
tion water and gas to injection of
polymer and back to injection.
The graph clearly shows the effect
of H 2Zero on gas and water produc-
tion. The treatment increased both
gas rate and gas cumulative produc-
DN002266

tion while delaying water production

for five years. Although not investi-
gated in this chapter, the simulator
can also be used to investigate the
Figure 4.29–QuikLook and STARS average reservoir and flowing timing of the treatment.5
pressures vs. time (Case 2)
In this reservoir, the ratio of vertical-
to-horizontal permeability is 0.2.
Lower ratios are sometimes seen. The
lower the vertical-to-horizontal
permeability ratio the less severe the
coning problem will become, and the
wider the polymer barrier will become
for the same injected volume.

Chapter 4 Computer Programs 4-21

HOME
CONFORMANCE TECHNOLOGY

The QuikLook simulator may be used

to study fluid saturation inside the
reservoir, providing an insight into
the potential optimization of place-
ment and reservoir performance.
Figure 4.31 shows the water satura-
tion distribution inside the reservoir
before and after the conformance
treatment. In Figure 4.31-a, which
shows the fluid saturation after 60
days and just before the conformance
treatment was placed, large pressure
drawdown in the reservoir caused
water coning into the perforated

DN002267
interval. In other words, within two
months of reservoir depletion, water
from the aquifer reached the perfo-
rated interval, resulting in early water
production in this well. Figure 4.30–QuikLook gas and water production rates vs. time after
H2Zero treatment

DN002268

Figure 4.31–QuikLook water saturation profiles (before and after the H2Zero treatment)

4-22 Computer Programs Chapter 4

HOME
Figures 4.31-b and 4.31-c show water
saturation profiles in the reservoir just
after the conformance treatment (65
days) and approximately five years
after the treatment, respectively. In the
water saturation profile in Figure 4.31-
c the bottomwater appears to move
around the gel barrier into the open
perforations, indicating that a wider
barrier (larger injected volume) would
produce even better results.
One observation that can readily be
made from the H2Zero results in
Figure 4.31 is that the treatment was
effective within an approximately
28-ft diameter around the wellbore.
Although low concentrations of the
conformance fluid are present
beyond that region, Figure 4.31-a
clearly demonstrates that the
Figure 4.32–Temperature profiles before and after H2Zero treatment
Chapter 4
effective gel barrier controlling the
bottomwater coning is limited to the
28-ft diameter barrier.
As mentioned in previous sections,
the QuikLook simulator uniquely
integrates the temperature and
wellbore calculation into the
reservoir simulation. The near-
wellbore temperature profiles before
and after the H2Zero gel treatment
are calculated and presented in
Figure 4.32. The initial reservoir
temperature of 150°F is reflected
throughout the reservoir during
prejob production period (Figure
4.32-a). The surface temperature
was only 80°F. The wellbore
simulator WELLCAT calculated a
downhole temperature of 130°F
during the conformance treatment.
HOME
Figure 4.32-b shows the temperature
profile immediately after the H2Zero
and displacement fluid injections.
The cooler injected fluids cause a
reduction in reservoir temperature in
the locations where they contacted
reservoir fluid. The subsequent
increase in the temperature of the
injected gel during the production
period after the treatment is demon-
strated by Figure 4.32-c. This figure
shows that after the treatment nearly
a month passed before the reservoir
temperature was restored to original
conditions.
The reservoir temperature in this case
is low enough to allow for the
injection of H2Zero without any
problem, but this is not always the
DN002269
Computer Programs 4-23
CONFORMANCE TECHNOLOGY
case. In cases where reservoir
temperature is fairly high, some
cooler fluid may need to be injected
or circulated to reduce the reservoir
temperature enough to allow for
polymer injection without prema-
ture gelling.
To investigate the effect of other
treatments, the same well was also
treated with approximately 300 bbl of
PermSeal. Later, the well was treated
with 960 bbl of PermSeal. Conform-
ance fluid distributions in the near-
wellbore area for the H2Zero and the
two PermSeal treatments are pre-
sented in Figure 4.33.
As seen in the previous H2Zero results
given in Figure 4.31, the treatment
Figure 4.33–QuikLook conformance fluid profiles
4-24 Computer Programs
was effective within a 28-ft diameter
around the wellbore. In the case of the
larger PermSeal jobs, Figure 4.33-b
shows an increase in the dimensions of
the gel barrier, 32 ft and 60 ft in
diameter for the 300- and 960-bbl
treatments, respectively. In the latter
case, however, the bulk of the
additional PermSeal (over the initial
300 bbl) went to expand the barrier
thickness as a result of the relatively
high vertical to horizontal permeabil-
ity ratio. A lower permeability ratio
would cause the barrier to be thinner
and wider.
Another important observation is
that the injected PermSeal plugged
the formation around the lower part
HOME
of the perforated interval (Figure
4.33-c). This action reduced the
effectiveness of the treatment,
indicating that the conformance
treatment design in such a situation
should not only include the type and
amount of conformance treatment to
be injected, but also where this
volume should be injected.
Gas and water production histories
for the two PermSeal treatments are
plotted in Figure 4.34 (Page 4-25),
along with the base case. The larger
treatment (960 bbl) considerably
improved reservoir performance; gas
production increased significantly as
the water production rate decreased.
DN002270
Chapter 4

Figure 4.34–QuikLook gas and water production rates vs. time (with and without PermSeal treatment)
Case 3–Water Coning of a
Black-Oil Producer
(PermSeal Solution)
This last case is similar to Case 2,
except that the reservoir fluid is a
black-oil system. In this example, the
initial reservoir pressure was 1,800
psi. The reservoir was exploited
using a single well located at the
center of 160-acre drainage area,
shown in Figure 4.35-a (Page 4-26).
The well is produced under a con-
straint of 1,000 bbl/D maximum liquid
production rate. A vertical cross-
section showing the refined grids used
in the near-wellbore area is presented
in Figure 4.35-b (Page 4-26). Figures
4.36-a and 4.36-b (Page 4-26) show
the locations of the producing and
treatment intervals, respectively.
A summary of the simulation results
for the base case (without treatment)
Chapter 4
is shown in Figure 4.37 (Page 4-27).
For the base case, fluid predictions
by the QuikLook and STARS
simulators compare quite well except
that QuikLook predicts slightly
higher produced water than STARS,
which also reflected on the slightly
lower oil production rates.
Water saturation distribution inside
the reservoir is shown in Figure 4.38
(Page 4-27). Additionally, water
coning is evident very early in the life
of this oil well. Figures 4.38-b and
4.38-c show water saturation profiles
just after the conformance treatment
(65 days) and roughly five years after
the treatment, respectively.
As in the previous coning example,
the water tends to bypass the gel
barrier over time. This phenomenon
often calls for a large conformance
treatment to ensure an extensive gel
barrier. However, as noted in the
HOME
DN002271
previous case, increasing the size of
the conformance treatment could
result in an unintended additional
restriction near the perforated
interval. Similar to the previous
example, in reservoirs with high
vertical permeability, the potential
exists for some of the injected
conformance fluid to move up in the
formation and invade the original
perforations.
Three conformance treatment
options were considered in this case:
120 bbl, 300 bbl, and 1,000 bbl of
PermSeal conformance fluid. The
effect of the injected volume was
examined, along with the effect of
the location of injection. In the first
set of treatments the conformance
material was injected through
perforations in a 5-ft interval located
10 ft below the bottom of the
producing interval.
Computer Programs 4-25
CONFORMANCE TECHNOLOGY

DN002272
Figure 4.35–Cartesian grid system with local grid refinement used for Case 3

DN002273

Figure 4.36–Cross-sectional view of (a) producing interval and (b) injection interval for Case 3

4-26 Computer Programs Chapter 4

HOME
 DN002274
Fig. 4.37–QuikLook and STARS oil, gas, and water production rates (base case)

DN002275

Fig. 4.38–QuikLook water saturation profiles (before and after conformance treatment)

Chapter 4 Computer Programs 4-27

HOME
CONFORMANCE TECHNOLOGY
Figure 4.39 shows a typical plot
from optimization runs based on
job size. The extensions tr1, tr2,
and tr3 represent treatment volumes
of 120 bbl, 300 bbl, and 1,000 bbl,
respectively. All the treatments
mitigated the coning problem in this
well. The 120-bbl conformance job
appears to be the best treatment for
this case.
Figure 4.39 also indicates that
increasing the size of the conform-
ance treatment results in worse oil
and water production during the 5-
year period. Although these results
may initially appear to be illogical,
examination of the conformance fluid
distribution inside the reservoir helps
clarify the results.
Figure 4.39–QuikLook oil and water production rates (with and without treatment)
4-28 Computer Programs
Conformance fluid distributions in the
near-wellbore area for these three
treatments with different treatment
volumes are presented in Figure 4.40
(Page 4-29). This figure shows only a
limited gel barrier with a diameter of
approximately 20 feet for the 120-bbl
conformance job.
Although the larger treatments result
in barriers with larger diameters, the
barriers were also larger in height and
damaged part of the perforated
interval. Therefore, the larger treat-
ments did not perform as well as the
smaller treatment.
When the treatment was injected
15 ft below the producing perforated
interval instead of just 5 ft, the
situation significantly changed as
shown in Figure 4.41 (Page 4-29).
In this figure, the extensions tr4, tr5,
HOME
and tr6 correspond to treatment
volumes of 120 bbl, 300 bbl, and
1,000 bbl of PermSeal, respectively.
Figure 4.42 (Page 4-30) shows
conformance fluid distributions in the
near-wellbore area for these same
three treatments. The graphs illustrate
the conclusions.
Figure 4.41 shows that increasing
the volume of the injected conform-
ance fluid from 120 to 300 bbl
improved the performance of the
treatment. Increasing the volume to
1,000 bbl still caused the well
performance to decline, indicating
that for this reservoir injecting that
much volume merely 15 ft below the
producing perforated interval is not
advised. Therefore, an optimized
treatment size always exists for
every reservoir situation.
DN002276
Chapter 4
 DN002277
Figure 4.40–QuikLook conformance fluid profiles – Case 2

DN002278

Figure 4.41–QuikLook oil and water production rates (treatment interval is 15 ft below bottom of original
perforations)

Chapter 4 Computer Programs 4-29

HOME
CONFORMANCE TECHNOLOGY

DN002279
Figure 4.42–QuikLook conformance fluid profiles (treatment interval is 15 ft below bottom of original
perforations)

4-30 Computer Programs Chapter 4

HOME
The XERO Program Based on the information the user enters, the system can
determine the probability of one or more of the following
Once data has been collected and analyzed, engineers can conformance problems existing in the well:
use Halliburton’s XERO Water-Control Expert System to
verify problem identification and determine possible • Bottomwater
treatments (Figure 4.43). XERO, a Greek term meaning • Bottomwater coning
“no water,” is a Microsoft® Windows™-based system that
has two processing phases: the problem identification • Casing leaks
phase and the treatment design phase. This chapter • Channel behind pipe
provides a general overview of the XERO System.
• High-permeability streaks
Phase 1: Problem Identification • Injection out of zone
During the problem identification phase, the system • Interwell communication
prompts the user to enter reservoir and well information. • Stimulation into water

Figure 4.43—XERO main screen showing Problem Identification and

Treatment Design options

Chapter 4 Computer Programs 4-31

HOME
CONFORMANCE TECHNOLOGY

During the problem identification

phase, users will be prompted to
provide the following information.
The Customer Information screen
(Figure 4.44) requires the user to
provide information about the
customer and the well that will be
evaluated. After the user provides the
available information and presses the
GO! button, the first Reservoir
Information screen appears.

Figure 4.44—Customer Information screen

The Reservoir Information screens

(Figures 4.45 and 4.46, Page 4-33)
allow the user to enter as much
relevant reservoir information as
possible. Much of this information
can be omitted if it is not available or
if its accuracy is questionable. The
minimum data required are the
completed interval depth range
(Figure 4.45) and the bottomhole
static temperature (BHST) (Figure
4.46, Page 4-33). Obviously, how-
ever, the more information the user
enters, the more accurately XERO
can identify potential reservoir
problems.

Figure 4.45—Reservoir Information I screen

4-32 Computer Programs Chapter 4

HOME
Figure 4.46—Reservoir Information II screen

After choosing GO! from the

Reservoir Information II screen, the
user advances to the Well Informa-
tion screen (Figure 4.47). This
screen again prompts the user to
answer a series of questions and to
enter available data. The only
required information is the average
permeability and the hole size.

Figure 4.47—Well Information screen

Chapter 4 Computer Programs 4-33

HOME
CONFORMANCE TECHNOLOGY

If production and permeability data is

available, a Production Well Profile
screen will next appear (Figure 4.48).

Figure 4.48—Production Well Profile screen

After entering the pertinent data for

this screen, the user advances to the
Injection Information screen (Figure
4.49). The only required information
for this screen is the injection rate.

Figure 4.49—Injection Information screen

4-34 Computer Programs Chapter 4

HOME
 If the user enters a maximum re-
corded bottomhole injection pressure
(BHIP), an Injection Well Profile
screen will appear (Figure 4.50)

Figure 4.50—Injection Well Profile screen

After entering the pertinent data, the

user advances to the Workover
History screen (Figure 4.51). This
screen asks several questions
regarding past workovers, including
previous conformance control
treatments. All the treatments listed in
Figure 4.51 are Halliburton-specific
treatments.

Figure 4.51—Workover History screen

Chapter 4 Computer Programs 4-35

HOME
CONFORMANCE TECHNOLOGY

To enter non-Halliburton treatments,

the user would click on the OTH-
ERS button to display the generic
water control treatments listed in
Figure 4.52.

Figure 4.52—Other Water Control Treatments screen

After choosing a generic water control

treatment and advancing to the next
screen, the user must enter well
performance data (Figure 4.53). The
only information required for the Well
Performance screen is the current
water production rate, which in the
case of the example is 650 B/D.

Figure 4.53—Well Performance screen

4-36 Computer Programs Chapter 4

HOME
 After entering all available well
performance data, the user advances
to the Water Production Data screen
(Figure 4.54), which requests water
production data for up to 10 years.

Figure 4.54—Water Production Data screen

Based on the information the user

enters, the system creates a water
production plot (Figure 4.55), and
asks the user to select up to two
patterns that most closely match the
current water production plot.

Figure 4.55—Water Production Plots screen

Chapter 4 Computer Programs 4-37

HOME
CONFORMANCE TECHNOLOGY

After completing this screen, the user

advances to a series of recommenda-
tion screens, the first of which lists
possible problems and their percent-
ages of likelihood (Figure 4.56).

Figure 4.56—Possible Problems screen

By clicking on any of the possible

problems listed, the user will receive
a list of reasons and unknowns
(Figure 4.57). The Reason(s) list
contains data that contributed to the
identification of the problem. The
Unknown(s) list contains data that, if
available, would help the system
more accurately identify the water
problem.

Figure 4.57—List of Reasons and Unknowns

4-38 Computer Programs Chapter 4

HOME
 To learn more about each reason or
unknown, the user can click on the
item and another window will appear
with additional information about
that particular reason or unknown
(Figure 4.58).

Figure 4.58—Window providing more information about unknowns

Phase 2: Treatment Design

During the treatment design phase,
the user chooses one or more of the
potential water problems that the
system identified as likely and enters
treatment design information into the
system. The system then determines
fluid systems that can be used based
on current well information and
displays a selection list of the
treatments. The user can choose from
any of the treatments for each water
problem from the selection list.
Once the system has identified
potential problems, the Treatment
Design button becomes active on the
main screen (Figure 4.59). To begin
the fluid selection process, the user
must first select at least one of the
potential problems and advance to
Figure 4.59—XERO main screen showing active Treatment Design button
the next screen.

Chapter 4 Computer Programs 4-39

HOME
CONFORMANCE TECHNOLOGY

The Design Information I screen

requires the user to enter specific
wellbore geometry and previous
stimulation information for the well
(Figure 4.60).

Figure 4.60—Design Information I screen

Once the user enters this information

and selects GO!, the Design Infor-
mation II screen appears (Figure
4.61). On this screen, the user must
input the appropriate operator
constraints on the treatment and
other pertinent information as shown
on the screen. The “tripping out”
option on this screen gives the user
the option of using cement as part of
the treatment design. Depending on
well conditions, the user may want
to use the program to make two
designs: one with cement and one
without cement.

Figure 4.61—Design Information II screen

4-40 Computer Programs Chapter 4

HOME
 After the Design Information II
screen is completed, the user
advances to the Fluid Selection
screen (Figure 4.62), which shows
the recommended fluid, as well as
primary and secondary alternatives.
Any of the listed choices could be
used for the treatment, but the
recommended fluid is the one that
best fits the requirements of the
candidate well that was evaluated.
To select the fluid, the user must
place the mouse pointer over the
appropriate box and click the left
mouse button.

Figure 4.62—Fluid Selection screen

Once a fluid is selected, the system

calculates a job schedule, including
estimated fluid volumes, a list of the
materials required, and recommended
placement techniques for the selected
fluids (Figure 4.63).

Figure 4.63—Job Design screen

Chapter 4 Computer Programs 4-41

HOME
CONFORMANCE TECHNOLOGY
To see additional information about
Halliburton products, the user can
choose Product Description from the
dropdown menu at the top of the
main screen, as shown in Figure 4.64.
After the treatment design phase,
users can print a report containing
all the data the system used to
identify the problem and generate
possible solutions.
Summary and
Conclusions
This chapter provided three examples
and SPE comparative studies that
validated QuikLook as an excellent
reservoir simulator for predicting the
performance of black-oil, volatile,
and gas reservoirs. The preprocessor,
solver, and post-processor have been
improved significantly and are quite
stable. As a conformance simulator,
the last three cases show that
QuikLook predictions compare quite
well with STARS results.
The software is unique in the industry
because of features such as a very
user friendly GUI, thermal affect,
4-42 Computer Programs
Figure 4.64—Product Description screen for Injectrol Service
linkage to a wellbore simulation, and
accurate representation of polymer
injection and setting. The linkage of
the simulator to Halliburton conform-
ance fluids makes the simulator an
especially easy tool to use.
Several interesting features have been
considered for future implementation
into the simulator to enhance the
simulator’s conformance simulation
capabilities. These features include:
• Polymer adsorption model,
which will be calibrated carefully
with specific field cases from
successfully executed jobs
• Irreversible gelation model
HOME
• Relative permeability modifier
(RPM) simulation
• Radial grids for efficient coning
simulation
Finally, through the use of programs
such as XERO, users can identify and
verify conformance problems. They
can also choose from several means
of improving well conditions.
Chapter 5 provides specific informa-
tion about the many treatments and
treatment methods available to
control conformance problems.
Chapter 4
References
1. Crishlow, Henry, B.: “Modern Reservoir
Engineering: A Simulation Approach,”
Prentice Hall, 1977.
2. Khalid Aziz: “Petroleum Reservoir
Simulation,” Chapman & Hall, 1979.
3. Odeh, Aziz S.: “Comparison of
Solutions to a Three-Dimensional Black
Oil Reservoir Simulation Problems,”
JPT, January, 1981, 13-25
4. Weinstein, H. G., Chappelear, J. E., and
Nolen, J. S.: “Second Comparative
Solution Project: A Three-Phase Coning
Study,” JPT, March 1986, 345-353.
5. Soliman, M. Y., Creel, P., Rester, Sigal,
R., Everett, D., and Johnson, M. H.:
“Integration of Technology Supports
Preventive Conformance Reservoir
Techniques,” SPE 62553 presented at
the 2000 SPE/AAPG Western Regional
Meeting held in Long Beach, California,
19–23 June.
Chapter 4
6. Dawson, Rapier: “Drillpipe Buckling in
Inclined Holes,” JPT (Oct. 1984) 1734.
7. Hammerlindl, D. J.: “Basic Fluid and
Pressure Forces on Oilwell Tubulars,”
JPT (Jan. 1980) 153-59.
8. Hammerlindl, D. J.: “Movement, Forces
and Stresses Associated with Combina-
tion Tubing Strings Sealed in Packers,”
JPT (Feb. 1977) 195-208.
9. Hammerlindl, D. J.: “Packer to Tubing
Forces for Intermediate Packers,” JPT
(March 1980) 515-27.
10. Lubinski, A.: “Helical Buckling of
Tubing Sealed in Packers,” JPT (June
1962) 655-670.
11. Lubinski, A.: “Influence of Tension and
Compression on Straightness and
Buckling of Tubular Goods in Oil Wells,”
Proc., 31st Annual Meeting, API, Prod.,
Vol. 31, Sec. IV (1951), 31-56.
HOME
12. Mitchell, R. F.: “Buckling Behavior of
Well Tubing: The Packer Effect,” SPEJ
(Oct. 1982) 616-24.
13. Mitchell, R. F.: “Numerical Analysis of
Helical Buckling,” paper SPE 14981
presented at the 1986 SPE Deep Drilling
and Production Symposium, Amarillo,
TX, 6-8 April.
14. Muskat, M. and Wycoff, R. D.: “An
Approximate Theory of Water Coning in
Oil Production,” Trans., AIME (1935),
114: 114-161.
15. Wu, F. H., Chiu, T. H., Dalrymple, E.
D., Dahl, J. A., and Rahimi, A. B.:
“Development of an Expert System for
Water Control Applications,” paper SPE
27552 presented at the 1994 European
Petroleum Computer Conference,
Aberdeen, Scotland, 15-17 March.
Computer Programs 4-43

The chemical methods that are
currently available for controlling
waterflow range from a variety of
water-based polymer systems to
hydrocarbon-based, ultrafine Portland
cement slurries.
In injection wells, the success of a
treatment is measured by the incremen-
tal oil recovered from offset producers.
The response time in the producers
ranges from immediate to several
months, depending on treatment
volume, well spacing, and formation
properties. Engineers may use other
techniques such as fluid-entry surveys
and pressure testing to determine the
success of the treatment.
In production wells, the success of the
treatment is generally measured by
changes in the well’s water produc-
tion. After a treated production well
has been shut-in for the recommended
time, production is slowly resumed. If
the treatment was designed to seal a
casing leak, pressure testing to the
required pressure determines job
success or failure. For all other
applications, a successful treatment
should decrease the amount of
produced water.
When designing a conformance
project, engineers must first carefully
consider the purpose of the program.
Specifically, they must make certain
that the physical and chemical
characteristics of the solutions used
Chapter 5
Chapter 5
will not contradict with any immedi-
ate or future plans for the reservoir. Treatment
The following questions should be
explored: Options
What is the treatment expected to
do? When success is not explicitly
defined, well data must be thoroughly
reviewed to determine how produc-
tion should change after the target
zone is treated. For example, zones
that were not producing water before
the treatment might begin producing
water after the treatment. These
situations can be predicted by
material-mass equations.
What bottomhole conditions can
the treatment withstand?
Bottomhole conditions include
temperature, pressure, reservoir-fluid
composition, and lithology.
For example, design engineers would
not recommend injecting an
Injectrol® treatment into an interval if
they were planning an improved oil-
recovery job in that same interval at a
later date. Instead, they would choose
a material that would not permanently
seal the zone, such as PermTrol.
Regardless of the treatment planned,
engineers should always order
laboratory-scale tests to evaluate
recommended treatment formulations
before the actual treatment is per-
formed.
Treatment Options 5-1
HOME
CONFORMANCE TECHNOLOGY

Water-Based PermSeal Service

Polymer Systems PermSeal service reduces or plugs permeability to water
and/or CO2 in hydrocarbon wells. After the water-thin
The following water-based polymer systems have gelation system is batch-blended and pumped into the
successfully limited the flow of produced formation water isolated water-bearing permeability, the well is shut in, and
into the wellbore: the fluid polymerizes into an elastomeric gel. The system
• PermSeal service uses a temperature-activated initiator to induce a phase
change from a liquid to a solid at predictable times.
• PermTrol service PermSeal can be used in temperatures from 70° to 200°F
• H2ZeroSM service (21° to 93°C). The PermSeal service provides conformance
control without heavy metal crosslinkers such as chrome. It
• Injectrol® service is acid-resistant and compatible in CO2 environments.
• Relative permeability modifiers, For production wells, PermSeal is recommended for the
including Kw-FracSM stimula- treatment of bottomwater coning problems or for treat-
tion service ment of zones with a high degree of permeability varia-
Table 5.1 shows the various water-control uses for each tion. For injection wells, PermSeal is used for the
chemical. treatment of high-permeability streaks in wells with

Table 5.1—Recovery Effeciency Problems and Solutions

Solutions
® SM Relative
Injectrol PermTrol PermSeal H2Zero
Permeability MOC/One
Sealant Service Service Service
Problems Modifiers
Producing Wells
Acid job went to water X X X X
Bottomwater coning X X X
Bottomwater shutoff X X X
Casing leaks X X
Channel behind casing X
Channel from injector X X X
Early water breakthrough X X X
Frac job went to water X X X X
High-permeability streaks X X
No shale barrier X X X
Plugging well X X X
Seal high-pressure zone X X X
Injection Wells
Casing leaks X X
Channel behind casing X
Channel to producer X X X X
High-permeability streaks X X X X X
Injection out of zone X X X
Plugging well X X X X
Drilling Wells
Lost circulation X

5-2 Treatment Options Chapter 5

HOME
channeling problems or for injection out of zone.
PermSeal treatment volumes can vary considerably
depending on the application. Because the treatment is a
porosity-fill-type sealant, engineers can use simple
volume-fill calculations to estimate the treatment size.
PermTrol Service
PermTrol service is used in injection wells to treat high-
permeability streaks or poor injection profiles for
waterfloods and CO2 water-alternating-gas (WAG) floods.
To improve waterflood efficiency, operators pump the
treatment as a water-thin monomer solution at normal
injection conditions to help ensure that the monomer
placement is proportional to the amount of injection
water entering each zone. After placement, the well is
shut in to allow the fluid to polymerize. Once water
injection is resumed, the resulting high-viscosity polymer
increases volumetric sweep efficiency by diverting
injection water from the most highly permeable zones to
previously unswept oil-bearing zones.
The injection water following a PermTrol service
treatment will slowly finger through the thick, water-
soluble PermTrol service polymer slug. This water
becomes viscous as it solubilizes the polymer, yielding a
more favorable water-oil mobility throughout the reser-
voir. The viscosified water behaves as a polymer fluid
treatment with the associated increase in volumetric and
unit displacement efficiency.
A typical PermTrol treatment volume ranges from 25 to
30% of daily injection. The minimum recommended
PermTrol service treatment volume is 4,000 gal or a
volume sufficient to provide 5 ft of radial penetration in
the net pay interval, whichever is greater.
H2ZeroSM Service
H2ZeroSM is a crosslinkable polymer system that forms a
rigid gel capable of permanently sealing the target zone,
effectively preventing water and gas flow.
The H2Zero system can provide the following benefits
over chrome-crosslinked gel systems:
Depth of Penetration. H2Zero penetrates deeper into
the formation than chrome-crosslinked gel systems
(Figure 5.1). At temperatures above 158°F (80°C) in
matrices containing carbonate, chrome crosslinkers do
not remain in solution. As a result, the amount of
chrome-complexed gel placed may not provide a
sufficient seal. For example, placing a volume of a
chrome-crosslinked gel that should be sufficient for
extending a 5-ft seal around the wellbore may actually
Chapter 5
HOME
Gel Damage (RRF) vs. Distance from Injection Face
10000
1000
H2Zero System H2Zero System
Test 2 Test 3
RRF
100
10 Chrome-crosslinked System
Test 1
1
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Penetration Depth (ft)
Figure 5.1—Penetration depth of the H2Zero system.
only provide a 3-ft seal, wasting large amounts of gel and
money. However, the organic crosslinker in H2Zero
sealant remains in solution during injection, resulting in a
strong seal throughout the entire treated interval.
Temperature Stability. H2Zero is applicable in high-
temperature formations. This system can be used at
temperatures as high as 320°F (160°C). Chrome-
crosslinked systems have limited success at temperatures
above 225°F (107°C).
H2Zero consists of two components: a base polymer
(HZ-10) and an organic crosslinker (HZ-20). HZ-10 is a
low-molecular-weight polymer solution that can be
crosslinked with either organic or metallic crosslinkers.
It is an acrylamide copolymer with enhanced thermal
stability that forms strong covalent bonds with the
system’s organic crosslinker, HZ-20.
Because both components of the H2Zero system are in
solution, they can be diluted in the mixing brine. There-
fore, system formulations can be batch-mixed or blended
on-the-fly. The two blended components are placed as a
single, low-viscosity fluid (3 to 35 cP) that is thermally
activated to form a solid gel. H2Zero can be used for
preventing or treating water-management problems or
gas-management problems.
H2Zero system treatment solutions contain HZ-10
polymer and HZ-20 crosslinker diluted in treatment
water. The quality of the treatment design increases with
the amount of available information, and treatement
designs are based on two interrelated parameters:
polymer formulation and treatment volume. Volume
requirements are based on how far a gelant must enter
into a formation and how much pore space it must fill.
Polymer formulation depends on strength requirements
and placement times.
Treatment Options 5-3
CONFORMANCE TECHNOLOGY

Injectrol® Service
Injectrol® service is an internally catalyzed silicate system
that achieves intermediate depth-of-matrix penetration.
Injectrol is primarily used to decrease water-to-oil ratios
and water-injection profiles. The internal catalyst allows
operators to pump a low-viscosity solution (1.2 cp) into
the formation matrix before the material sets to a stiff gel.
The stiff gel formed in the matrix seals the formation
pores and diverts or blocks water production.
This sealant can be used alone or with a tail-in cement
squeeze. When run with the cement, the Injectrol chemi-
cal reacts with the cement to become a gel, while the
cement hydrates almost immediately. The resulting
cement has a high compressive strength near the wellbore
where the differential pressure is the highest.
column in the tubing tends to choke off oil flow from the
k1 through k3 lenses. Therefore, without an effective
correction treatment, such as Injectrol, large volumes of
oil can be left in place.
Typical reservoir conditions assist the effectiveness of a
large-volume Injectrol treatment to correct the
bottomwater production described. Usually, vertical
permeability is lower than horizontal permeability. As the
distance away from the wellbore increases, less pressure
drop is available to drive the fluid vertically through the
zone. For example, at 40 ft from the perforations, 60% of
the pressure drop is lost. Therefore, Injectrol sealant is
placed in the bottom few feet of the zone, extending 20 to
40 ft from the casing to form a long-lasting barrier
against water production (Figure 5.4).

Example
In the well shown in Figure 5.2, the oil is in lenses of
k1 < k2 < k3 < k4 Typical
varying permeability. Under waterdrive conditions, the k4 BOPD 50
lens produces the most volume (oil and some water). Out BWPD 180
of the total of 206 barrels of fluid per day (BFPD), 6 bbl
k1
is water, all produced from the k4 lens at the bottom. With
time, the water production in this well should increase.
The harder the well is drawn, the faster the water produc- k2
tion increases.
k3
In an advanced stage in the life of a waterdrive reservoir,
water production through the high-permeability lens
dominates (Figure 5.3). Because of its high mobility, k4
water is easily drawn up through the k4 lens. The in-
creased hydrostatic pressure from the water-dominated
Figure 5.3—Secondary oil production from a waterdrive
reservoir

k1 < k2 < k3 < k4 Typical Percent of Pressure Drop

BOPD 200 30 40 50 55 60
BWPD 6 8 in.

k1
k1

k2
k2
k3
k3

k4
k4

5 10 20 30 40

Figure 5.2—Initial oil production from a waterdrive Figure 5.4—Water production corrected with a large-
reservoir volume Injectrol treatment

5-4 Treatment Options Chapter 5

HOME
Treatment Procedure
A generalized treatment procedure used for all
Injectrol systems includes (1) isolating the problem
zone if possible, (2) pumping preflush fluids where
indicated, (3) pumping the Injectrol® sealant with
spacers, and (4) tailing-in with cement slurry (most
generally used in producers).
Other features common with all Injectrol treatments
include (1) low injection rates, (2) injection pressure well
below fracturing pressure, and (3) exact displacement
into the formation or a small underdisplacement.
Injectrol Sealants and Services
By selecting one of three Injectrol catalysts, operators
can control the gel time of the Injectrol from a few
minutes to several hours at temperature ranges of 60° to
300°F (16° to 149°C).
Injectrol G Sealant
Injectrol G is a three-component system consisting of an
Injectrol concentration, an activator, and water. The
activator controls the wide range of gel (pumping) times.
The gel times include a temperature range of 70° to
150°F (21° 66°C) BHIT. Pump times of a few minutes to
600 minutes are possible at 74°F (23°C) BHIT. Pump
times of a few minutes to 180 minutes are possible at
150°F (66°C) BHIT.
Injectrol IT
Injectrol IT service uses a different activator to provide
field-suitable pump times within an injection BHIT range
of 120° to 180°F (49° to 82°C). At higher temperatures,
the gel quality of Injectrol IT is better than Injectrol G.
Injectrol IT can be mixed as a single solution. Because of
slight variations in chemicals and mixing waters, engi-
neers must order laboratory-scale tests before making job
recommendations to ensure that pump times are accurate.
Injectrol U
Injectrol U sealant is used only when temperatures of
180°F (82°C) or higher are encountered. It can be
successfully used in wells with BHITs as high as 300°F
(149°C). The activator for Injectrol U sealant provides
widely variable set times and precipitates particles of
hard solids when this time has elapsed. Laboratory testing
shows it is an effective plugging agent in rock matrices.
Chapter 5
HOME
Relative Permeability Modifiers
Relative permeability modifiers (RPMs) have properties
that help reduce water flow from the treated area of a
water-producing zone into the wellbore. In the treated
zone of a hydrocarbon-producing layer, the RPMs should
result in little or no damage to the flow of hydrocarbon. A
universally accepted concept of exactly how RPMs
function has not been agreed upon. Although several
theories have been proposed to describe the RPM
mechanism, detailed testing has indicated that many of
these theories are invalid. Perhaps the best explanation is
that no single factor determines the success of an RPM.
Rather, an RPM’s success depends on many well/
reservoir characteristics, including
• chemistry
• lithology
• problem type
• pore-throat size
• permeability
• saturation
• wettability
• capillary pressure
• adsorption
• gravity effects
RPMs are primarily applied in layered, heterogeneous
reservoirs with distinct barriers between higher permeabil-
ity hydrocarbon-producing zones (Figure 5.5, Page 5-6). If
RPMs are placed in homogeneous zones that produce both
water and hydrocarbon, the RPM may tend to decrease
both water and hydrocarbon permeability substantially.
Kw-FracSM Stimulation Service
Kw-FracSM service combines Halliburton’s RPM technol-
ogy with Delta Frac service treatments to provide control
of produced water resulting from fracture growth into
water-productive layers. A special polymer in the prepad
portion of the Delta Frac treatment limits water influx
into the created fracture during post-treatment produc-
tion. Because the polymer can alter the relative perme-
ability to water, it is classified as an RPM.
Treatment Options 5-5
CONFORMANCE TECHNOLOGY
High Sw
Shale Streaks
High Sw
Low Sw
om001402
Figure 5.5—Vertical permeability isolation results in unswept
layers with low water saturation.
Reducing the matrix relative permeability to water allows
oil-saturated intervals to produce with higher drawdown
pressures. The polymer system does not seal the matrix
pore throats, and some continued water production should
be expected.
The Kw-FracSM service uses a special prepad treatment as
part of a Delta Frac treatment. A portion of the prepad fluid
contains two polymer components, KW-1 and KW-2, that
penetrate the created fracture-face matrix and react in situ
to form an RPM polymer. The RPM polymer will attach to
pore throats in the rock matrix in both sandstone and
carbonate reservoirs. The reacted polymer has hydrophilic
polymer “branches” that create resistance to water flow in
a high-water-saturation matrix. The apparent permeability
of the rock to oil or gas is affected very little, but the
matrix permeability to water is significantly reduced. The
system is compatible with CO2, H2S, and high-salinity
brines after in-situ formation of the RPM polymer.
The Kw-Frac system has four primary benefits:
• Only minor changes to the Delta Frac system are
required.
• No complicated procedures are required for
mixing materials on location that can affect the
performance of the polymer, such as crosslinking
agents or gelling agents.
5-6 Treatment Options
HOME
• Formation brines can be used as a base fluid for
diluting the KW concentrate.
• The treatment can be removed, if desired, with a
strong oxidizer such as OXOL II or CAT-1.
Kw-Frac service is recommended for reservoirs with
permeabilities ranging from 0.1 to 1,000 md, and
bottomhole static temperatures (BHSTs) below 200°F.
The Kw-Frac system most successfully reduces flow in
intervals with high water saturation (Figure 5.6, Page 5-7).
Therefore, the most likely candidates for the treatment
include the following:
• wells with water-coning problems in nonfractured,
water-drive, homogeneous reservoirs with high
vertical permeability (Figure 5.7, Page 5-7)
• layered reservoirs with distinct vertical permeabil-
ity barriers (Figure 5.5)
The system will have the poorest oil production results in
wells that have been swept and are producing oil and
water through the matrix at high water-saturation levels
(Figure 5.8, Page 5-8). Unfavorable results could also
occur if the system is used on
• wells with interwell communication
(Figure 5.9, Page 5-8)
• reservoirs with a high mobility ratio, resulting in
fingering (Figure 5.10, Page 5-8)
Oxol II RPM Removal System
If removal of an RPM is required, Oxol II is recom-
mended. Oxol II treatments break down the backbone of
the polymer, reducing the effect of the damage caused by
polymer blockages in the pore throats.
As a solid, Oxol II service offers several handling
advantages. It is safer to work with than comparable
concentrated liquid systems, and it has a shelf life of at
least one year.
Generally, operators run a tubular cleanup ahead of Oxol
II treatment to remove as much rust as possible. Oxol II
service spends on rust, resulting in lower effective
concentrations downhole. Spacers between acids and
Oxol II solutions are required. Treatment volumes can
range from 50 to 100 gal/ft of net pay. Oxol II cleaner is
generally slightly overdisplaced and left in place for 12 to
48 hours.
Chapter 5
 KW-Frac Treatment

Low Water Saturation

Oil Flow Oil Flow

Transition Zone

om001405
Figure 5.6—Under optimum treatment conditions, oil flows through a density-segregated portion of the reservoir that has low water
saturation. The treated region resists water flow into the fracture; oil and water flow through the reservoir together only in the
transition zone. This condition requires high vertical permeability

Squeeze Cementing
Many of the previously described chemical systems can
be enhanced with water-based or hydrocarbon-based
Low Sw
cement slurries as a tail-in to the chemical treatment. This
section describes basic cement slurry designs and
provides specific information about MOC/One diesel
cement slurry systems.

General Design Principles

Water Coning Two of the most important and useful pieces of informa-
tion needed for the design of a successful zone isolation
cementing treatment are formation pressure and fractur-
ing pressure. With this information, Halliburton can
(1) design a cement job that will not lose a large volume
of cement slurry into the formation, (2) determine a
om001401

High Sw realistic column height for recementing treatments, and

(3) control cement fallback. Pressure buildup and
injectivity tests indicate whether a well can hold a full
Figure 5.7—Good vertical permeability allows density segrega- column of fluid.
tion of oil and water

Chapter 5 Treatment Options 5-7

HOME
CONFORMANCE TECHNOLOGY

KW-Frac Treatment

High Water Saturation

Oil Flow Oil and Water Flow

om001406
Figure 5.8—Streaks of high horizontal permeability allow oil and water to flow through the matrix together. No vertical permeability
barriers are present. A Kw-Frac treatment would allow oil to flow to the wellbore, but an envelope of high water saturation would result
around the treated interval. Over time, lower total production would result

Low Sw
High Sw

High Horizontal
Permeability Streaks
Interwell Channeling
High Sw

Low Sw
High Sw
om001403

om001404

Figure 5.9—A high mobility ratio could result in channeling Figure 5.10—In this formation, water and oil are flowing through
from the injector to the producer, making this formation a poor the reservoir with little vertical permeability isolation. This
candidate for Kw-Frac treatment formation would be a poor candidate for a Kw-Frac treatment

5-8 Treatment Options Chapter 5

HOME
If a job requires circulating cement into the open
annulus, Halliburton uses formation pressure data and a
series of “rate-in, rate-out” circulation tests to evaluate
(1) perforation location, (2) a realistic cement column
height, and (3) the need for additional cleaning, flushes,
or the application of ultralight cements.
Most commonly, a squeeze job fails because operators
fail to place enough slurry in the areas where it could
have been effective, and they do not hold the cement in
the area long enough to form a permanent seal. The most
common contributors to squeeze job failure and field-
proven methods of handling each problem are discussed
in the following paragraphs.
Lack of Proper Fluid Control
Improper fluid-loss control can result in either a prema-
ture squeeze (slurry dehydration) or no squeeze (caused
by fluid loss being too low). Either condition can block
an uncemented annulus and force cement into the wrong
zone or prevent sufficient slurry from entering an
injection zone. The degree of fluid-loss control during
squeeze jobs depends mostly on the types of fluid-loss
additives used in the slurry. Fluid loss can be reduced by
large precharge volumes and reactive flushes pumped
ahead of the cement.
Improper Perforation Cleanup
Many squeeze jobs fail because the perforations were not
cleaned properly. For example, if a mud-filled casing is
perforated with a pressure differential to the formation,
the perforations are likely to be plugged with mud,
crushed formation material, and debris. The zone should
be tested to ensure cleanliness.
Low Placement Rates
A low injection rate simply allows more time for a
specific volume of cement slurry to lose fluid and become
a solid mass. In effect, the placement rate supplies the
time factor for fluid loss.
No Knowledge of Where Cement Is Needed
Some squeeze jobs are apparently performed with little
more knowledge than the approximate depth of the casing
leak. If more than one formation is open in an
uncemented annulus, the slurry enters the formation with
the lowest fracture gradient, which frequently is not the
formation that produced the brine.
Chapter 5
HOME
Poor Injection Point Control
Slurry entrance into at least one formation is normally
required for a successful squeeze treatment. Simply
isolating a hole in the casing with packers does not ensure
that the slurry can be forced into the formation at that
point. In some instances, a zone cannot be successfully
squeezed until the uncemented annulus below it is
blocked.
Effect of Bottomwater
If naturally induced fractures extend into lower zones,
bottomwater control problems will occur. To combat
bottomwater, Halliburton may recommend injecting a
low-viscosity, temporary blocking material into the upper
zone before squeezing the bottom zone. The success ratio
of this type of treatment is greatly improved when
reactive preflushes are used ahead of the cement.
Crossflow
High-volume water flow in an uncemented annulus (often
referred to as crossflow) can dilute a cement slurry until it
can no longer seal effectively. To control this condition,
operators must eventually squeeze off the brine-produc-
ing zone with treatment pressures greater than the
producing-zone pressure. If a weak zone is open in the
same uncemented area, special materials, such as foam
cements, thixotropic cements, and reactive preflushes
may be needed. A multiple-stage cement job with
selective injection can also prevent crossflow if the slurry
injection points can be controlled.
Poor Bonding
Poor bonding to the formation is common in salt forma-
tions. Salt-saturated slurries are necessary for good
bonding, but these slurries can have long thickening times
and may set at low to moderate temperatures. This dual
problem can complicate squeeze procedures. The slurry
must remain static from the placement time to the initial
set time. High-pressure water can easily enter and disrupt
the integrity of a cement during its transition from a fluid
to a solid.
Cement Flowback
When pumping stops, the downhole pressure is initially
equal to the hydrostatic pressure and any remaining
surface pressure. If no squeeze pressure is obtained, some
formations continue to take slurry until the hydrostatic
pressure is equal to the fracture extension pressure. As the
cement gels and fluid is lost from the slurry (to permeable
Treatment Options 5-9
CONFORMANCE TECHNOLOGY
formations), the pressure in the cement rapidly decreases.
This pressure decrease allows gas or brine to enter the
cement column, migrate upward, mix with the cement
slurry, or form-flow channels for the brine or gas. Foam
cement, Gas-Chek, GasStop, and thixotropic cements can
often effectively control this phenomenon.
Multiple Injection Zones
Difficulties of squeezing more than one area with a single
job are mostly self-evident. However, treating multiple
injection points or paths in a single zone is less under-
stood. For instance, a reactive preflush or pad ahead of
the slurry can result in complete blockage of one flow
path, yet the following slurry meets very little added
restriction and no squeeze pressure is evident.
This condition is best solved with either multiple-stage
squeeze jobs with a Flo-Chek® component preflush ahead
of each stage or treatment with a large volume of an
Injectrol® solution that reacts with the formation brine
and has time-dependent gelation.
MOC/One Cement
The one disadvantage of using DOC as a treatment
method is that the standard cement’s larger particle size
(up to 120 µm) limits its penetration into the leak. As a
result, a job may have to be repeated several times before
it is even marginally successful.
In these situations, the use of the MOC/One service could
provide more positive results. MOC/One consists of
Micro Matrix cement, diesel or kerosene, and MOC-A
surfactant. MOC-A, when used at the recommended
concentration by volume of diesel, yields a densified
slurry, which when contacted by water, delivers a low-
permeability slurry with high compressive strength.
With a maximum particle size of 10 µm or less, Micro
Matrix cement can penetrate areas in the wellbore and
surrounding formation that would otherwise be inacces-
sible. When this cement is used, MOC-A is necessary to
prevent the immediate oil-wetting of the ultrafine
cement. Like a standard DOC slurry, the ultrafine,
hydrocarbon-based slurry only sets when it contacts
mobile water. Since ultrafine slurries have a delayed
gelation, however, they usually penetrate fractures more
deeply before they set. The system can be used up to
temperatures of 400°F (204°C).
For example, a well with an initial production of 10
BOPD and 300 BWPD was first treated with hydrocar-
bon-based, standard cement. Only 470 to 940 lb of
5-10 Treatment Options
HOME
standard cement could be placed in the formation, and
water production did not decrease. A 4,000-gal, complexed
polyacrylamide treatment was then placed in the zone.
Again, water production remained the same. Eventually,
production increased to 10 BOPD and 600 BWPD. At this
time, operators placed 2,500 lb of ultrafine cement in a
diesel slurry behind a 1,500-gal MOC-A treatment. After
two months, the well stabilized at 17 BOPD and only
200 BWPD.
When MOC-A contains 20 gal/Mgal of hydrocarbon-
carrying fluid, the resulting Micro Matrix cement slurry
has a delayed gelation that allows it to be placed into
water-bearing formation fractures some distance from the
wellbore. The small size of the Micro Matrix cement also
allows for placement into near-wellbore microchannels
that may be communicating with adjacent water-bearing
formations.
Conclusions
Once a treatment design has been established, engineers
must determine the proper placement technique for
optimal treatment results. Chapter 6 provides informa-
tion regarding placement methods and mechanical
equipment.
Bibliography
Advances in Well Test Analysis, SPE Monograph Vol. 5,
Page 86.
Avery, M.R. and Sutphen, J. A.: “Field Evaluation of
Production Well Treatments in Kansas Using a
Crosslinked, Cationic Polymer Gel,” presented at the
8th University of Kansas Tertiary Oil Recovery
Conference, Wichita, KS, March 8-9, 1989.
Bonifay, W.E., Wheeler, J.G., and Garcia, J.G.:
“Cementitous Compositions and Method,” U. S.
Patent 5,071,484, Dec. 10, 1991.
Broussard, G.L., et al.: “Fluid Loss Control Using
Crosslinkable HEC in High-Permeability Offshore
Flexure Trend Completions,” paper SPE 19752
presented at the 1989 SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, TX,
Oct. 8-11.
Clampitt, R. L., Al-Rikabi, H. M., and Dabbous, M. K.:
“A Hostile Environment Gelled Polymer for Well
Treatment and Profile Control,” paper SPE 25629
presented at the 8th Middle East Oil Show and
Conference, Manama, Bahrain, April 3-6, 1993.
Chapter 5
Clarke, W.J.: “Formation Grouting Method and Composi-
tion Useful Therefor,” U.S. Patent 5,106,423, April
21, 1992.
Cole, R.C. and Lindstrom, K.: “Well Integrity Mainte-
nance Using Pumpable Sealants,” presented at the
1987 Underground Injection Practices Council
International Symposium, New Orleans, LA, May.
Cole, R.C. et al.: “Chemical Process Seals Leaks in
Injection Wells,” presented at the 1987 Southwestern
Petroleum Short Course, Lubbock, TX, April.
Crook, R.J., Lizak, L.F., and Zeltmann, T.A.: “Permian
Basin Operators Seal Casing Leaks with Small-
Particle Cement,” paper SPE 23985, presented at the
1992 Permian Basin Oil and Gas Recovery Confer-
ence, Midland, TX, March 18-20.
Dahl, J. and Harris, K.: “Uses of Small Particle Size
Cement in Water and Hydrocarbon Based Slurries,”
presented at the 1991 9th Tertiary Oil Recovery
Conference in Wichita, KS, May.
Dalrymple, D., Maughmer: “Treatment Helps Decrease
Water and Reduce Costs,” American Oil and Gas
Reporter (June 1992) 114.
Dalrymple, D., Sutton, D., and Creel, P.: “Conformance
Control in Oil Recovery,” presented at the 1985
Southwestern Petroleum Short Course, Lubbock, TX,
April.
Dalrymple, E. D. et al.: “A Selective Water Control
Process,” Presented at the 1992 Rocky Mountain
Regional SPE Meeting in Casper, WY, May 18-21.
Dalrymple, E.: “Two Stage Treatment Reduces Water/Oil
Ratio,” Oil & Gas J (Sept. 10, 1990) 73.
Dawson, D.D. Jr. and Goins, W.C. Jr.: “Bentonite-Diesel
Oil Squeeze,” World Oil (Oct. 1953) 222.
Ewert, D.P., Almond, S.W., and Bierhaus, W.M.: “Small
Particle Size Cement,” paper SPE 20038, presented at
the 60th California Regional Meeting, Ventura,
CA, April 4-6, 1990.
Ewert, D.P. et al.: “Squeeze Cementing,” U.S. Patent
5,121,795, June 16, 1992.
“General Rules and Regulations of the Oil and Gas
Conservation Division,” Oklahoma Corporation
Commission, 1986 Edition.
Great Britain Patent 2,099,412A, U. S. Patent 4,466,831,
Canada Patent 1,201,274.
Chapter 5
HOME
Hanlon, D. J., Fulton, S., and Beny, M.: “New Chemical
and Mechanical Technology for Injection Profile
Control,” presented at the 1987 Southwestern
Petroleum Short Course, Lubbock, TX, April.
Harris, K.L. and Johnson, B.J.: “Successful Remedial
Operations Using Ultrafine Cement,” presented at the
1992 Mid-Continent Gas Symposium, Amarillo, TX,
April 13-14.
Harris, K.L. et al.: “Repairing Leaks in Casings,” U.S.
Patent 5,123,487, June 23, 1992.
Harris, S.H.: “Control of Water Production Using Cross-
Linked Polymers,” 1988 United States Dept. of
Energy Improved Oil Recovery Conference, Abilene,
TX, Sept. 11-13.
Heathman, J.F. and East, L.E. Jr.: “Case Histories Regard-
ing the Application of Microfine Cements,” paper
SPE/IADC 23926 presented in 1992 in New Orleans,
February 18-21.
Herring, G.D., Milloway, J.T., and Wilson, W.N.:
“Selective Gas Shut-Off Using Sodium Silicate in the
Prudoe Bay Field, AK,” paper SPE 12473 presented
at the 1984 Formation Damage Control Symposium,
Bakersfield, CA, February 13-14.
Himes, R.E. and Sandy, J.M.: “A New Crosslinkable
HEC—Its Application in Completion Work,” pre-
sented at the 6th Offshore Southeast Asia
Conference, Singapore, Jan. 28-31, 1986.
Himes, R.E. et al.: “Low Damage Fluid Loss Control for
Well Completions,” paper SPE 22355 presented at the
1992 International Meeting on Petroleum Engineering,
Beijing, March 24-27.
Hower, W.F. and Montgomery, P.C.: “New Slurry
Effective for Control of Unwanted Water,” Oil and
Gas Journal (Oct. 19, 1953).
Koch, Ronney R. and Diller, John E.: “An Economical
Large Volume Treatment For Altering Water
Injectivity Profiles,” Paper No. 851-40-A American
Petroleum Institute Division of Production.
Koch, Ronney R. and McLaughlin, Homer C.: “Field
Performance of New Technique for Control of Water
Production or Injection in Oil Recovery,” paper
SPE 2847 presented at the Practical Aspects of
Improved Recovery Techniques Meeting in Fort
Worth, TX, 1970.
Treatment Options 5-11
CONFORMANCE TECHNOLOGY
Kohler, N. et al.: “Weak Gel Formulations for Selective
Control of Water Production in High-Permeability and
High-Temperature Wells,” paper SPE 25225
presented at the 1993 Oilfield Chemicals International
Symposium, New Orleans, March 2-5.
Lange, K.R. and Weldes, H.H.: “Properties of Soluble
Silicates,” Ind Eng Chem (April 1969) 61, 29-44.
Maughmer, R.E. et al.: “Cement System Reduces Water
Production,” The American Oil and Gas Reporter
(May, 1992) 114.
McKown, K. et al.: “Strategies for Obtaining Effective
Injectivity Patterns,” presented at the 1987 University
of Kansas Tertiary Oil Recovery Project, Lawrence,
KS, March.
McLaughlin, Homer C., Jewell, Robert L., and Colomb,
Glenn R.: “A Low Viscosity Solution For Injectivity
Profile Change,” Paper No. 851-41-1 American
Petroleum Institute Division of Production.
Meek, J.W. and Harris, K.L.: “Repairing Casing Leaks
Using Small-Particle-Size Cement,” paper SPE/IADC
21972, presented at the 1991 SPE/IADC Drilling
Conference, Amsterdam, March 11-14.
Messenger, J.U.: “Lost Circulation Techniques Can Solve
Drilling Problems, Part 3,” Oil and Gas Journal
(1968) 66, No. 22, 94-98.
Messenger, J.U.: “Lost Circulation,” PennWell Publishing,
16-18, 21-22, 33, 35, 56, 58, 60-63, 70-77.
5-12 Treatment Options
HOME
Murphey, J.R.: “Rapidly Dissolvable Silicates and
Methods of Using the Same,” U. S. Patent No.
4,521,136 (1981).
Murphey, J., Young, W., and Oberpriller, F.: “Treatment
of Lost Circulation and Water Production Problems
with a Powdered Silicate,” CIM 82-33-46 presented at
the 1982 33rd Annual Meeting, Calgary, Alberta,
June 6-9.
Quarnstrom, T.F. and Cavender, T.W.: “Fluid Loss to
Formation Stopped Before Gravel Packing,” Technol-
ogy, Oil & Gas J (1989) Sept. 25, 101.
Ramos, Joe, and Hower, Wayne F.: “Selective Plugging of
Underground Well Strata,” U. S. Patent 2,837,163
(June 3, 1958).
Rensvold, R.F., Ayres, H.J., and Carlile, W.C.:
“Recompletion of Well to Improve Water-Oil Ratio,”
paper SPE 5379 presented at the 45th Annual
California Regional Meeting, Ventura, CA,
April 2-4, 1975.
Smith, C.W., Pugh, T.D., and Bharat, M.: “A Special
Sealant Process for Subsurface Water,” presented at
the 1978 Southwestern Petroleum Short Course,
Lubbock, TX, April 20-21.
Wood, F. et al.: “Converting a Producing Well to an
Injection Well in the State of Kansas,” presented in
1987 at the University of Kansas Tertiary Oil
Recovery Project, Lawrence, KS, March.
Chapter 5

Placement Techniques
Placement techniques used in treating
unwanted water and/or gas production
should be chosen on a well-by-well
basis. This section discusses place-
ment differences between injection
and production wells, the nature of
fluid movement, and the following
placement methods:
• bullheading
• mechanical packer placement/
inflatable packer placement
• dual-injection placement
• chemical packer placement
• isoflow placement
• transient placement
Placement in Injection vs.
Production Wells
Injection Wells
Treatment placement in injection
wells is relative to the ongoing water,
steam, CO2, water-alternating-gas
(WAG), or other flooding method
used to maintain formation pressure,
replace volumetric removal, and
sweep the reservoir to the best
mobility efficiency. To alter the in-
depth injection profile of these wells,
engineers strive to change the flow
throughout the reservoir to modify
existing inefficient patterns or paths.
Chapter 6
Chapter 6
Generally, the conformance-control
treatment is performed based on the Placement
same injection method (pressure-rate)
currently used on the well. If pos-
sible, even the fluid used should be
Techniques
similar to the one used to flood the
well. Logically, if the same injection and
method and fluid are used, the
treatment should enter the formation
in the same path. The injection
Equipment
pressure must remain below parting
pressure; if injection pressure
approaches fracture initiation
pressure during treatment, a rate
decrease will be necessary. Although
results are rarely immediate, treat-
ments of injectors can have a
significant effect on the long-term
production and the ultimate volume
of oil produced from a reservoir.
Production Wells
Generally, placement in production
wells is based on the idea that an
aqueous fluid will enter the formation
in the same area through which an
aqueous fluid is being produced. For
example, once produced water has
broken though, the mobility ratio of
the aqueous solution in the water-
bearing strata is much more favorable
than the mobility ratio of the aqueous
solution in the oil-bearing strata. As a
result, at reasonable pressures and
rates, the solution treatment should
preferentially enter the water-
producing portion of the zone.
Placement Techniques and Equipment 6-1
HOME
CONFORMANCE TECHNOLOGY
Controlling Fluid Movement
To effectively use the conformance technology pro-
cesses available, engineers must consider the following
conditions:
• Unless the formations are highly stratified with
little or no vertical permeability and no random
fracture systems, the corrective materials must
penetrate deeply into the formation to influence
fluid flow for a significant time in injection or
producing wells.
• The best fluid to perform deep formation place-
ment is a low-viscosity, solids-free fluid that
improves mobility or has a high resistance to
extrusion in a controlled manner.
• When injection wells are treated at less than
parting pressure with a fluid that has viscosity
comparable to the floodwater viscosity, selective
injection may result. The rate and pressure of
injection should be maintained at or less than the
rate and pressure of injection of the floodwater.
The same may hold true for producing wells if the
fluid is comparable to produced water, and
fracturing rates and pressures are avoided.
K-MaxSM Service
The K-MaxSM service is a water-based polymer system that
can limit the flow of produced formation water into the
wellbore. K-Max service involves the use of a cross-
linkable hydroxyethyl cellulose (HEC) in the form of a
liquid gel concentrate (LGC). K-Max forms a highly
complexed gel downhole that prevents completion or
treatment fluids from flowing into the isolated areas.
Specifically, K-Max is used as a temporary pill to shut off
production or injection at various depths. This application
allows engineers to pinpoint water- or gas-producing zones
and determine production effects that might occur after the
zone is treated.
The K-Max base fluid is mixed, hydrated, and allowed to
partially or fully crosslink on the surface before it is
pumped. The fluid is allowed to complex fully before
final placement of the uncrosslinked polymer into the
formation matrix.
K-Max service fluid can be prepared in brines having
density ranges from 8.33 to 15.2 lb/gal of fresh water.
These brines include KCl, NaCl, NaBr, CaCl2, NH4Cl,
seawater, and CaCl2 - CaBr2. Brine formulations and
polymer fluid mixing procedures must be strictly
observed.
6-2 Placement Techniques and Equipment
HOME
To prevent uncrosslinked polymer from entering the
formation, operators must hold the polymer fluid in the
mixing container until the crosslinking reaction is well
underway. If crosslinking is completed before the
material is pumped out of the blender, it will still be
pumpable and control fluid loss when placed.
The crosslink reaction rate depends on a variety of
factors, such as brine type, brine weight, and polymer
fluid temperature. Usually, higher-weighted solutions
have a faster complexation rate. The rate is fluid/tempera-
ture-dependent. A warmer polymer fluid crosslinks faster
than a cooler one. As the polymer fluid is heated by the
formation temperature during placement, the reaction rate
accelerates.
When coiled tubing is used to place K-Max, the friction
pressures through the smaller-diameter coiled tubing
restrict the gel concentration of the K-Max treatment.
Under these conditions, a 60-lb/Mgal formulation is
recommended. Pumping rates are restricted by the
pressure rating on the tubing (a maximum of approxi-
mately 0.5 bbl/min is expected for 1 1/4-in. tubing).
Figure 6.1 (Page 6-3) shows typical friction pressures
through coiled tubing.
Bullheading
The simplest, most economical treatment placement
method is the bullheading technique, in which operators
inject the treatment through existing tubulars. This
technique can be used effectively for entry into zones that
will take 100% of fluids or for entry into perforations
where a permeability decrease is necessary. Bullheading
is seldom recommended, however, because without zonal
isolation, the treatment may seal not only the intended
water zone but the oil zone as well. Figure 6.2 (Page 6-3)
shows a bullhead treatment that has sealed both zones.
Bullheading can be performed with slickline tool isola-
tion, sand plugs, etc.
To design an effective placement procedure and respon-
sive treatment, engineers must carefully consider well
conditions and reservoir characteristics. Specifically, they
must analyze injectivity profiles and perform a multi-rate
injection analysis to determine variances in entry that are
associated with variances in injection pressures/rates. The
possibility of static condition crossflows that might
continue after placement should also be considered.
The profile entry logs generated during these tests are
visuals for near-wellbore entry only, and analysts must
always consider the possibility that conditions may differ
deeper in the formation.
Chapter 6
 10
Friction Pressure (psi/ft)

1.0
ax
gal K-M
90 lb/M
ax
gal K-M
60 lb/M

0.1
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Flow Rate (gal/min)

Figure 6.1—Typical friction pressures through coiled tubing.

Injection profile entries for wells can often change over

the life of a well. For example, damage such as scaling,
Cement
paraffin buildup, and plugging caused by fines can divert
fluid movement. Frequently, this damage is actually an
asset to treatment placement, because it prevents treat-
ments from entering into possible preferred flood
Oil Zone intervals. Once the solution treatment is in place, this
damage can be removed through stimulation.
If available, computer simulators can also interpolate
pressure responses. Specifically, engineers can use the
maximum bottomhole injection pressure (BHIP) deter-
Water Zone mined during the multi-rate injection/profile analysis to
establish the limits for a treatment.
Figure 6.2—Bullhead placement technique.

Chapter 6 Placement Techniques and Equipment 6-3

HOME
CONFORMANCE TECHNOLOGY

Mechanical/Inflatable Packer Placement

For added control, operators can use mechanical packers, Cement
bridge plugs, or selective zone packers to isolate perfora-
tions or a portion of an openhole completion into which a
treatment will be placed (Figure 6.3). This method
protects critical perforations in the adjacent oil sands Oil Zone
from sealant invasion.
When selecting tools, engineers should consider how the
treatment materials could affect the performance of the
tool. Depending on the circumstances, the tools could
Water Zone
also be left in the well as a control for injection or
production. To determine the packer’s degree of place-
ment control on the zone, engineers must test for Figure 6.3—Mechanical packer placement technique.
injectivity and communication aspects.
Compatible
Dual-Injection Placement Nongelling Fluid

When performing dual-injection placement (Figure 6.4),

operators use the well’s tubulars to inject fluids down the
tubing and down the annulus. Packers, bridge plugs, sand
Oil Zone
plugs, chemical plugs, chemical packers, and other
mechanical means are usually used with this technique.
By isolating intervals with tools or covering intervals
with sand backfill, operators can more accurately target
Sealant Sealant
the preferred treatment intervals.
The dual-injection placement technique offers efficient Water Zone
placement control. To protect critical perforations in the
adjacent hydrocarbon-producing zone from the treatment Figure 6.4—Dual-injection placement technique.
solution, operators inject a nonsealing fluid that is
compatible with the formation. Frequently, the fluid used
to protect the adjacent intervals from the influx of
tubular and annular rates for performing a dual-injection
treatment solution is reactive to the sealant fluid. There-
placement technique. The possibility of static condition
fore, when the treating pressure increases, the fluid
crossflows or transient flow that might continue after
interface builds a reacted seal between the formation
placement can be determined by profile analysis, but the
intervals, creating a barrier that may allow the treatment
profile entry logs generated during these tests only apply
to be placed farther into the formation.
to near-wellbore entry; conditions deeper in the formation
Ideally, dual-injection placement directs fluids along the could differ. If pressure responses vary from the initial
interface away from the wellbore and far enough into the analysis, the control materials could be placed into the
formation to change the injectivity or the production. wrong interval.
After considering the density, viscosity, and frictional
Operators can also use dual-injection techniques to place
pressure differences of the two injection streams, engi-
treatments in which two incompatible fluids must be
neers normally equalize the BHIP to control placement
pumped separately into the well through the tubing
when using this technique.
annulus before they are injected into the interval. If the
Dual-injection placement techniques can also be designed two systems cannot be mixed and pumped through the
based on injectivity profiles and multi-rate injection tubing annulus from the surface, they are pumped
analyses used for determining variances in entry associ- separately down the tubing and intermixed at the treat-
ated with variances in injection pressure/rates. The profile ment interval.
analysis can provide percentages of fluid entry through-
out the entire interval and can help analysts determine the

6-4 Placement Techniques and Equipment Chapter 6

HOME
Chemical Packers
In gravel-packed or openhole completions, mechanical
packers or straddle systems cannot provide the isolation
that is required for placing a treatment into the selected
zone. To overcome this problem, chemical systems have
been developed that can temporarily or permanently
isolate a section of open hole behind the slotted screen or
gravel-pack screen.
For example, in a horizontal open hole with a slotted
liner, zones exist that should be protected above and
below the water-producing zone. Chemical packers can
be placed in the annulus above and below the zone to be
treated. Once in place, a mechanical system can be used
to isolate inside the liner to allow the upper and lower
zones to be properly sealed, and coiled tubing can be
used to place the conformance treatment between the
chemical packers.
Isoflow Placement
When using the isoflow placement technique (Figure 6.5),
operators direct the treatment solution into the selected
interval(s) while protecting the hydrocarbon-producing or
hydrocarbon-bearing zone by simultaneously injecting a
nonsealing, formation-compatible fluid that contains a
radioactive “tag” down the annulus.
Before the treatment is run, a gamma-ray detection tool is
run down the well inside the tubing and placed at the
interface between the upper nonsealing and lower sealing
point in the well. During the initial analysis and sometimes
during the sealant placement, engineers analyze the output
from the tool to regulate tubing and annulus pump rates. To
adjust the location of the interface, operators can manipu-
late the pump rate of the tubing and annulus fluids.
Radioactive
Compatible Fluid Wireline
Oil Zone
Gamma Ray
Logging Tool
Sealant
Sealant
Bottomwater Production
Figure 6.5—Isoflow placement technique.
Chapter 6
HOME
During normal isoflow placement operations, the sealing
solution is placed at a rate based on daily injection. This
rate should be proportional to the interval’s percentage of
fluid entry based on profile analysis. Before placement,
engineers must also consider differences in each
chemical’s viscosity and density.
When adjusting to maintain the location of the fluid
interface, engineers should use only the annular fluid’s
rate if possible. The tubular fluid should remain constant.
To save time, operators generally spot the annular fluid
down near the preferred interface before the analysis is
performed, because annular volumes are based on the
daily injection volume for the upper interval.
Rate adjustments can control the interface during treat-
ments. As the location of the fluid interface is being
tracked, rate, not pressure, controls these jobs; pressure
restrictions of the casing are the only pressure consider-
ation. To locate the interface and track the stationary
injectivities for each annular rate adjustment, operators
can move the gamma-ray logging tools to different
locations in the wellbore.
The isoflow method is uniquely suited to wells with
negative surface pressures and wells in which the fluid
stands static when they are shut in. On wells that flow
back and have a charged-up bottomhole pressure,
engineers may recommend the isoflow method to perform
tests that will establish the appropriate rates for conduct-
ing a conformance job. This solution treatment should be
performed with a stripper for the casing and a downhole
flapper valve for the tubing, which both serve to negate
the use of gamma ray tools and interface analysis during
the actual treatment. If the treatment solutions do not
cause a problem with the removal of the tubular from the
well, the jobs are performed as in static-condition wells
or low-pressure, vacuum-pressure injection wells.
Transient Placement
When the injectivity profile and shut-in crossflow on
many wells are analyzed, it may become apparent that the
well could produce fluid during static conditions from
one interval into another. The analysis may also indicate
that the well may be crossflowing at a particular rate from
other intervals while injection is being performed at a
particular rate. Once a sufficiently high rate is estab-
lished, these wells may not show a crossflow.
Placement Techniques and Equipment 6-5
CONFORMANCE TECHNOLOGY
Transient placement techniques (Figure 6.6) use
crossflow to help eliminate entry into unwanted intervals
as treatments are injected into the zones that will be
sealed. The fluids from the treatment and crossflow are
allowed to intermix in this placement procedure.
While designing treatments, engineers must perform tests
to determine if compatibility and sealant concentration
will seriously affect the treatment. For example, since
transient flow and injection flow intermixing will occur,
engineers must analyze injectivity profiles by performing
multirate tests to determine the concentration of the
treatment solution fluid.
Service Equipment
Halliburton uses a variety of equipment to place and
monitor conformance technology treatments. This
equipment includes process monitoring and control
systems, treating-fluid filtration systems, mixing systems,
and high-pressure pumping systems.
This section describes some of the different types of
Halliburton equipment available for this service.
Monitoring Systems
Halliburton’s INSITE™ for Stimulation portable data
acquisition system (Figure 6.7, Page 6-7) is an IBM®
PC-compatible laptop computer that records and
processes data from proprietary data acquisition
hardware. The basic INSITE for Stimulation system can
monitor one density input, one temperature input, three
pressure inputs, and three flow inputs. While monitoring
the basic transducer inputs, the system can simulta-
neously acquire up to 80 different pressures, flows,
temperatures, and densities from multiple remote digital
panel meters, such as Halliburton Unipros.
Filtering Systems
Several filtering systems are available for cleaning
treating fluids. Figure 6.8 (Page 6-7) shows a low-
pressure diatomaceous earth filter that can filter fluids at
rates as high as 15 bbl/min. High-pressure filters that can
withstand pressures up to 10,000 psi with a maximum
flow rate of 2 bbl/min are also available.
6-6 Placement Techniques and Equipment
HOME
Cement
Crossflow
from Interval
Tubular
and Crossflow
Placement
Sand
Plugback Fill
Figure 6.6—Transient placement technique
Mixing and High-Pressure
Pumping Systems
Mixing and high-pressure pumping systems are available
as individual, standalone systems or as integrated systems
that have been combined and mounted on a skid, truck, or
trailer. Halliburton mixing systems incorporate the latest
technology in high-energy mixing with computer con-
trols. Fluids can be mixed continuously while being
pumped downhole, or they can be mixed in batches
before pumping.
Pumping Equipment Example
The HCS Advantage skid (Figure 6.9, Page 6-7) has
mixing and high-pressure pumping capabilities. This unit
incorporates the RCM® II mixing system. This mixing
system uses Halliburton’s patented Axial Flow Mixer
(Figure 6.10, Page 6-8) and microprocessor-based control
system. The unit has a 25-bbl tank that can be used as part
of a continuous mix system or as part of a batch-mix
system. It also includes Halliburton’s high-pressure HT-
400 pumps.
The CMR-100R (Figure 6.11, Page 6-8) batch-mixing
trailer contains two 50-bbl tanks and the RCM® II
mixing system. This unit is suitable for mixing batches
up to 100 bbl.
Chapter 6
Figure 6.7—INSITE for Stimulation Portable Data Acquisition System

Figure 6.8—Halliburton Filtering System

Figure 6.9—Halliburton HCS Advantage Skid

Chapter 6 Placement Techniques and Equipment 6-7

HOME
CONFORMANCE TECHNOLOGY

Bulk
Bulk Cement Cement
Control Valve
Bulk Cement
Inlet
Mixing
Water
H2 O
R/A
Densometer Recirculating
Fluid

Turbine Vent
Agitator Rubber
Splash
Sheath

Screen

Recirculating
Slurry to Centrifugal Pump Diffuser
Displacement Pumps

Figure 6.10—RCM® Axial Flow Mixer flow schematic

Figure 6.11—Halliburton CMR-100R Batch-Mixing Trailer

6-8 Placement Techniques and Equipment Chapter 6

HOME
Coiled Tubing
The coiled tubing unit (CTU) (Figure 6.12) is a self-
contained, easily transported, hydraulically powered
workover unit that injects and retrieves a continuous
string of tubing into a larger string of tubing or casing.
The unit can be used on live wells and allows operators
to inject fluids or nitrogen while continuously moving
the pipe.
When used to place conformance treatments, coiled
tubing has the following advantages:
• Coiled tubing isolates treatment materials from
contaminants in the tubulars.
• Because of the smaller tube capacity, required
pumping times are shorter.
• Treatments can be more accurately placed.
• The smaller diameter of coiled tubing minimizes
the intermixing of the staged treatments.
Figure 6.12—Halliburton Coiled Tubing Services
Chapter 6
HOME
To prevent the treatment fluid from flowing past the
proper point, operators can use inflatable straddle
packers, single packers, and bridge plugs.
Inflatable straddle packers can be used in selective
chemical treatments for water-zone shutoff or for squeeze
cementing or locating leaks. Inflatable packers can be
used for selective chemical treatments, cement squeeze
jobs, and zonal isolation in horizontal wells. Inflatable
bridge plugs can be used to temporarily shut off water
production from lower zones, or for selective chemical
treatments or selective squeeze cementing.
Conclusions
After the selected treatment has been placed in the hole,
engineers must perform tests on the well to determine the
success of the treatment. Chapter 7 provides conform-
ance treatment evaluation methods and calculations.
Placement Techniques and Equipment 6-9

Introduction
Engineers can evaluate conformance
treatments using many of the same
techniques that they initially used to
identify the problem, including well
logs, production logs, well testing,
downhole video, reservoir descrip-
tion, reservoir monitoring, production
performance, tracer surveys, and
field-wide reservoir simulations.
These topics were covered in detail in
Chapters 2 and 3.
This chapter briefly discusses the
following additional methods that can
be used as a part of a treatment
evaluation:
• numerical methods
• production data
• injection well data (Hall plots)
Numerical Methods
To properly quantify the effect of a
treatment, engineers must carefully
evaluate sophisticated well test data
and use numerical simulation pro-
grams. Well test data evaluation
programs simplify the complex results
gained from numerical simulators to
several equations. These equations
include a mathematical definition of
rate, pressure, and time behavior in
dimensionless form and account for
flow-rate variation based on the
principle of superposition. A matching
algorithm modifies the reservoir
model parameters to provide calcu-
lated pressures that match those
recorded during the well test.
Chapter 7
Chapter 7
The time required for a numerical
simulation is directly proportional to Conformance
the number of factors that will be
considered. The more factors
involved in the test, the more
Treatment
computer time will be required. Other
factors that can greatly complicate Evaluations
numerical solutions include reservoir
boundaries, aquifer influence, gas
cap, layering, partial penetration, and
and
heterogeneities. Calculations
Production Data
Production data provide an accessible
source of information for evaluating
conformance projects. Comparisons
of water-oil ratio, gas-oil ratio, oil
production rate, and wellhead
pressure and temperature data to
pretreatment values can provide
quantitative means of evaluating
treatment success.
Injection Well Data
(Hall Plot)
If the cumulative volume of injected
fluid and a good record of injection
pressures are both available, engineers
can use a Hall plot to evaluate injection
well performance. This method
assumes a series of steady-state
injections, which means that dimen-
sionless pressure, pD, is time-indepen-
dent. This assumption is valid only as
long the pressure transient has not
encountered external boundaries, fluid
contacts, and reservoir heterogeneities,
and the rate variation is not frequent.
The Hall plot provides an acceptable
approximation over a reasonable
period and is a simple means of
monitoring injection-well performance.
Conformance Treatment Evaluations 7-1
HOME
CONFORMANCE TECHNOLOGY
Based on the constant pD assumption, Eq. 7.1 can be
derived:
Eq. 7.1
where
ptf = wellhead pressure in the injection well, psi
pe = reservoir pressure, psi
∆ρtw = hydrostatic pressure inside the wellbore, psi
t = injection time, D
Bo = formation volume factor, RB/STB
µ = injected fluid viscosity, cp
s = skin factor
k = permeability, md
h = formation height, ft
Wi = the cumulative water injected, STB
When (pe - ∆ρtw)t is small compared to the integral, a plot
of this integral, commonly approximated by the summa-
tion, Σptf ∆t, vs. cumulative water injected, Wi, will result
in a straight line, the slope of which is given by
Eq. 7.2
For a radial flow pattern, Equation 7.2 changes to
Eq. 7.3
where
Bo = formation volume factor of injected fluid,
RB/STB
re = drainage radius, ft
rw = wellbore radius, ft
If re/rw is known and s has been determined through a
pressure transient test, k/µ can be estimated from Eq. 7.3.
Likewise, if k/µ has been determined through a pressure
transient test and re/rw is known, s can be estimated.
When a successful conformance treatment has been
performed, the graph should display two straight-line
portions with the slope of the second line, mH2, which
7-2 Conformance Treatment Evaluations
HOME
reflects conditions after the conformance treatment. This
slope should be greater than the slope of the first line,
mH1, which reflects pretreatment conditions.
To evaluate injection performance before and after a
conformance treatment, engineers can estimate the ratio
of the new flow efficiency to the old flow efficiency:
Eq. 7.4
where
Ef1 = old flow efficiency
Ef2 =new flow efficiency
A successful conformance treatment results in a flow
efficiency ratio less than 1.
The skin resulting from the treatment, s2, can be calcu-
lated from
Eq. 7.5
where s1 is the pretreatment skin value.
A wellbore will have a higher skin value after a success-
ful conformance treatment. In addition to reflecting
changes in permeability around the wellbore, this higher
skin value also reflects changes in fluid properties and
offset production, and the accumulation of skin damage
on the wellbore face.
The value of k/µ used in Eqs. 7.1 through 7.3 and
Equation 7.5 is determined from conventional well tests,
such as a pressure buildup test.
Treatment Placement Calculations
The modified Hall plot provides a method for monitoring
the effectiveness of a permeability reduction treatment.
The following is a step-by-step procedure for placing a
treatment using the modified Hall plot technique.
1. Plot cumulative injection pressure (psi) with respect
to time (Σptfdt) on the y axis, vs. cumulative injection
volume in bbl (on the x axis). Determine the slope of
the best-fit straight line through the data. Calculate
the current skin factor for the well from:
Chapter 7
 Eq. 7.6
where:
s1 = initial skin factor,
mH1 = slope of the best fit line, psi-D/bbl,
k = formation permeability, md,
h = height of open interval, ft,
Bo = formation volume factor of produced or
injected fluid, RB/STB,
m = fluid viscosity, md,
re = drainage radius, ft, and
rw = wellbore radius, ft.
2. Perform a step-rate test on the well, and plot the data
as ptf (y axis) versus injection rate (x axis). Fluid
entry into the lower permeability zones is indicated
by changes in the slope of the plotted data. Calculate
the ratio of the slope of first straight line portion to
the slope of the second.
The step-rate test can be performed during the
preflush stage of the treatment.
3. During placement of the polymer, create a Hall plot
for the treatment. For each data point taken,
a. Plot Σptfdt in psi-D (on the y axis) versus
cumulative injection volume in bbl (on the x
axis) on the graph.
b. Determine the slope of the plot at the data point.
c. Using the slope determined in Step 3b and the
slope and skin factor determined in Step 1,
calculate the current skin factor from:
Eq. 7.7
where:
s2 = skin factor at current data point,
mH2 = slope at current data point, psi-D/bbl,
B = formation volume factor of polymer fluid,
RB/STB, and
µ = viscosity of treating solution, cp.
Chapter 7
HOME
d. Estimate the depth of polymer penetration, rp,
from:
Eq. 7.8
where:
frr = residual resistance factor. (Note: Determine frr in
the laboratory using formation samples and the
treatment polymer.)
e. Determine the ratio of mH2 for the current point to
the initial value of mH2 for the treatment. If this
value equals or exceeds the slope ratio deter-
mined for the step-rate test of Step 2 before the
required penetration radius is reached, go to the
flush/overdisplacement stage of the treatment.
Such a slope ratio change indicates fluid entry
into the lower-permeability portion of the interval.
Pressure-Transient Testing to Determine
Treatment Volume
Given any two of (1) treatment volume, (2) degree of
mobility reduction, or (3) resulting skin damage, the
third factor can be calculated, if formation porosity and
height are known. This is seen through the following
relationships.
Assuming uniform invasion of the treatment polymer and
a penetration radius much greater than the wellbore
radius, the volume of polymer treatment injected, Vp, can
be volumetrically related to penetration radius, rp, from:
Eq. 7.9
or, equivalently,
Eq. 7.10
where φ is the formation porosity, and h is the height of
the treated formation. Skin factor, s, is related to the
penetration radius and the mobility of the treated zone,
(k/µ)p by:
Conformance Treatment Evaluations 7-3
CONFORMANCE TECHNOLOGY

Eq. 7.11 pressure lower boundary on the formation. In the simula-

tions, the well is put on production. Then the time the
bottom boundary is detected at the wellbore is observed.
Plots of water breakthrough time versus rp or Vp/fh for
several reduced mobility ratio values can be generated.
Eq. 7.10 was used to calculate the minimum treatment
volumes required to penetrate radii of 10, 25, and 100 ft.
Table 7.2 presents these chemical volumes with equiva-
Where (k/µ) is the initial reservoir mobility and rw is the lent radial flow skin values calculated from Eq. 7.11.
wellbore radius.
This can be rewritten as:
Eq. 7.12 Table 7.1—Reservoir Data for Study
Flow rate (STB/D) 20
Net pay thickness (ft) 20
Reservoir temperature (°F) 250
Porosity 0.2
Invaded zone permeability (md) 1
Formation permeability (md) 100
To examine the relationships between the parameters, Vertical permeability (md) 0.2
plots of rp and s versus Vp/fh can be generated for several Wellbore radius (ft) 0.4
reduced mobility ratio values. Skin 0
These relationships can be used in different ways. For Wellbore storage (bbl/psi) 0.000183
example, if it is beneficial to achieve a certain skin factor
Connate water saturation 0.2
and the degree of permeability or mobility reduction is
known, Eq. 7.11 can be rearranged and used to determine Oil gravity (API) 40
the penetration radius required. Once rp is known, Eq. 7.9 Gas gravity 0.75
or 10 can be used to determine the treatment volume. Solution gas-oil ratio (scf/STB) 300
In another potential application, well testing methods Formation volume factor
can be used to determine the skin factor resulting from a 1.218
(RB/STB)
conformance treatment. The penetration radius of the
Total formation compressibility
treatment is determined from the treatment volume using 10.78
(1/Mmpsi)
Eq. 7.10. Once skin factor and penetration radius are
known, Eq. 7.12 can be used to determine the mobility Oil viscosity (cp) 0.736
in the treated region. The mobility and the penetration
radius can be subsequently used in a numerical simula-
tor to model the expected well behavior with the Table 7.2—Calculated Values
treatment in place. for Example
rp Vp/φh
The following is an example of how these equations, se
coupled with Halliburton’s well test design software, (ft) (gal/ft)
RESULTS (REServoir ULtimate Test Simulator), are 10 2,350 318.7
applied to identify water coning. 25 14,687 409.4
Table 7.1 presents the reservoir data used for this study. 50 58,748 478
This reservoir has a permeability of 100 md, which was 100 234,991 546.6
reduced to 1 md out to a radius of rp by polymer injec-
tion. Bottomwater influx is represented by a constant-

7-4 Conformance Treatment Evaluations Chapter 7

HOME
Reservoir Simulation to Determine Treat- Eq. 7.14: Water Coning
ment Volumes
The pressure-transient testing approach is a quick and
approximate representation of the coning phenomena. A
proper reservoir simulator, which can duplicate the flow Eq. 7.15: Simultaneous Water and Gas Coning
of the individual phases through the formation, generates
graphs of water-cut or gas-oil ratio versus treatment
volume for several reduced mobility values.

Coning and Cresting Calculations where the well completion is optimally placed so the
bottom of the completion is at:
This section presents several relatively simple methods
Eq. 7.16
for estimating oil and gas coning and cresting behavior
in vertical and horizontal wells. These methods cannot
replace a detailed numerical simulation of a specific
well in a specific reservoir but are much simpler to use
and provide some reasonable estimates of coning
behavior in several situations. The section includes Chaperon4 Method
methods for calculating (1) critical rate, i.e., the maxi-
This method, based on an approximate analytical solu-
mum rate a well can produce without water or gas
tion, assumes the perforated interval is negligibly small
breakthrough, (2) breakthrough time, i.e., the time the
compared to the reservoir height.
cone or crest breaks through to the well at a particular
production rate, and (3) water cut, i.e., the fraction of Eq. 7.17
production that is water at a particular point after
breakthrough occurs.
This section also includes methods for determining the
optimal vertical position of a horizontal well, i.e., the depth
water and gas break through simultaneously. For more The quantity qc* is given by1:
specific information on the methods, refer to the original
Eq. 7.18
works from which the correlations were taken. Joshi also
discusses many of the methods with example calculations.

Vertical Well Coning Calculations where the dimensionless drainage radius, reD, is given by:
Critical Rate Calculations Eq. 7.19

Meyer, Garder2 and Pirson3 Method

Meyer and Garder developed approximate analytical
solutions to water and gas coning based, among other
things, on the assumptions that (1) the potential distribu-
tion in the oil phase is not influenced by the cone shape
and (2) critical rate is determined when the water cone
reaches the bottom of the well. Pirson extended this
analysis to simultaneous coning of both water and gas.
Eq. 7.13: Gas Coning
If vertical permeability is unknown, qc* can be reasonably
approximated as 1.
Chaney et al.5 Method
Chaney et al. developed curves relating critical produc-
tion rate to the oil-zone thickness and the height of the
perforated interval using mathematical analysis and
potentiometric model techniques. Kuo and DesBrisay6
performed a least squares fit on Chaney’s curves to put
them in equation form. Because the curves were devel-

Chapter 7 Conformance Treatment Evaluations 7-5

HOME
CONFORMANCE TECHNOLOGY

oped for one particular set of fluid and rock characteris- If the perforated interval extends to the top of the oil
tics, corrections must be applied to generalize them to zone, Eq. 7.24 simplifies to:
other conditions. The resulting correlation is:
Eq. 7.25
Eq. 7.20

The average height of the oil zone can be determined

Schols7 Method from a material balance as:
The Schols Method is an empirical correlation based on Eq. 7.26
experiments performed in Hele-Shaw models.
Eq. 7.21

Høyland, Papatzacos, and Skjaeveland10

Method
Chappelear and Hirasaki8,9 Method The correlations of this method are based on more than 50
critical rates determined using a numerical reservoir model.
This theoretically derived model accounts for perforated
intervals that do not extend to the top of the oil zone. It Eq. 7.27: Isotropic Reservoirs
can account for moderate anisotropy and down-coning of
oil into water.
Eq. 7.22

For critical rate calculations in anisotropic reservoirs, two

dimensionless quantities are used, dimensionless critical
HPS

where the average of the natural logarithm of the radius

rate, q ocD
, defined by:
with an effective radius correction is given by:
Eq. 7.28: Anisotropic Reservoirs
Eq. 7.23

and dimensionless radius, as defined by Eq. 7.19.

The procedure for calculating critical rate is:
1. Determine dimensionless radius, reD, using Eq. 7.19.
and the effective radius is given by: HPS

Eq. 7.24
2. Determine dimensionless critical rates, q ocD
, for
several fractional well penetrations using Fig. 7.1.
3. Plot dimensionless critical rate as a function of well
penetration (Høyland, Papatzacos, and Skjaeveland
use a semilogarithmic scale).
4. Calculate fractional well penetration.
5. Interpolate in the plot produced in Step 3 to deter-
mine dimensionless critical rate.

7-6 Conformance Treatment Evaluations Chapter 7

HOME
6. Determine the critical rate using the following
equation:
Eq. 7.29
Yang and Wattenbarger Method
Unlike most previous correlations, that of Yang and
Wattenbarger, developed from numerical simulations,
assumes a no-flow outer boundary. The perforated interval
does not need to extend to the top of the pay interval.
Eq. 7.30
where the dimensionless critical rate is computed from:
Eq. 7.31
Guo and Lee12 Method
Assuming a three-dimensional, combined radial-spherical
flow pattern, Guo and Lee developed an analytical
method that, unlike most previously developed correla-
tions, accounts for the effect of limited wellbore penetra-
tion on oil productivity. And, unlike previous correlations
that show that the greatest critical flow rate occurs with a
wellbore penetration length of zero, they determined a
relationship that gives a finite optimum completion length
from the top of the formation.
An excellent approximation of their critical rate equation is:
Eq. 7.32
Chapter 7
HOME
The optimum well penetration can be solved for numeri-
cally from:
Eq. 7.33
where:
Eq. 7.34
Eq. 7.35
Eq. 7.36
and:
Eq. 7.37
Once xopt is determined, the maximum achievable water-
free rate can be calculated by substituting xopth for hp in
Eq. 7.32.
Additional Methods
Additional methods for calculating critical rates are
derived from breakthrough time calculations, such as
those of Sobocinski and Cornelius13 and Bournazel and
Jeanson.14 These are presented with the breakthrough
calculations in the following section.
Wheatley15 developed an analytical solution that consid-
ers the influence of the cone on the potential distribution
but requires an iterative procedure for determining the
critical rate in oil-water coning. Piper and Gonzalez16
extended the method to determine the optimum comple-
tion interval in the presence of bottomwater and a gas
cap. Both methods can be easily programmed on a
computer, but they are too involved to present here.
Conformance Treatment Evaluations 7-7
CONFORMANCE TECHNOLOGY

Comparisons or:
Muskat and Wycoff’s analytical solution17 is generally Eq. 7.40: Bournazel and Jeanson
agreed to give too high critical rates, 6,10,15 a conclusion
extended to the Chaney et al. method.5 In contrast, Meyer
and Garder’s method2 was found to underestimate critical
rates,1,7,10 a conclusion extended to Pirson’s method.3
Schols’ method7 also underestimates critical rate when 3. Use the dimensionless breakthrough time and the
compared to the Høyland et al. or Wheatley methods,1,10,15 following equation to calculate, tbt, the time of
but not by as much. Høyland et al. found their method breakthrough in days:
agrees very closely with the analytical solution of Eq. 7.41
Wheatley for well penetrations in the rD interval from 2 to
50. Wheatley’s theory gives slightly higher values at the
upper end of the interval and lower values at the lower
end. The trade-off between these two methods is using a
graph or performing iterative calculations. The Guo and where:
Lee method12 differs from the others in that critical rates
approach zero as the fractional well penetration goes to Eq. 7.42a: Sobocinski and Cornelius
zero, which suggests an optimal penetration depth exists.
The Chappelear and Hirasaki8,9 and Yang and Watten-
barger11 methods were developed primarily for use in
large-scale reservoir simulators, but they can make coning Eq. 7.42b: Bournazel and Jeanson
calculations for a single well. No comparisons have been
found in the literature for these particular models.
The breakthrough time and the dimensionless break-
Breakthrough Time Calculations through time are infinite if the denominator of the
relationship between dimensionless breakthrough time
Sobocinski and Cornelius13 and Bournazel and dimensionless cone height is infinite, a condition met
and Jeanson14 Methods for the Sobocinski and Cornelius correlation if z = 3.5
Sobocinski and Cornelius developed a breakthrough time and for the Bournazel and Jeanson correlation if z = 4.3.
correlation based on a combination of experimental work By plugging these values of z into Eq. 7.38, the definition
and a computer finite difference model. Bournazel and of z, and solving that equation for qo, the critical rates
Jeanson’s later work is based solely on laboratory results. predicted by these methods are:

1. Calculate the dimensionless cone height, z, according to: Eq. 7.43: Sobocinski and Cornelius
Eq. 7.38

and:
2. Calculate the dimensionless breakthrough time from Eq. 7.44: Bournazel and Jeanson
either of the following:
Eq. 7.39: Sobocinski and Cornelius

7-8 Conformance Treatment Evaluations Chapter 7

HOME
Wang and Wattenbarger Method11 (no-flow and:
outer boundary) Eq. 7.50
Eq. 7.45

Chappelear and Hirasaki8,9 Method

where:
This theoretically derived model accounts for perforated
Eq. 7.46 intervals that do not extend to the top of the oil zone. It
can account for moderate anisotropy and down-coning of
oil into water.
In this method, solving the following quadratic equation
for the water cut is necessary. Of the two roots to the
Eq. 7.47 equation, the one that falls between 0 and 1 is the correct
value of fw.
Eq. 7.51

where the mobility thickness ratio, Nmt, is found according to:

Eq. 7.52
and:
Eq. 7.48

the depth-averaged oil relative permeability is given by:

Eq. 7.53

Water Cut/Water-Oil Ratio Calculations

For any of these methods or those presented for horizon-
tal wells, water cut and water-oil ratio can be determined
from each other according to: the depth-averaged water relative permeability is given by:

Eq. 7.49 Eq. 7.54

and the critical rate is given by Eq. 7.22.

Chapter 7 Conformance Treatment Evaluations 7-9

HOME
CONFORMANCE TECHNOLOGY

Kuo and DesBrisay6 Method Yang and Wattenbarger Method11 (no-flow

The procedure for calculating the water cut at any time outer boundary)
after breakthrough is: This method assumes downhole production rate remains
1. Calculate the breakthrough time, tbt, in days using constant.
either the method of Sobocinski and Cornelius or Before breakthrough:
Bournazel and Jeanson.
Eq. 7.62
2. Determine the dimensionless water cut time, twcD
from the following equation:
Eq. 7.55

After breakthrough:
Eq. 7.63
3. Calculate the limiting water cut for the reservoir from:
Eq. 7.56

where:
Eq. 7.64
where:
Eq. 7.57

Eq. 7.58
and
Eq. 7.65
and
Eq. 7.59

The (qoBo+qwBw) term in Eq. 7.65 represents a set

downhole production rate. To approximate a constant
surface rate, approximate the downhole rate or iterate
4. Determine the dimensionless water cut, fwD from the the calculations of Eqs. 7.63 through 7.65 until suffi-
following: cient accuracy is attained. (A few iterations should be
Eq. 7.60 sufficient.)

5. Calculate the actual water-cut fraction as

Eq. 7.61

7-10 Conformance Treatment Evaluations Chapter 7

HOME
Effect of Horizontal Barrier Gas Cap or Bottomwater Drive with Constant
Reservoir Pressure
Meyer and Garder2 derived a relationship for adjusting
the critical rate if an impermeable barrier of some radius, where1:
rb, is placed at the bottom of the perforated interval for Eq. 7.68
water coning or at the top of the perforated interval for
gas coning.
Eq. 7.66

where1:
Eq. 7.69

Karp, Lowe, and Marusov,18 recognizing the small

permeability such a barrier can have and that water is and:
produced through the barrier, derived an equation for
determining the produced water-oil ratio if the oil Eq. 7.70
production rate is high enough to maintain a water cone
under the entire barrier without producing any water
around it.
Eq. 7.67
A quick estimate of qoc can be made for L » 2ye by setting
F = 4.
Pseudo-Steady State (Pressure Depletion)
Substitute ye/2 for ye in Eq. 7.68.
Karp et al. also present an equation for the shape of the
maximum stable water cone in a radial system. Efros19,20 Method
Eq. 7.71
Horizontal Well Cresting Calculations

Critical Rate Calculations

Chaperon4 Method
Joshi suggests ye, rather than 2ye, should appear in the
Based on approximate analytical solutions, this method denominator of Eq. 7.71.
assumes the horizontal well is placed at the top (for
waterdrive) or bottom (for gas-cap drive) of the oil zone
to minimize coning.

Chapter 7 Conformance Treatment Evaluations 7-11

HOME
CONFORMANCE TECHNOLOGY
Giger and Karcher et al.20-22 Method
This method is based on an analytical solution that
assumes the well is located near the top of the reservoir
for bottomwater and edgewater drives and near the
bottom for gas-cap drive.
Eq. 7.72
Joshi23 Method (Gas Coning)
This method is simply an extension of the Meyer and
Garder method for gas coning in vertical wells. It is made
by substituting an effective vertical wellbore radius.
Eq. 7.73
where the effective wellbore radius, r, is calculated as:
Eq. 7.74
and the major half-axis of the drainage ellipse, a, is
calculated as:
Eq. 7.75
Dikken24 Method (Edgewater Drive)
Similar to other methods, this one assumes the well is
placed at either the top or the bottom of the reservoir,
depending on whether water or gas is present.
Eq. 7.76
7-12 Conformance Treatment Evaluations
HOME
where:
Eq. 7.77
Yang and Wattenbarger11 Method
Unlike most previous correlations, that of Yang and
Wattenbarger, developed from numerical simulations,
assumes a no-flow outer boundary.
Eq. 7.78
where:
Eq. 7.79
Breakthrough Time and Calculations
Ozkan and Raghavan25 Method
Ozkan and Raghavan developed a theoretical correlation
to calculate water breakthrough time for a horizontal well
in a bottomwater drive reservoir by assuming the pressure
at the oil-water interface is constant. Because the calcula-
tion involves graphically determining sweep efficiency,
with different graphs for different relative placements of
the well from the oil-water interface, it is advisable to
refer to the original work for more information.
Papatzacos et al.26,27 Methods
Gas Cap or Bottomwater
Papatzacos et al. developed a breakthrough time correla-
tion using a semi-analytic method and assuming the well
is located at either the top or the bottom of the oil zone to
minimize water or gas coning. The problem was solved
using two methods.
Chapter 7
 P where gas and water breakthrough should occur simulta-
In both methods, dimensionless production rate, q D
, is neously. These techniques involve the following steps:
determined from the relationship in Eq. 7.80: 1. Calculate the ratio of density contrasts, y, according to:
Eq. 7.80 Eq. 7.84

2. Determine the coefficients cWP,i and cbt,i from Tables

and the breakthrough time, tbt, is calculated from the
7.3 and 7.4 (Page 7-14).
dimensionless breakthrough time, ttD, according to:
3. Calculate the dimensionless production rate using
Eq. 7.81 Eq. 7.80.
4. Calculate the optimum well placement and the
dimensionless breakthrough time from:
Eq. 7.85
The first method of solution used the assumption that the top
gas or bottomwater can be represented as a constant pressure
boundary. This leads to the relationship between dimension- and:
less breakthrough time and dimensionless rate of:
Eq. 7.86
Eq. 7.82

where:
Eq. 7.87
The second method considered gravity equilibrium within
the cone, giving the relationship:
Eq. 7.83
5. Calculate the actual breakthrough time from Eq. 7.81
using ∆ρog for ∆ρ.
Yang and Wattenbarger11 Method (no-flow
outer boundary)
P Eq. 7.88
The two methods give very similar results for q D
³ 1.
Comparison with a numerical simulator shows the
analytical solution has reasonable accuracy for all gas
P
viscosities with q D
£ 0.3. For gas viscosities greater than where:
Eq. 7.89
P
0.15, reasonable accuracy is expected with q D
£ 0.6.

Gas Cap and Bottomwater

Papatzacos et al. also presented methods to calculate
breakthrough time for both top gas and bottomwater and
the optimum well placement, i.e., the vertical position

Chapter 7 Conformance Treatment Evaluations 7-13

HOME
CONFORMANCE TECHNOLOGY

Eq. 7.90 Water Cut/Water-Oil Ratio Calculation

Yang and Wattenbarger11 Method (no-flow
outer boundary)
This method assumes that the downhole production rate
remains constant.
and: Before breakthrough:
Eq. 7.91 Eq. 7.92

7-14 Conformance Treatment Evaluations Chapter 7

HOME
After breakthrough: lV = distance between perforated top of a vertical well
and gas-oil interface, ft
Eq. 7.93
M = water-oil mobility ratio
= [mo(kw)or/mw(ko)wc] where (kw)or is the effective
permeability to water at residual oil saturation, and
(ko)wc is the effective permeability to oil at connate
where: water saturation
Ms = surface-corrected water-oil mobility ratio
Eq. 7.94
= M´Bo/Bw
N = initial oil in place, STB
Np = cumulative oil production, STB
q = production rate, STB/D
re = drainage radius, ft
and: rw = wellbore radius, ft
Swc = connate water saturation, fraction
Eq. 7.95
Sor = residual oil saturation, fraction
t = time of production, D
xe = distance between horizontal well and constant
pressure boundary, ft
The (qoBo+qwBw) term in Eq. 7.95 represents a set xopt = optimum fractional penetration of wellbore
downhole production rate. To approximate a constant ye = half drainage length (perpendicular to horizontal
surface rate, approximate the downhole rate or iterate the well), ft
calculations of Eqs. 7.93 through 95 until sufficient
accuracy is attained. (A few iterations should be sufficient.) µ = viscosity, cp
ρ = density, g/cm3
Chapter Abbreviations ∆ρ = density difference, g/cm3
φ = porosity, fraction
Nomenclature
Subscripts
A = areal extent of well or reservoir, ft2
b = barrier
Bo = formation volume factor, RB/STB
bt = breakthrough
fw = water cut
c = critical
H = initial zone thickness, ft
D = dimensionless
h = zone thickness, ft
g = gas
hh = height of horizontal well from top of oil zone, ft
H = horizontal
hcb = height of completion bottom from top of oil zone, ft
i = initial
hct = height of completion top from top of oil zone, ft
o = oil
k = effective permeability, md
p = perforated (from top of sand)
kr = relative permeability
t = total
L = horizontal well length, ft
V = vertical
lH,go = distance between horizontal well and gas-oil
interface, ft w = water
lH,wo = distance between horizontal well and water-oil wc = water cut
interface, ft
Superscripts
-
= average

Chapter 7 Conformance Treatment Evaluations 7-15

HOME
CONFORMANCE TECHNOLOGY
Bibliography
Hall, H.N.: “How to Analyze Waterflood Injection Well
Performance,” World Oil (Oct. 1963) 128-30. Refer-
ences for Seismic-Geologic Reservoir Characterization
(Reservoir Description).
Marquardt, D.W.: “An Algorithm for Least Squares
Estimation of Nonlinear Parameters,” J. SIAM
(June 1963) 11, No. 2, 431-41.
References
1. Joshi, S.D.: Horizontal Well Technology, PennWell Publish-
ing Company, Tulsa, OK, 1991.
2. Meyer, H.I. and Garder, A.O.: “Mechanics of Two
Immiscible Fluids in Porous Media,” Journal of Applied
Physics, Vol. 25, No. 11, 1400 ff.
3. Pirson, S.J.: Oil Reservoir Engineering, Robert E. Krieger
Publishing Co., Huntington, NY, 1977.
4. Chaperon, I.: “Theoretical Study of Coning Toward
Horizontal and Vertical Wells in Anisotropic Formations:
Subcritical and Critical Rates,” paper SPE 15377 presented
at the 1986 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, New Orleans, LA, Oct. 5-8.
5. Chaney, P.E. et al.: “How to Perforate Your Well and
Prevent Water and Gas Coning,” Oil and Gas Journal,
(May 7, 1956) 108.
6. Kuo, M.C.T. and DesBrisay, C.L.: “A Simplified Method
for Water Coning Calculations,” paper SPE 12067
presented at the 1983 SPE Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition, San Francisco, CA, Oct. 5-8.
7. Schols, R.S.: “An Empirical Formula for the Critical Oil
Production Rate,” Erdoel Erdgas, Z., (Jan. 1972) Vol. 88,
No. 1, 6-11.
8. Chappelear, J.E. and Hirasaki, G.J.: “A Model of Oil-Water
Coning for Two-Dimensional, Areal Reservoir Simulation,”
SPEJ, (April 1976) 65-72.
9. Chappelear, J.E. and Hirasaki, G.J.: “A Model of Oil-Water
Coning for 2-D Areal Reservoir Simulation,” paper 4980
presented at the SPE-AIME 49th Annual Fall Meeting,
Houston, Oct. 6-9, 1974.
10. Høyland, L.A., Papatzacos, P., and Skjaeveland, S.M.:
“Critical Rate for Water Coning: Correlation and Analyti-
cal Solution,” SPE Reservoir Engineering, (Nov. 1989)
495-502.
11. Yang, W. and Wattenbarger, R.A.: “Water Coning
Calculations for Vertical and Horizontal Wells,” paper SPE
22931 presented at the 1991 SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Oct. 6-9.
12. Guo, B. and Lee, R.L-H.: “A Simple Approach to Optimiza-
tion of Completion Interval in Oil/Water Coning Systems,”
SPE Reservoir Engineering, (Nov. 1993) 249-55.
7-16 Conformance Treatment Evaluations
HOME
13. Sobocinski, D.P. and Cornelius, A.J.: “A Correlation for
Predicting Water Coning Time,” JPT, (May 1965) 594-600.
14. Bournazel, C. and Jeanson, B.: “Fast Water-Coning
Evaluation Method,” paper SPE 3628 presented at the 1971
SPE Annual Fall Meeting, New Orleans, Oct. 3-6.
15. Wheatley, M.J.: “An Approximate Theory of Oil/Water
Coning,” paper SPE 14210 presented at the 1985 SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Las Vegas,
Sept. 22-25.
16. Piper, L.D. and Gonzalez, F.M. Jr.: “Calculation of the
Critical Oil Production Rate and Optimum Completion
Interval,” paper SPE 16206 presented at the 1987 SPE
Production Operations Symposium, Oklahoma City,
March 8-10.
17. Muskat, M. and Wycoff, R.D.: “An Approximate Theory of
Water Coning in Oil Production,” Trans., AIME (1935) 114,
144-61.
18. Karp, J.C., Lowe, D.K., and Marusov, N.: “Horizontal
Barriers for Controlling Water Coning,” JPT, (July 1962)
783-90.
19. Efros, D.A.: “A Study of Multiphase Flows in Porous
Media,” (in Russian) Gastoptexizdat, Leningrad, 1963.
20. Karcher, B.J., Giger, F.M., and Combe, J.: “Some Practical
Formulas to Predict Horizontal Well Behavior,” paper SPE
15430 presented at the 1986 SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, LA, Oct. 5-8.
21. Giger, F.: “Evaluation Theoretique de l’Effet d’Arete d’Eau
Sur la Production par Puits Horizontaux,” Revue de
l’Institut Francais du Petrole, Vol. 38, No. 3, May-June 1983
(in French).
22. Giger, F.M.: “Analytic 2-D Models of Water Cresting
Before Breakthrough for Horizontal Wells,” SPE Reservoir
Engineering, (Nov. 1989) 409-16.
23. Joshi, S.D.: “Augmentation of Well Productivity Using
Slant and Horizontal Wells,” JPT, (June 1988) 729-39.
24. Dikken, B.J.: “Pressure Drop in Horizontal Wells and Its
Effect on Their Production Performance,” paper SPE 19824
presented at the 1989 SPE Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition, San Antonio, TX, Oct. 8-11.
25. Ozkan, E. and Raghavan, R.: “Performance of Horizontal
Wells Subject to Bottom Water Drive,” paper SPE 18545
presented at the 1988 SPE Eastern Regional Meeting,
Charleston, WV, Nov. 2-4.
26. Papatzacos, P., Gustafson, S.A., and Skaeveland, S.M.:
“Critical Time for Cone Breakthrough in Horizontal
Wells,” presented at Seminar on Recovery from Thin Oil
Zones, Norwegian Petroleum Directorate, Stavanger,
Norway, April 21-22, 1988.
27. Papatzacos, P. et al.: “Cone Breakthrough Time for
Horizontal Wells,” paper SPE 19822 presented at the 1989
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San
Antonio, TX, Oct. 8-11, 1989.
Chapter 7
 www.halliburton.com

H03349.v1 12/02
© 2002 Halliburton
All Rights Reserved
Printed in U.S.A. Produced by Halliburton Communications