Formation Evaluation
Modern Carbon/Oxygen Logging: Hydrocarbon-
Saturation-Determination Techniques
Recent advances in carbon/oxygen
(C/O) logging technology have provided
measurements that have become more
quantitative in reservoir-monitoring
projects, especially in mixed-salinity
environments. Although innovations
have led to major improvements,
fluid-saturation profiles provided by
different service companies often vary.
These variations are caused by
differences in tool design and interpre-
tation method. A study was conducted
in a large Middle Eastern carbonate
field to evaluate and compare accuracy
and precision of different types of
pulsed-neutron-spectroscopy (PNS)
tools in a controlled environment.
Introduction
An important reservoir-management
factor is accurate determination of water
saturation. Accuracy is critical in time-
based measurements used in tracking
reservoir depletion, enhanced recovery,
workover strategies, and injection-water
breakthroughs. This parameter is even
more sensitive in large fields, where small
variations in water-saturation values
can translate into large hydrocarbon-
volume differences.
The carbonate field in this study was
discovered in the 1950s, and an enhanced-
oil-recovery project was initiated in the
1970s. Since then, several types of water,
with varying salinities, have been injected.
This salinity variation complicates the sat-
uration computations that rely on accurate
measurements of formation-water resistiv-
ity (i.e., resistivity-tool data). Resistivity
measurements are used in empirical equa-
tions to calculate fluid saturations on the
basis of known formation-water resistivity.
In formations that contain fresh water or
unknown water salinity, these equations
produce answers with large uncertainties.
These limitations contributed to develop-
ment of the PNS tools. The tools use neu-
tron generators to produce high-energy
neutrons that collide with different types
of elements in the formation. These colli-
sions produce gamma ray signatures that
are used to measure the relative abun-
50
Fig. 1Inelastic and capture spectra can be used to determine element concentrations.
dance of elements. Two of the most impor-
tant elements are carbon and oxygen. The
abundance of these elements is used
directly to calculate hydrocarbon volume.
C/O logging was introduced in the
1960s. The early technology was cumber-
some, difficult to use, and, often, provided
unreliable answers. In the 1990s, several
new-generation tools were introduced by
three major logging companies:
Schlumberger, Halliburton, and Baker
Atlas. These new tools have high-output
neutron generators with better detectors
and characterizations that provide more-
accurate answers. Even though these tools
operate on the same principles, the service
companies use different methods,
resulting in nonunique solutions.
This study examined these differences
in two wells. In the first well, saturation
data from nuclear-magnetic-resonance
(NMR) logs were compared with C/O-log
and laboratory core-measured saturation
data to determine the applicability of this
technology in this field. In the second
well, resistivity and capture data were used
as references to compare data from three
different types of PNS tools.
The tools presented in this paper do not
represent all of the available technology.
Other logging companies also provide this
service. Because of tool availability,
comparisons were made between only
three major service companies.
Carbon/Oxygen Logging
Gamma ray spectroscopy measures
gamma ray counts in time and gamma ray
energy. Elements that are bombarded with
neutrons emit gamma rays at specific
energy levels. The number of gamma rays
emitted is proportional to the relative
amounts of the elements. Induced
and naturally occurring gamma rays are
counted and sorted by energy levels to
produce a spectrum. Fig. 1 shows how
these spectra are processed to identify the
concentrations of elements.
The new C/O tools produce high-energy
neutrons that are emitted into the forma-
tion. Neutron emissions produce three
types of collisions: inelastic, elastic, and
absorption. In the inelastic spectrum,
carbon and oxygen yields are used to
This article, written by Technology Editor
Dennis Denney, contains highlights of
paper SPE 90339, Modern Carbon/
Oxygen Logging Methodologies: Com-
paring Hydrocarbon-Saturation-Deter-
mination Techniques, by Ramsin Y.
Eyvazzadeh, Oscar Kelder,
A.A. Hajari, Shouxiang Ma, and
Abdallah M. Behair, SPE, Saudi
Aramco, prepared for the 2004 SPE
Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Houston, 2629 September.
MAY 2005

Fig. 2Windowing and spectral-based techniques are used to compute the
relative abundance of carbon and oxygen in the formation.
compute hydrocarbon volumes. In the
elastic mode, the neutron loses its energy
until it is absorbed in thermal energy
levels. In these interactions, elemental
yields such as silicon, calcium, chlorine,
hydrogen, and iron are determined.
A difficult aspect of this measurement
is the differentiation between elemental
yields within these spectra. Energy peaks
from different elements often can cause
background noise. Often, windowing
and spectral techniques are used to
overcome these problems. Fig. 2 shows
how windowing is used to determine
elemental yields.
In the inelastic mode, the most impor-
tant measurement is the C/O ratio. Test-
pit characterizations provide charts that
relate this value to the fluid saturations.
A saturation point is determined by cross-
plotting porosity and C/O ratio. In
addition to these charts, service and
oil companies developed local relation-
ships by use of Monte Carlo simulations
and local reservoir knowledge.
Tool Design/Characterization
During the last decade, several new
pulsed-spectroscopy tools have been
introduced. In this study, Schlumbergers
Reservoir-Saturation Tool (RSTPro),
Halliburtons Reservoir Monitoring Tool
(RMT-Elite), and Baker Atlas Reservoir
Performance Monitoring tool (RPM)
were evaluated in two wells in this
carbonate reservoir. Even though all
these tools operate on the same princi-
ples, they are vastly different in design
and characterization. The full-length
MAY 2005
paper details tool designs, calibration
techniques, and interpretation methods
for the three tools.
C/O vs. Resistivity Logging
Recent technological advancements have
greatly enhanced resistivity and PNS-
logging tools. Slim-array-induction tools
as well as newer cased-hole-logging tools
also provide new options for reservoir
monitoring. Both technologies have
merit, but limitations and aspects exist
that could make one measurement more
appropriate than the other under
certain conditions. The following factors
should be considered with C/O and
resistivity logging.
Formation-water-salinity range and
profile.
Borehole conditions.
Reinvasion of borehole fluids.
Resistivity contrast.
Porosity range.
Scaling and acidizing.
Casing condition.
Cement condition.
Completion restrictions.
These factors should be evaluated in
every well, and consideration should be
taken in the planning phase of every
logging job. This planning will minimize
systematic errors in the final answers. In
addition, random errors inherent in the
tool measurements also should be
considered. Service companies provide
C/O-job planners that compute random
errors on the basis of porosity, borehole
condition, and acquisition speed. These
planners are used to optimize data
acquisition by calculating uncertainty in
the analysis of these variables.
A new method uses Monte Carlo simu-
lations to determine uncertainties in satu-
ration computations from resistivity data.
Errors in the resistivity analysis increase as
the formation water becomes fresher and
reaches a point at which the errors become
greater than those associated with C/O
logging. Because each evaluation
represents only one condition, several
simulations with varying porosity and
electrical parameters would be needed for
a complete evaluation.
Well Evaluations
Well A was a newly drilled well close to an
injector. The primary purpose of the well
was to determine the remaining oil satura-
tion behind the flood front. Initially, a
study was conducted in nearby wells to
determine the homogeneity of lithology,
porosity, and rock type as described by
petrophysical facies.
Samples from the Schlumberger MDT
formation-tester tool were used in con-
junction with a tracer material to deter-
mine formation-water resistivity, Rw, and
hydrocarbon mobility at several intervals.
Laboratory tests from these samples
showed an Rw variation from 7,000 to
70,000 ppm NaCl. This variation in the Rw
profile produced large errors in resistivity-
calculated saturations. Water saturations
from resistivity analysis did not compare
well with the core data. In addition, an
NMR log/inject/log method was used to
calculate oil volumes. There was an excel-
lent match between the NMR and core-
measured values. NMR and core-measured
values were used as benchmarks.
The Schlumberger C/O tools then were
run in conjunction with production-
logging tools. Several passes were made
with both shut-in and flowing conditions.
The tools provided saturation results that
were in agreement, except for the small-
diameter tool (RST-C) when used in flow-
ing conditions (a method that is not
recommended by the service company).
Because the small tool does not have
shielding, both near and far detectors are
sensitive to the borehole environment.
This sensitivity adds uncertainty to the
calculated saturations because of a smaller
dynamic range in the interpretations.
Well B. The objective in Well A was to
determine remaining oil saturations. To
determine the effects of borehole fluid and
changes in formation saturation, a well
with 50% water cut was selected. Well B
51
was a candidate for propellant stimulation.
The logging objective was to optimize the
treatment interval, therefore the oil/water
contact or unflushed zones needed to be
determined. One of the primary objectives
was to determine the oil saturation in
Zone B.
Well B was completed open hole.
Again, a complete geological and petro-
physical analysis of nearby wells showed
homogeneous rock types. Core data were
not available in this well, so an alternative
benchmark was needed.
A test program was developed to com-
pare C/O data from the three service com-
panies against saturations computed from
resistivity and pulsed-neutron-capture
sigma-based data.
The following observations were made
from this well study:
Borehole-fluid sampling and sigma
wellbore measurements showed good
matches with water salinity greater than
100,000 ppm NaCl. At these high salini-
ties, robust saturation measurements can
be expected from both resistivity and
pulsed-neutron-capture sigma logs.
Normalized sigma-measured values
for the three companies were identical,
thus providing similar saturation profiles.
Hydrocarbon saturations measured by
resistivity and sigma data compared well
across the entire logged interval.
In a comparison between the flowing
and shut-in passes, the large-diameter-tool
(RST-D) data provided reasonable reinva-
sion profiles. RPM data showed few rein-
vasion effects, while a large difference was
noticed with the RMT-Elite.
RST-D inelastic data matched well
with both sigma and resistivity data.
RPM data overestimated water vol-
umes with respect to references.
52
RMT-Elite data showed reasonable
results in most of the sections except in
zone A, for which it overestimated the
water saturation. In this zone, production
logs measured high water-production rates.
In Zones B and C, benchmark satura-
tion values from resistivity and sigma data
supported C/O-log results from RST-D and
RPM, but did not provide clear evidence of
unflushed intervals, and the stimulation
treatment was cancelled. An assessment
based on RMT-Elite data alone would have
left at least two zones as candidates for
propellant stimulation.
Borehole holdup measurements from
the RST-D compared well with produc-
tion-logging results. The results were key
in sigma-logging measurements.
RPM does not provide good holdup
results.
Conclusion
One of the key elements in successful
C/O-log interpretation is planning.
Formation-water salinity, borehole condi-
tions, reinvasion of borehole fluids, resis-
tivity contrast, porosity, scaling/acidizing,
casing condition, cement condition, and
completion restrictions must be taken into
consideration before any job. In addition,
planning should involve a sensitivity
analysis. Monte Carlo simulations on
resistivity-based saturation data and C/O-
job planners were used to optimize the
saturation results. JPT
For a limited time, the full-length paper is
available free to SPE members at
www.spe.org/jpt. The paper has not
been peer reviewed.
MAY 2005