Production Logging Through Annulus at San Jorge Basin to Identify

the High Water Cut Zone in Waterflooding Projects

a
Sinopec Argentina E&P

Keywords: Production Logging, Water flooding, San Jorge Gulf,

Abstract

Commingled oil production for waterflooding projects have the challenge of determining
where the water is coming from, especially after water breakthrough. Using high water
cut sands identification through annulus production logging has been a common
practice in Chinese fields since late 1980.

This technology is currently being proven in one waterflooding project at Caadn

Minerales to optimize fluid production. Annulus logging measures oil and water rates at
each open zone. Tools are run through the annulus space existing between the casing
and tubing. The well pumping unit works at standard conditions, measuring real
dynamic reservoir properties. Common parameters measurements are flow, water cut,
temperature, pressure, natural gamma ray and casing collar.

To run the logging tool while the well is running, a special decentralized wellhead has to
be installed at the producer wells. A common Cased Hole Logging Truck can be used to
run logs. Logging tools were run on five producer wells at CM-123-WA water flooding
projects. The measure parameters identified high water cut sands that helped to reduce
water cut.
1. Introduction

The water flooding Project CM-123-WA, located at Caadn Minerales field, San
Jorge Basin, was implemented as a pilot project in 1998, with one injector and two
producers, and in April 2012 was reactivated and expanded. The expanded project has
12 producers and 3 injectors, and 10 zones are on water flooding. Incremental
production (Figure 1) has been below what has been estimated. The first breakthrough
occurred sixteen months after injection started and incremental water has been higher
than originally estimated, particularly for the five main project wells.

The technology to produce wells at this block is with pumping units, gross
production is 30-100 m3/d, water cut 82-98%, medium to high oil viscosity (40-1100 cp),
gas production is null. Typical pumping units are (LC/M-456-305-144 or LM-640-305-
168), pumps are 50.8 mm [2], 19.05-38.1 mm [0.75-1.5] sucker rods type D, 5.5 K-55
# 18.98-21.01N/m [14-15.5 lb/ft] casing and 73.02 mm [2 7/8] J-55 8.8 N/m [6.5 lb/ft]
production tubing with slim threads.

Water injection is done through regulated mandrels. Each mandrel is for one or two
sands. Injection targets are set to fill one pore volume in six years.

Several proven technologies have been used at San Jorge Basin to identify production
sands dynamic behavior:

Well testing with a workover unit. This method is the traditional one, but has a
high cost.
Production Logging Tools-ESP [1] . This technology requires coordinating a large
logistic, a workover unit, service companies and electro-submersible pumps,
which might not be the usual production system, and has an expensive testing
system.
Saturation Logs. The technology also requires to takes out production pumps
and rods, and does not provide real dynamic production. This technology has
been successfully used at other basins [2] [3] [4], but documented experience at
San Jorge Basin is limited however successfully applied [1].

Since these are more expensive technologies and are not available to follow water
flooding projects through to their maturity, it was decided to run a Production Logging
Tool (PLT) that works with wells with pumping units and sucker-rods, working under
standard production conditions [5].

2. Why Use Production Logging?

Commingled production is an excellent strategy for production at San Jorge Basing due
to basin geology, low production rates, and sands that depleted fast. The heterogenic
water flooding behavior requires a quick method to identify sands with high water
production.

Different publications describe the most favorable conditions to apply PLT technology [6]
[7] [8]

Production logging goals are:

identify high water cut sands to shut-in;

better understand injector-producer fluid movement;
Together with injection logs, optimize injection plans.

A production log includes:

Casing Collar Locator (CCL)

Gamma Ray Log (GR)
Temperature
Pressure
Flow
Water Cut

The PLT technology selected for this project can be run in the annular space
between the production tubing and casing. It can be used to evaluate the wells
dynamic behavior with pumping units, sucker rods, pumps, and fluid over pump
at standard levels [5].

3. Well Preparation for Logging

The decision to apply this technology requires changing the standard wellhead for a
special economical, commercially available decentralized wellhead [9] [5] (Figure 2).
The new wellhead has a decentralized hanger that strings down production tubing to
one side of the casing (Figure 4) and a port that lets the PLT tool enter the well for
logging it (Figure 2). The biggest problem that arises during production logging is that
the tool sticks (i.e., helical buckling), to the tubing. To solve this problem, the
decentralized wellhead hanger is built so that production tubing (Figure 3, Figure 5,
Figure 6) can be turned during logging to unstick the cable or the tool (Figure 7).

The second requirement to run logs is that no other restrictions are along production
tubing and production tubing tail. This has been achieved by installing slim threads for
joints, removing any anchors or packers and installing a slotted cone to guide the tool at
the last tubing below the pump [10] . Also, it is recommended that at least 10 m should
be between the tail tubing and the top of the first production sand. Also, there shouldnt
be any adaptors used at the production tubing to allow the PLT to pass without any
problem.

Locating the pump 10 meters above the last production sands and installations
without any anchor or packer created some problems that were necessary to
reevaluate. The first problem, installations without an anchor would fail early on, with the
associated cost of a pulling unit and lost production. New pump locations and anchor
free installations were made in 2014 at five wells. None of them has failed yet. Second
problem, were the pumps installed at mid-points among top perforated sands and lower
perforated sands to minimize fluid over pump and pressure above production sands. In
this project, sands are located at 1,200-1,600 m [3939-5249 ft]. The new pump installed
at 1,200 m [3939 ft], creates above all production zones an additional pressure of at
least 20 Bar [290 psi]. Total gross and net production didnt change significantly for any
wells after installations. Results show lower sands are still on oil production.

At the decentralized wellhead entry port, a high-pressure safety valve with a small
BOP system was installed. There exist two types of BOP [9], Released-Type and
Packed Type. The first one, selected for the project, is a rubber sealed gate valve
installed after the logging tool has passed; the wire line is sealed by a rubber seal
(Figure 8).

4. Running the Log

The PLT used for these logging operations has two parts. The first one is GR-CCL-
Pressure-Temperature and the second is CCL-Flowmeter-Water-Cut meter. The outside
diameter for both tools is 21 mm [53/64]. Tools specifications are detailed below:

1Flow230 m3/d5% [12.6-188.9 bbl/d]

3100 m3/d8% [18.9-629 bbl/d]

2Water Cut0100%10%

3Pressure0400 Bar0.05% [0-5801 psi]

4Temperature01500.5% [0-302 F]

5Outside Diameter.21 mm [53/64]

The first deployed set is to put in depth cased hole logs with open hole GR, or any
other cased hole GR. Also, it is used to locate the cone guide at the tubing tail and the
existing perforated zones. Pressure and temperature are recording during up-hole
logging. The second tool set has three parts: 1. a casing collar locator (CCL); 2. water
cut sensors; 3. flow sensor. The tool to measure flow consists of a turbine and
expandable rib-umbrella (Figure 9). The umbrella is used to concentrate the flow
produced to the turbine and water cut sensor. During down-hole or up-hole logging the
umbrella is closed and opened at each stop. A capacitive-type sensor is used to
measure water cut. All technologies are well known. What makes this tool suitable for
the restricted annular space existing at the installations described above is its 21 mm
[53/64] diameter.

The logging operations are done with a cased hole logging truck that has a 5.6 mm
(7/32) logging wireline. The acquisition panel, as well as the monitoring and
interpretation software, works with any commercial laptop.

The logging operation is simple; the wireline is guided to wellhead through two
sheaves installed at decentralized wellhead (Figure 10). The decentralized wellheads
main goal is to move production tubing to one side, allowing the PLT to pass the first
production tubing segment. Also, the hanger, at the lower side of the decentralized
wellhead, can rotate to turn the production tubing in case the wireline or tool is stuck
(i.e., helical buckling) at it (Figure 7). Operations to turn the hanger and production
tubing ensemble are done manually by the operations logging team. Usually, in case it
is necessary to turn the ensemble, it is enough to use a small turn less than a complete
360 turn. To determine if the wireline or tool is stuck (i.e., helical buckled) to the
production tubing is simple; when the wireline load cell, located at the logging truck,
loses weight, that is an indication of an abnormal situation.

First the tool set is run without stopping, downloading at an average speed of 10
m/min [32.8 ft/min] until it is estimated to be near the cone guide zone, when the
speed is decreased. After the CCL verifies that the cone guide is passed, meaning that
the tool is completely in the casing zoneoutside the tubing-casing annularthe
speed is accelerated again to the well bottom. Once the well bottom is reached, the up-
hole logging starts, recording GR-CCL-Pressure-Temperature Log. Perforated
zones are checked with GR-CCL. The full operation takes two hours.

A second run is done to measure flow and water cut at each perforated zone. The
CCL is used to put depth of the second run log with the GR-CCL acquired during the
first run. The same precautions taken for the first run are taken for the second one.
Logging operations starts once outside cone guide. Then, the umbrella is opened to
funnel the whole well production (flow) to the turbine and water cut sensor. Thus, flow
and water cut for the whole well, at downhole conditions, are measured. The first
measure can be contrasted with periodic tank production tests taken at surface
conditions. Below the first perforated zone, the second stop is done to measure the N-1
perforated zones. Operation continues by stopping above each perforated sand. At the
well bottom effectively zero flow is checked. The logging up-hole procedure is to check
umbrella operations, flow and water cut measured at each stop during downhole
operation.

5. Interpretation

Interpretation can be done using two methods: the area method and the counting
method.

Area Method: It is known that the cross section flow equals area times speed of
flow. So, flow changes with speed. The flow during a given time period can be
calculated as area times fluid average speed. Turbine frequency varies linearly with the
flow. Then, average flow can be calculated using the average frequency. Also, it is
known that the flow at each pumping unit stroke is the same, and the frequency
waveform is similar. So, when taking curve average values at one or more strokes, in
fact, the average value can be calculated by filling waveform valleys with peaks.

Counting Method: The principle is the same as area method the average flow can
be obtained from frequency value. During a specific time period, the turbine frequency
peaks are count and accumulated and then the average frequency is calculated. Peaks
are counted above a given threshold.

6. Calculating Flow and Water Cut for Each Perforated Zone

The steps to calculate flow and water cut for each log point are the following:

K-Index. The K-index is calculated using three points. Shop calibrated tools
give two-points. The first shop calibrated point is f o, for WC=0% (i.e. 100 %
oil). The second one is fW for WC=100 % (i.e. 100 % water). The third point is
the frequency value, fL, logged by the tool at a given stop. Then the following
equation is calculated:

fofl
K=
fofw

A typical log can be seen in Figure 11

Each umbrella model has a particular calibrated chart to determine flow and
water cut; select the proper one. Since water cut is highly influenced by flow,
 it is necessary to check flow charts when the water cut is calculated using its
frequency. Water cut and flow depend one on each other, so when both are
calculated, a gradual approach method should be used.
Calculate flow selecting the proper flow chart by using measured frequency,
(Figure 12)
Calculate the water cut by picking a suitable water cut chart using flow
calculated at step 3 and the K index calculated at step 1 (Figure 13). If the
point that intersects flow and water cut is not on the chart use interpolation.
Repeat each step for each point.

Figure 14 shows the steps describes above. A complete log can be seen on Figure 15.

The following equation summarizes operations

For stop n

Q nwater =Q n x K ( m3/d )

Q noil = Q n - Q nwater ( m3/d )

Remember that n=1 is the first stop that comprises full well production, above all
perforated zones. The second stop, n=2 comprises all perforated zones, except the first
perforated zone, and so on. (Figure 14)

For perforated zone (sand) f

Q nfwater = Q nwater - Q n+1water ( m3/d )

Q nfoil = Q noil - Q n+1oil ( m3/d )

Q nf =Q nfwater + Q nfoil ( m3/d )

Qnf
Qn= ( m3/d )
Q1

Where:

Q 1fwater =Water rate for first perforated zone

 Q nfwater =Water rate at each perforated zone

Q nfoil =Oil rate at each perforated zone

Q nf =Liquid rate at each perforated zone

Q n =Liquid rate at each stop

Q 1=Full bore liquid rate- 1st stop

7. Conclusions

Production Logging through the annular space between casing and production
tubing has been an excellent tool to measure flow and water cut in the San Jorge Basin.
Intervention on a producing well to change wellheads and threads can be a limitation
given lost production and the cost of the intervention itself. However, installing these
elements since the beginning of the water flooding or when a well is intervened for other
reasons is an excellent cost-benefit relationship. This is first time that this kind of
production logging tool is run in San Jorge Gulf setting a new standard for waterflooding
projects follow-up.

It is advisable to have injection logs for each injector, to match producer flow and
water cut with flow injected at that sand. For the CM-123-WA project, it was found that
two zones at two different producers have a 100 % water cut and high flow, none of the
standard surveillance using with injector profiles and pore volume filling suggested this
behavior.

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank Sinopec Argentina E&P Inc. for allowing them to present this
paper and share their experience. Special thanks to Mr. Liu Wubin and Mr. Chen
Hungming and their crew from Sinopec Jianghan Technology Research Institute for
logs running and interpretation.
Reference

Figure 1 Production/Injection History...............................................................................11

Figure 2 Decentralized Well Head...................................................................................13
Figure 3 Decentralized Wellhead Lateral View...............................................................14
Figure 4 Annular Space...................................................................................................14
Figure 5 Well Head Tubing Hanger Upper View...........................................................15
Figure 6 Well Head Tubing Hanger Lower View...........................................................15
Figure 7 Sticking or Helical buckling Well Head Turn...................................................16
Figure 8 Safety Valve and BOP.......................................................................................17
Figure 9 Umbrella to funnel flow to turbine and water sensor cut...................................18
Figure 10 Operation.........................................................................................................19
Figure 11 Typical Log for sand.........................................................................................20
Figure 12 Turbine Flow vs Frequency Chart...................................................................21
Figure 13 K Index vs Flow & Water Cut Chart.................................................................21
Figure 14 Steps for log Interpretation..............................................................................22
Figure 15 Interpreted Log................................................................................................23

Authors

Nstor E. Ramos holds an Electronics Engineer Degree form Universidad Nacional de

Mar del Plata a Petroleum and Gas Engineer Post Degree from ITBA, and Project
Management Post Degree from Universidad de Belgrano. Nestor has been for oil
industry since 1993, at Western Atlas, YPF, Oxy, and Sinopec. He works as Reservoir
Engineer Advisor for Sinopec Argentina.

Gaojiu Zhang holds a Geophysics Doctorate from China University of Geosciences,

and Geophysics Degree from Daqing Petroleum Institute, China. Gaojiu has been
worked for oil industry since 1990. He worked at Henan and Xinjiang Oil Fields in China
and for Sinopec Venezuela Branch. He works as Senior Petrophysics for Sinopec
Argentina
Pablo D'Archivio is Production Superintendent at Caadn Minerales field. Pablo
worked for Cadipsa, Inei SA, Vintage, Oxy and Sinopec.

Jose Casas holds an Electro-mechanics Engineer Degree from Universidad de Buenos

Aires. Jose has worked for Perez Companc, Petrobras, Oxy and Sinopec. He works as
Pulling Manager for Sinopec Argentina
Productores WF-123 WA
1000 Producers CM-123-WA 100

80

100
60

40
10

20

1 0
1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998 2001 2004 2007 2010 2013 2016 2019 2022 2025 2028
WcutP[%] qlP[m/DC] qoP[m/TE] PWP
Inyectores WF-123 WA
1000 Injectors CM-123-WA 10

100
4

10 0
1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998 2001 2004 2007 2010 2013 2016 2019 2022 2025 2028
IWP qwiP[m/DC] WiP[Mm]

Figure 1 Production/Injection History

 Logging
Tool Entry

Nipple
Safety Valve

Flow Line

Figure 2 Decentralized Well Head

Figure 3 Decentralized Wellhead Lateral View

Figure 4 Annular Space

Figure 5 Well Head Tubing Hanger Upper View

Figure 6 Well Head Tubing Hanger Lower View

 PLT
Port

Figure 7 Sticking or Helical buckling Well Head Turn

 BOP
Rubber
Seal

Safety
Valve

Figure 8 Safety Valve and BOP

Figure 9 Umbrella to funnel flow to turbine and water sensor cut
Figure 10 Operation
 FLOW

Water Cut

Figure 11 Typical Log for sand

Figure 12 Turbine Flow vs Frequency Chart

Figure 13 K Index vs Flow & Water Cut Chart

Figure 14 Steps for log Interpretation
Figure 15 Interpreted Log