SPE-172593-MS

Combining Horizontal Production Logging and Distributed Temperature

Interpretations to Diagnose Annular Flow in Slotted-Liner Completions
T. Ben Haoua, S. Abubakr, J. Pazzi, L. Djessas, A. M. Ali, and H.B. Ayyad, Schlumberger; A. Boumali,
Z. Boulkaila, and M.H. Brahim, Sonatrach

Copyright 2015, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Middle East Oil & Gas Show and Conference held in Manama, Bahrain, 8 11 March 2015.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents
of the paper have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect
any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written
consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may
not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
Production logging in horizontal wells has been challenging due to phase stratification and complex flow
regimes. New technologies were introduced to properly characterize such flow dynamics; however,
adding a new complex completion strategy, such as a slotted liner, raises the challenge to a new level.
When a slotted liner is not equipped with a hanger, two flow paths become possible one inside the
slotted liner and the other outside itwith possible fluid exchange between the two paths. Production
logging tools can only see the inner flow. The lack of information about the outer flow raises uncertainties
about the real producing zone(s) and may affect the success of future well intervention operations.
We describe a new methodology that combines multiphase production logging measurements with
distributed temperature survey data. Both sets of data were acquired simultaneously during conveyance
of the production logging tool on coiled tubing. The production logging data offers insights into phase
distribution and enables production profiling inside the slotted liner; distributed temperature data solves
for total formation production. Combining the two interpretations enables quantification of flow in each
of the two paths and helps identify the fluid exchange between them, which would otherwise be
misinterpreted as fluid entry from the formation. The result of this integrated interpretation methodology
is accurate determination of zonal contributions.

Introduction
Horizontal wells have become an efficient strategy for producing oil and gas. Sonatrachthe Algerian
national oil companystarted horizontal drilling in the late 90s. The main purpose was to sustain
production from its giant onshore field by increasing contact with the formation and intercepting the
maximum number of natural fractures. Initially, the horizontal wells used barefoot completion, but the
wellbores often collapsed after producing for a short period. Consequently, slotted liner was used in the
openhole section to provide mechanical support and improve wellbore stability. The liner was not
anchored in the previous casing. This configuration solved the wellbore stability issue but complicated
reservoir monitoring via production logging.
The completion selected creates flow patterns as shown in Fig. 1 that are difficult to evaluate with
conventional production logging tools. Generally, there will be concurrent flows in both the liner and the

SPE-172593-MS

annulus1. These flows may have varying degrees of independence relative to one another. Exchange of
mass between the liner and the annulus can easily confuse conventional production logging tools and may
be misinterpreted as flow into or from the formation.

Figure 1Flow patterns in a slotted liner.

Independence between concurrent flows implies that a measurement of flow in one region will not
provide any information about flow in the other region. Therefore any tool designed to measure concurrent
flows must be able to discriminate between the multiphase flow inside and outside the liner.
A spinner can accurately estimate flow inside the liner, but it cannot measure annular flow. A pulsed
neutron log (PNL) provides phase holdup in both liner and annulus but it is not sensitive to fluid velocity,
while temperature and noise logs c an be used to identify fluid entries behind the liner, but only
qualitatively. The combination of a flowmeter, pulsed neutron logging tool, and temperature sensor was
tried in Algeria. Fluid entries from the formation were identified through the temperature measurement,
the flowing phase was identified via the PNL, and total flow was quantified using the flowmeter, assuming
dependence of concurrent flows. However, this assumption introduces errors in the computation and
increases uncertainties in the flow profile.
Recently, quantification of flow through temperature measurements became possible with the introduction of distributed temperature sensing2, 3, 4, 5, 6. Temperature is measured by a stationary optical fiber
and flow is modeled us ing pseudo steady-state nodal analysis. The output is the total flow profile from
the formation into the wellbore. Combining this result with t he flow profile acquired inside the liner
through production logging can reveal the reality of annular flow, quant ify true formation contribution,
and determine all mass exchange between concurrent flows.
The methodology described in this paper applies to the second scenario of concurrent flow shown in
Fig. 1, namely moderately independent flow.

Theory and definition

The production logging tool described here was developed by an oilfield services company especially for
highly deviated and horizontal to near-horizontal wells7, 8. On one side of the tools retractable arm are

SPE-172593-MS

four miniature spinners designed to measure the well fluid velocity profile. On the other side are arrays
of five electrical and five optical probes for measuring localized water and gas holdups, respectively.
Additionally, a fifth miniature spinner and a sixth pair of electrical and optical probes on the tool body
measure flow properties on the low side of the well. All sensor measurements are ma de at the same depth
simultaneously.
The tool is run eccentered, lying on the low side of the well with its arm deployed across the vertical
diameter of the wellbore. The arm is extended to a length equal to the diameter of the production tubular,
so it se rves as a caliper, providing the area measurements needed to calculate flow rates.

Figure 2Production logging tool principle of measurement.

The tool has a small outside diameter (OD) of 111/16 in. [42.9 mm], and it can be run in holes ranging
from 2 7/8 in. to 9 in. [73.0 mm to 228.6 mm] using coiled tubing, wireline, or a well tractor system. Its
short 16-ft [4.9-m] length makes it ideal for wells with high dogleg severity. Because the tool measures
the velocity profile along the vertical diameter of the wellbore, it can measure velocity variations that
cannot be detected using a single, centered spinner. It provides measurements of mixed and segregated
flow regimes, including direct independent measurement of gas velocity in a multiphase horizontal well.

Figure 3Production logging tool specifications.

Fiber-optic distributed temperature measurement

Distributed temperature sensing (DTS)2 is a valuable tool for understanding the dynamics of oil and gas
production by monitoring the temperature variations caused by changes in flow (e.g., at the reservoir entry

SPE-172593-MS

points). The complete wellbore temperature profile can be obtained in a short period of time using an
optical fiber installed in a coiled tubing s tring and a laser source and detector to repeatedly pulse light
down the fiber and detect the backscattered light from any depth. The backscattered light is the result of
the interaction of each laser pulse with the fiber molecules , and it is proportional to the temperature of
the fiber at any given depth. Intensity responses of the repeated light pulses are averaged to obtain
acceptable temperature resolution, which can be improved by increasing the acquisition time.
Light is scattered by several mechanisms as the pulse travels down the fiber, including density and
composition fluctuations (Rayleigh scattering), as well as Raman and Brillouin scattering due to molecular
and bulk vibrations , respectively. A proportion of this scattered light is retained within the fiber core and
guided back to the source , where it is split off by a directional coupler to a receiver.
In a uniform fiber, the intensity of this returned light shows an exponential decay with time. Knowing
the speed of light in the fiber, we can calculate the distance the light has travelled down the fiber,

Figure 4 DTS principle of measurement.

The Raman signal comprises two elementsthe Stokes and anti-Stokes lineswhich are shifted in
wavelength from the Rayleigh signal and can therefore be filtered from the dominant constituent of the
total backscattered light. The longer wavelength of the Stokes Raman band is not temperature sensitive,
but the intensity of the shorter-wavelength anti-Stokes Raman band is directly proportional to the
temperature.
By examining the data from the Raman band signals, proprietary DTS technology evaluate s the
intensity of the signals being returned from points along the entire length of the fiber-optic cable and
graphically outputs the temperature response.
Thermal basics of oil wells
The key to understanding temperature logs in oil and gas wells is kno wing how the fluids flowing in the
well gain or lose heat due to the external effect of the geothermal gradient and the internal Joule Thomson
9
fluid effect. The combination of these effects creates a characteristic time-dependent thermal profile that
can be recorded using the DTS system and analyzed to determine the flow in the wellbore.
Fig. 5 shows the thermal impact of the Joule Thomson effect on gas and oil flowing radially from a
reservoir into a wellbore. Note that the largest cooling (or heating) will take place immediately around the
wellbore, where the largest pressure drop also occurs.

SPE-172593-MS

Figure 5Reservoir Joule Thomson effects.

Quantitative interpretation of flow from temperature measurements

Ramey (1961)10 proposed an approximate solution to the heat-transmission problem caused by unsteady
radial conduction to the surrounding earth when hot or cold fluid is injected into a steady-state wellbore.
The solution allows the calculation of steady-state temperatures versus depth and time.
According to Curtis and Witterholt (1973)11 the fluid temperature T (z, t) at any point at a height z
above the producing reservoir (at geothermal temperature Tge) at any time t after the commencement of
production is given by the following equations:

Where:
rcs Casing radius (ft),
k formation thermal diffitsivity (ft2/D),
t time (D)
A relaxation distance (ft)
Q flow rate (B/D)
pf fluid density (g/cm3)
The equations show that for a given flow rate the observed temperature profile forms an asymptote to
a line parallel to the geothermal gradient that increases exponentially with time. Fig. 6 is graphical
presentation for a single layer solution at time (t).

SPE-172593-MS

Figure 6 Thermal response of single-zone flow.

When flow from two or more zones is commingled in a single wellbore, flow from the upper zone
(yellow curve in Fig. 7) enters the well at a temperature lower than that of flow from the deeper zone
(purple curve in Fig. 7). The addition of this colder fluid to the flow stream decreases the streams
temperature at the mixing point, an anomaly that can be used to clearly identify the point of fluid entry.
The thermal response of the anomaly is a function of the combined flow rate (red c urve in Fig. 7) above
the upper zone and the flow rate from the lower zone below the anomaly. Thus, given the geothermal
gradient and the measured temperature profile, the proportional contribution from two or more commingled zones can be calculated.

Figure 7Thermal response of multizone flow.

THERMA1 thermal modeling and analysis DTS software was developed by the oilfield services
company specifically for analyzing distributed temperature data in the wellbore and near-wellbore region
to define flow. To convert measured temperature data to a measurement of flow from different reservoir
zones, a thermal model of the well and near-wellbore region is required. The software is able to calculate
the flowing well temperature based on reservoir, fluid, well, and completion properties. Variables that
control flow in the reservoir, such as permeability, are adjusted until the measured an d calculated data
1

Mark of Schlumberger

SPE-172593-MS

coincide. Once a match is achieved, the distribution of the variables in the reservoir zones is uniquely
defined and the model is used to determine the flow rate from the individual zones. Fig. 8 shows a well
with 10 zones contributing various amounts of oil. The model does not calculate the temperature rise at
the ESP, but it does account for pressure change at the pump.

Figure 8 Inflow distribution profile from DTS interpretation.

Case study
The methodology described was applied for the first time in Well MDZ-X. The well was placed on
production in October 2004 with an initial oil production rate of 6.34 m3/h and GOR of 183 m3/m3. The
GOR kept increasing slowly with time, reaching a maximum of 364 m3/m3 in Sep 2012. The oil
production decreased gradually, correlating inversely with the GOR; no water was produced. A production log was run with the objective of understanding the flow profile. This information is useful for
designing the appropriate workover intervention when required.
The production logging tool was conveyed using a new coiled tubing solution that employs fiber optics
for transmission of data and control commands. The fiber also enables the recording of a distributed
temperature survey.
Spinner calibration was performed in the vertical section near the kickoff point. Four up and down
passes were subsequently acquired at different logging speeds. Then the main pass was recorded across
the horizontal section while logging down at a constant speed of 25 m/min. Once at total depth (TD), a
DTS was conducted for 1 hour while the tool was stationary. Finally, an up pass was acquired with the
production logging tool while pulling out of hole at a constant speed of 20 m/min. Several stations were
also recorded to confirm the flow profile.
Data and results
The interpretation of the production logging data is presented in Fig. 9.

SPE-172593-MS

Figure 9 Production log interpretation results.

The red curves on Tracks 1 to 3 in Fig. 9 are respectively oil flow rate, gas flow rate, and the mixture.
They are calculated from tool measurements of velocities and holdups. To quantify the different entries
into the slotted liner, a model was constructed using Emeraude software to simulate the flow conditions.
The simulated curves in green are in good agreement with the measured ones. Track 4 displays the
completion diagramthe openhole section starts from X,365 m, and the top of the liner is at X,240 m.
Track 5 (immediately after the depth track) displays the temperature measured by the production logging
tool in red. Track 6 shows true vertical depth (TVD) versus measured depth; the holdup distribution across
the vertical diameter of the well is provided by the production logging tool. Tracks 7 and 8 display t he
zonal contributions and the cumulative flow profile, respectively.
Interpretation of the log can be summarized as follows:

Stagnant water is identified at Y,083.7 m, below which there is no fluid movement.

SPE-172593-MS

First entry of oil can be seen at Y,083.7 m by the change in holdup from water to oil and a small
increase in mixture velocity.
The second entry of oil, associated with some gas is identified in the interval from X,929 m to
X,963 m, where a small increase in mixture velocity is noticed.
Stagnant water can be identified in troughs in the well from X,917 m to X,963 m; X,783 m to
X,823 m; and X,636 m to X,682 m.
The change of well deviation has a major impact on phase distribution: At downhill sections,
heavy phase is accelerated by gravity and tends to flow faster than lighter phase. And by mass
conservation, the cross section area occupied by heavy phasei.e. holdup reduces. The inverse
is true for light phase, it slows down and occupies bigger area. Similarly at uphill sections, light
phase speeds up and occupies smaller cross section area, and the heavy phase slows down and
takes higher cross section area. This is the reason why at downhill we see more gas, and at uphill
section we see more oil.
Gas can be seen across the downhill section from X,914 m to X,832 m. It is thought that this gas
was produced from deeper zones and was driven along the downhill section by gravity.
When the well trajectory changes to uphill from X,832m to X,793m the gas disappears. Gas was
affected by well trajectory, it moved faster, thus taking smaller fraction of wellbore cross section
area. It seems that the gas holdup in this interval was small enough not to reach the inside section
of liner. Therefore was not detected by the production logging tool.
A major oil and gas entry is identified from X,646.0 m to X,793.3 m.
In the next uphill section from X,646 to X,559m, gas seems to be flowing preferentially on the
upper side of the pipe and was therefore not detected by the production logging tool.
A second important fluid entry can be seen by the increase in mixture velocity across the interval
between X,492.2 m and X,586.7 m.
The entry at X,240 m results from the accumulation of flow behind the slotted liner, which entered
the tubing at the top of the liner. This is not an entry from the formation.
It was found that more than 69% of the flow is going through the annulus between the slotted liner
and the wellbore..

The flow contributions from various downhole intervals, determined from the production log interpretation, are presented in Table 1, where
Table 1Individual zone contributions from production log interpretation.

Qo res. is the oil flow rate at reservoir conditions

Qg res. is the gas flow rate at reservoir conditions

10

SPE-172593-MS

Qt res. is the total flow rate at reservoir conditions.

The interpretation of DTS data is presented in Fig. 10

Figure 10 THERMA software results.

Table 2THERMA software results.
Reservoir Interval (Thermal Zone)
X,646.0
X,725.0
X,797.2
X,929.0
Y,053.0

mX,686.0
mX,755.0
mX,813.8
mX,963.0
mY,083.6

m
m
m
m
m

Qt res. (m3/hr)

Flow Contribution

16.5
1.7
0.8
0.7
0.3

81.1 %
9.0%
4.0%
4.6 %
1.3 %

Measurements of DTS was acquired during 1 hour while the well was flowing. The black and red
curves in Fig. 10 represent respectively the measured temperature profile of the well and the profile from
the theoretical model generated using THERMA software. Constant geothermal gradient of 3C/100m was
used in this interpretation. Which is the normal observed geothermal in this area.
In this flow scenario, the unknown 2 phase flow fraction (oil gas) plus unknown mass inflow rate
is resolved in DTS interpretation by using the fact that the Joule Thomson response, specific heat, and
density and mass-volume relationship of the two phases are different, thus allowing a unique answer. Both

SPE-172593-MS

11

the temperature impact of the inflow as it joins the existing stream, and the rate of cooling per meter above
the entry zone will depend on the two separate rates.
DTS identified that 90.1% of the oil and gas production is from the interval X,646 m to X,755 m and
nothing much from the remaining deeper zones.

Qt res. is the total flow rate at reservoir conditions.

Flow contributions from the DTS interpretation and the production logging tool are both shown in
Table 3. Arrows indicate possible flow trajectories from the formation into the slotted liner. Some flows
go directly from the formation into the liner, while other flows travel up the annulus for some distance
and then enter the liner at different depths. The remaining flow travels only up the annulus and never
enters the slotted liner.

Table 3Zonal contributions at reservoir conditions from DTS and production logging.

Analysis
To have a full understanding of the flow profile, interpretation results from both production logging, and
DTS are put together. The following observations are notable.

The flow contributions determined from the production log at various intervals dont necessarily
indicate entries from the formation. They only represent increases in flow inside the slotted liner,
where the production logging tool makes its measurements.
DTS interpretation based on temperature changes can track all entries from the formation; it
appears that most of the production (89%) is from the interval X,646 m to X,755 m.
The combined Production log interpretation and DTS shows that most of the flow (69.2%) is
outside the slotted liner, below top of liner. It was seen by the Production logging tool at the top
of liner.
By combining the production logging and DTS results, we can identify all the entries from the
formation and quantify the flow inside and outside the slotted liner.
X The first entry from the formation was detected by DTS in the interval from Y,053 m to
Y,083.6 m; this is about 1.3% of total production. Across this interval, the production logging
tool probes identified a change in phase from 100% water to oil, which indicates entry of the

12

SPE-172593-MS

X
X
X
X
X
X

oil into the slotted liner across this same interval. A small flow contribution was also detected
by the production logging tool.
The second entry from the formation was identified by DTS across the interval X,929 m to
X,963 m. In this interval, the production log shows stagnant water in the trough of the well and
oil phase filling the upper side of the slotted liner. It is believed that this interval is producing
oil and gas, however the well trajectory has affected the phase distribution, causing the gas to
flow outside and above the slotted liner. The gas produced from this interval and below can
be clearly identified by the production logging tool in the next downhill section of the well,
from X,914 m toX,832 m. When the well trajectory changes to uphill at X,832 m, gas flow
returns to the outside of the slotted liner.
The third entry from the formation was detected by DTS across the interval X,797.2 m to
X,813.8 m, representing about 4% of total production. Apparently this flow remained outside
the slotted liner until a shallower depth and was detected by the spinners from X,793.3 m
upward.
A fourth and important entry from the formation, 9% of total production, was identified by
DTS from the interval X,725 m to X,755 m.
The major entry from the formationmore than 81.1% of total productionwas identified by
DTS across the interval X,646 m to X,686 m.
The previous two entries represent almost all the production from this well (about 90.1% of
total production).
Only 11.3% of total production entered the slotted liner between X,646.0 m and X,793.3 m.
The production log shows that 13.8% of the total production entered the slotted liner between
X,492.2 m and X,586.7 m. This is not an entry from the formation.
69.2% of the total production flowed behind the pipe and accumulated at the top of liner, as
seen by the production logging tool.

Flowing pressure was below the bubble point, therefore gas seen in the wellbore is more likely to
be solution gas and not a breakthrough.

Conclusion
The novel approach presented in this paper has enabled determination of an accurate inflow profile in
slotted liner completions. The interpretation of production logging data provided the distribution of fluid
velocity and holdup inside the liner. The quantitative interpretation of distributed temperature survey data
provided the total flow from the reservoir. Combination of the DTS and production log interpretations
enabled accurate identification of fluid entries from the formation and tracking of fluid movement inside
and outside the slotted liner.
By eliminating erroneous interpretations and allocating production to its true entry zones from the
formation, we can now better understand the reservoir behavior. This information is useful for designing
the appropriate workover intervention when required. More inputs for reservoir characterization can be
obtained from wellbore imaging, petrophy sical interpretation, wireline formation testing, and pressure
transient analysis. Integrating all these elements with the flow profile will provid e greater insight into
reservoir compartmentalization and continuity.

Acknowledgement
The authors thank Sonatrach for permission to publish this paper.

SPE-172593-MS

13

References
1. James J. Smolen, Jim J. Smolen.1996. Cased Hole and Production Log Evaluation, Chapter19,
pages 350 352, PennWell Corporation, Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA.
2. The Essentials of Fiber-Optic Distributed Temperature Analysis, Schlumberger Educational
Services.
3. Fryer, V., ShuXing, D., Otsubo, Y. et alet al. 2005. Monitoring of Real-Time Temperature
Profiles Across Multi-Zone Reservoirs During Production and Shut-In Periods Using Permanent
Fiber-Optic Distributed Temperature Systems. Presented at the SPE Asia Pacific Oil & Gas
Conference and Exhibition (APOGCE), Jakarta, Indonesia, 57 April. SPE 92962.
4. Brown, G.A. et alet al. 2003. Monitoring Horizontal Producers and Injectors During Cleanup and
Production Using Fiber-Optic-Distributed Temperature Measurements. Presented at the SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver, Colorado, USA, 5 8 October. SPE-84379.
5. Brown, G.A., Kennedy, B., and Meling, T. 2000. Using Fibre-Optic Distributed Temperature
Measurements to Provide Real-Time Reservoir Surveillance Data on Wytch Farm Field Horizontal Extended-Reach Wells. Presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
Dallas, 1 4 October. SPE-62952.
6. Tardy, Philippe M.J. et alet al. 2012. Inversion of Distributed-Temperature-Sensing Logs to
Measure Zonal Coverage During and After Wellbore Treatments with Coiled Tubing. Presented
at the SPE Coiled tubing and Well Intervention Conference and Exhibition, The Woodlands,
Texas, USA, 5-6 April 2011. SPE-143331.
7. D. Vu Hoang et alet al. 2004. A Novel Approach to Production Logging in M ultiphase Horizontal
Wells. Presented at the Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, 28 29 September.
SPE-89848.
8. John Baldauff et alet al. 2004. Profiling and Quantifying Complex Multiphase Flow. Oilfield
Review (fall issue).
9. Joule, J.P. and Thomson, W. 1853. On the Thermal Effects of Fluids in Motion. Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society of London, London, England, 143, 357365.
10. Ramey, H.J. 1961. Well Bore Heat Transmission. Presented at the SPE Annual Meeting, Dallas,
8 11 October. SPE-96.
11. Curtis, M.R. and Witterholt, E.J. 1973. Use of the Temperature Log for Determining Flow Rates
in Producing Wells. Presented at the 48th annual fall meeting held in Las Vegas, Nevada, USA,
Sep.30th Oct. 3rd, 1973. SPE-4637.