SPE 62522
Downhole Video: A Cost/Benefit Analysis
J.R. Tague, G.F. Hollman, Chevron USA Production Co.
Copyright 2000, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2000 SPE/AAPG Western Regional Meeting
held in Long Beach, California, 19–23 June 2000.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300
words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
In the past few years, downhole video has emerged as a viable
and cost-effective means for analyzing various wellbore
problems. Despite this, numerous misconceptions concerning
the cost, application, and complexity remain. In an effort to
provide insight into the proper application and selection of this
unique tool, the results of over 30 downhole video logs
conducted by Chevron in the West Coalinga field will be
presented and discussed. Examples will include images
obtained of damaged liners, casing holes, and corrosion
problems, as well as their application to remedial well work.
Other examples will include images of the in-situ producing
environment, in particular, the ability of downhole video to
image fluid entry and the impact of various wellbore plugging
agents including scale and organic precipitation. Finally, the
total cost of running a video log and the steps necessary to
prepare a well will be compared to more traditional means of
logging. Overall, this paper should provide valuable insight
for anyone considering the use of downhole video.
Introduction
Downhole video was first used in the Coalinga field in 1998.
Since then, video technology has been used extensively to
record images of casing damage, liner damage, wellbore
plugging, and analysis of remediation procedures. In many
cases, downhole video technology has become the logging
method of choice due to its unparalleled ability to accurately
assess the downhole environment. This said, downhole video
technology is not applicable in all cases.
Downhole Video Technology
The first attempts to use camera technology in a wellbore
occurred in the 1940’s at the request of a local pump
manufacturer located in the San Joaquin Valley. The early
attempts led to the capture of black and white pictures on
stereoscopic slides that were used with a viewfinder to create a
3-D aspect. These early cameras were very large in diameter
and limited to depths of up to 1000 feet. Technology led to
further developments in downhole video deployment in the
1960’s through development of coaxial cable capable of
handling the transmission of high frequency signals required
for motion video. In the early 1990’s, an Electro-Opto
logging cable was developed utilizing fiber optic technology1.
This greatly enhanced the ability of the camera by addressing
pressure constraints and opening up new applications in
production logging.
The downhole video camera uses Electro-Opto fiber optic
technology. This technology produces real time video at 30
frames per second with a working temperature of 257 F to 350
F, depending on tool diameter. The tool is made up of three
basic components – the electrical chassis, the centralizer, and
the “Backlight” camera. The light source is positioned above
the camera in the same housing. This facilitates indirect
illumination, as well as creates an unobstructed view of the
wellbore. This coupled with a surfactant applied to the camera
lens allows the operator to descend into the well through an
oil/gas column of several thousand feet and maintain the
ability to image the wellbore where a clear fluid is the primary
medium. This technology is routinely applied to pumping
wells with minimal preparation. In many cases, by shutting in
the well and allowing the fluids to separate, clear real time
video can be achieved.
Today, downhole video technology is a viable diagnostic
tool for many downhole applications. Downhole video
technology has been used for numerous applications including
mechanical inspection, open hole logging, formation damage
analysis, fishing operations, as well as detection of fluid and
sand entry.
Downhole Video Limitations
Before using downhole video to image a well, it is important
to understand the limitations or disadvantages of the system.
Limitations include well preparation, cost, and the inability to
piggyback the system with other logging tools.
The largest limitation or obstacle to successful imaging is
the effort required to prepare the well. In many cases, the
wellbore fluids are too opaque to obtain a clear image. If the
produced fluids are to opaque to provide a clear image, then
additional effort is required to obtain a clear image. In some
cases, letting the well stand idle for a period of time can lead
2 J.R. TAGUE, G.F. HOLLMAN
to a separation of fluid and yield clear images once the camera
reaches the base of the oil pad. However, the impact on costs
due to lost production or downtime must be considered. In
Coalinga, wells that had been idle for a period of one to two
weeks were found to be clean enough for unassisted imaging.
However, in most cases, it was necessary to pump fluid down
open-ended tubing placed just above the static fluid column.
This required the services of a pump truck and several
hundred barrels of a non-damaging fluid, usually a 2%
NH4CL or 3% KCL solution. Each well usually required 200-
300 barrels of fluid pumped at a rate of 2-4 bbl/minute to
clean the fluid column up enough for clear video imaging.
Thus in order to image the entire well, two runs were required.
The first trip consisted of a run down the annulus between the
tubing and casing to the point just above the fluid level, and a
second run through the tubing with clean fluid being pumped
downhole at the same time.
Another limitation to downhole video is the cost. A
random survey of video logging costs between various
geographical areas found a tremendous range of rates that did
not follow any set pattern of cost per foot, etc. Thus it is
important to check with other operators within the region as
well as outside the region to determine a fair price. Another
cost factor is the actual cost of the tool. Care should be
considered when running a camera in a hostile environment,
especially when less expensive, mechanical tools are
available. As always, this requires special consideration of the
value of information.
A final disadvantage of the tool is its limitation to the field
of vision and the inability to piggyback other logging tools
with the system. Thus any attempts to gain data beyond the
wellbore required multiple logging runs. However, several
companies are working on combining the downhole video
camera with a suite of production logs including spinners,
tracer tools and even gamma and neutron tools. When
introduced on a regular basis, this will make the downhole
video/combo tool the preferred method of production logging.
Downhole Video Applications
Despite some of the disadvantages, downhole video is quickly
becoming the tool of choice in many applications. Common
applications include mechanical inspection of casing and
tubulars, fishing operations, downhole detection of scale and
organic deposition, and fluid entry surveys. Downhole video
is particularly powerful in mechanical inspection as it provides
a graphic diagnosis of the problem. This in turn allows the
engineer to accurately assess the damage and to determine the
best course of remediation. In fishing operations, images of
the lost tool or stuck pipe can clearly allow a more accurate
selection of the appropriate fishing tool. In cases of scale or
organic deposition, the downhole video camera is truly the
method of choice. Although laboratory analysis can indicate
the presence of scale and organic deposits, only a clear image
of the producing, or in-situ environment can truly ascertain the
nature of the deposits and its possible impact on production.
Furthermore, the camera can be run in the well after a
remedial job to determine the success of the treatment in
removing the deposits. Although more difficult to obtain,
SPE 62522
downhole video can be used to obtain accurate images of fluid
entry, particularly in well with high water cuts. The downhole
video camera can also be used for detection of fluid and sand
entry. Overall, downhole video is a tremendous tool for well
analysis especially when compared to more traditional forms
of logging.
Downhole Video vs. Traditional Logging
In general, the key to determining the advantages of downhole
video over more traditional surveys depends primarily on the
nature of the problem and the cost differential. In the
Coalinga field, the vendor cost to run a video log compared
favorably with most other forms of traditional logging.
However, when the cost for well preparation was included,
downhole video usually ran twice as much as a standard set of
mechanical or profile logs. Another factor to consider is the
time involved. Preparing the well and running the camera
usually required an extra day of rig work. Thus, downhole
video is not always the option of choice when time is of the
essence. Overall, the strongest advantage of downhole video
over traditional logging methods is the real-time nature of the
system. The continuous feed allows the engineer and camera
operator to analyze the data as it is obtained and to easily
repeat the survey over sections of interest.
Mechanical Inspection. When it comers to casing inspection
and detection of mechanical damage, the decision to use video
relies primarily on the value of the information required. If
the problem is a common field occurrence and other
symptoms exist, it is often less expensive to run a simple
mechanical profile log, or even an electro-magnetic casing
inspection tool. However, if the nature of the damage is
uncertain, running a video log often proves invaluable.
Fishing Operations. In fishing operations, if the initial
attempt to remove the lost tool or item fails, running a camera
often saves time, effort, and cost. In this case, removing the
guesswork by obtaining an actual image of the lost fish and its
orientation can easily save large amounts of money. Images
can easily allow drilling and workover representatives to
determine both the appropriate fishing tool and course of
action. Overall, the use of downhole video can definitely save
time and money.
Scale and Organic Buildup. For the detection and analysis
of scale and organic buildup, the downhole video logs are
unparalleled in the data they provide. Currently, there is no
traditional, non-visual method for accurately assessing the
amount of buildup and its impact on production. Using
downhole video is a cost-effective and unique method for
analyzing scale, paraffin, and asphaltene buildup. Downhole
video can also be used to determine the effectiveness of
various remedial procedures by imaging a well both before
and after a treatment.
Sand/Particle Entry. Again, downhole video can provide
images of sand and particle entry that would otherwise be
undetectable using traditional logging methods. Images of
SPE 62522 DOWNHOLE VIDEO: A COST/BENEFIT ANALYSIS 3

sand entry usually show billowing clouds of fine particles

flowing in through a slot or perforation. However, if the
produced fluids are too opaque for imaging and the well
requires clean fluid to be pumped down the annulus, this can
make detection of sand entry a difficult proposition and
subject to interpretation and general field knowledge.

Fluid Entry. For fluid entry surveys, traditional tracer and

spinner surveys still compete with downhole video, especially
if the produced fluid proves too opaque for clear imaging. In Casing Hole at
this case, the effort to provide a clean medium for imaging 360 feet
may prove too costly as well as hinder the natural flow of the
well –leading to false data.

Overall, the downhole video system is superior to many

traditional logging methods for mechanical inspection, fishing,
and detection of scale and organic deposition. The only
potential weakness is the cost and the need to prepare the well
for imaging. This aside, obtaining a real-time visual image of
the well remains a superior method of obtaining information.

Case Histories and Comparisons

The following are some examples of downhole video logs run
in the Coalinga field. These case histories include both the
results of the video log and the results of more traditional
logging methods. The case histories presented here will
compare the benefits and results of the multiple methods used Fig. 1 – Electro-magnetic log indicating a hole in the casing at
to log each well. approximately 360 feet. Extent and appearance of the hole, as
well as amount of incoming water is impossible to determine.
Case History #1 – Dumpflooding. In this case, a stimulation
job was conducted on an older well producing 40/160 bbl/d of
oil and water. After the stimulation procedure, the well
immediately produced all water at a rate of 600 bbl/d. The
large decrease in wellbore temperature and appearance of
large volumes of clear produced water indicated a hole had
been punched in the casing near the vicinity of the overlaying
aquifer during the stimulation procedure. Mechanical and
temperature logs were run on this well and quickly revealed a Temperature
hole and fluid entry point at 360’ (Fig. 1, 2). Possible options Differential at
to remediate this well included a cement squeeze or the 360 feet
installation of a scab liner. However, additional data would be
required to determine which method would be the most
effective. At this point, the downhole video camera was
brought in and an image obtained of the fluid entry point (Fig.
3). The image obtained showed a jet of water bursting in
through a one-inch hole with tremendous pressure. Based on
the pressure necessary to flow 600 bbl/d of water through a 1”
hole, the scab liner was selected as the remediation of choice.
Today the well has returned to normal production rates and the
remedial job is considered a success.

Fig. 2 – Temperature survey indicating a change in temperature

from fluid entry at approximately 360 feet. Again, extent of water
entry is impossible to determine.
4 J.R. TAGUE, G.F. HOLLMAN SPE 62522

Water Jetting in from

Casing Hole

Fig. 3 – Video image of water jetting in from 1” casing

hole.

Case History #2 – Casing Hole. This well was a solid

producer averaging 50/200 bbl/d of oil and water. The well
had no history of mechanical problems prior to failing. When
the pump was pulled and the well bailed, samples of the Fig. 4 – Profile caliper indicating a large hole at approximately 60’.
bailings yielded rocks in excess of 2” in diameter. The nature
of the rocks indicated they were from the top or surface
formation. A mechanical log was run and indicted the liner
was intact but that a large hole appeared in the casing at the
150’ level (Fig. 4). The size of the hole was difficult to
ascertain and the method of remediation appeared in question.
The camera system was brought in and run using a mast truck.
The camera was run through a DPI valve and in between the
casing and the tubing. Visual images were obtained of a large
hole on one side of the casing (Fig. 5). With the rest of the Large Hole in
casing appearing intact and with no water entry, a simple Casing
squeeze job was selected over the insertion and placement of a
scab liner. This saved time and expense and allowed the
casing to maintain its original dimensions.

Case History #3 – Steam Breakthrough. This well was

located in an active steamflood. After a remedial job that
included a new liner and installation of a protective casing
string, the well was returned to production. Almost
immediately, the well began to produce large amounts of sand
and averaged less than a one week runlife. Initially, it was
assumed that the protective casing string might have damaged Fig. 5 – Image of a large 4” jagged hole at approximately 60’.
the top of the liner, specifically the sand control adapter.
However, on the third pull, a hole in the tubing caused by which had obviously failed (Fig. 8). Based on the
steam entry was observed. Thus, the source of the sand was information, a cement squeeze through the blank liner just
determined to be steam breakthrough. Unfortunately, the below the sand control adapter was carried out and the steam
steam breakthrough occurred in the vicinity of the liner top breakthrough remediated. Without a visual image of the
and it was impossible to accurately assess the size of the hole. problem, it would have been impossible to repair this well.
At this point, the well was prepped and a downhole video log
obtained. The video images quickly ascertained that the steam
was jetting through one port collar of the sand control adapter,
SPE 62522 DOWNHOLE VIDEO: A COST/BENEFIT ANALYSIS 5

25 bbl/d of oil, which is prolific for this area of primary heavy

oil production. Overall, the use of a camera to ascertain the
impact of scale and organic deposition, as well as the success
Port Collar Worn by of various remedial treatments is unparalleled.
Steam Entry

Fig. 8 – Port collar (upper left of photograph) that corresponded

with steam cut tubing pulled from well. Port collar was
determined to be source of steam entry.

Case History #4 – Cyclic Steam Damage. Cyclic steam has

been used extensively in the Coalinga field for years.
Although suspected, the damage to a producing liner from
exposure to cyclic steam was never fully understood. Thus, to
improve cyclic steam procedures, both a mechanical profile
caliper and a downhole video image of a new liner were
obtained two weeks after injection of 10,000 bbl of steam.
The log displayed some unevenness to the liner (Fig. 9),
however it was the video images that clearly indicated the Fig. 9 – Profile caliper indicating unevenness in producing liner.
nature of the problem (Fig. 10). The video images showed a Cause and impact is impossible to determine from this log.
liner in which “nodules” appeared to have extruded inwards
through the producing slots. These nodules were brittle and
easily broken off by the camera’s centralizers. It is believed
that these nodules were composed of “vitrified” formation
sand that had been forced inward by the steam. Based on
these images, the procedure for returning a well to production
after cyclic steam now includes a scraper run to remove these
nodules from the producing slots.

Case History #5 – Organic Deposition/Scale Removal. This

case clearly shows the value of using downhole video to
obtain images of scale and organic deposits. The well in this
example had been shut in for four years. Prior to returning the
well to production, a video log was obtained. The images
clearly revealed a thick “sludge” covering the entire producing
interval (Fig. 11). Estimates of the thickness averaged over
1”. Thus it was determined that a solvent wash would be
necessary to restore the well to optimal production. A
specialized solvent blend was selected and the well treated
Fig. 10 – Video image of “nodules” in producing slots after
using 3-foot opposed cups. After the wash, additional video exposure to cyclic steam.
images were obtained. The images clearly showed the success
of the solvent wash (Fig. 12,13) and today the well produces
6 J.R. TAGUE, G.F. HOLLMAN
Fig. 11 – Video image of organic deposit completely covering liner
top and producing slots.
Fig. 12 – Video image of liner top seen in Fig 11 showing post-
treatment results after solvent wash.
Fig. 13 – Video image of producing slots after solvent treatment.
SPE 62522
Conclusion
As shown in the case histories presented here, downhole video
is an exceptional diagnostic tool. It has been used extensively
in West Coalinga to assist in mechanical inspection, casing
repair, fluid entry, and formation damage analysis. This said,
downhole video typically requires additional well preparation
and costs approximately twice that of less sophisticated
mechanical logs. In order to determine the effectiveness of
downhole video in any particular field, several trial runs are
recommended. In addition, literature should be reviewed and
case histories examined for relevance to a given situation.
There are numerous papers discussing the benefits of
downhole video and these should be reviewed prior to using
the system.2,3,4
Overall, downhole video should be included in any set of a
production or drilling engineer’s diagnostic tools. More
importantly, the technology continues to improve which
continues to lower the cost of a video run. And with research
being conducted on a combined downhole video/combination
logging system, this tool could become the logging method of
choice for almost all production logging requirements.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Guy Chaffin of Downhole
Video International for his courtesy and assistance in the
preparation of this paper, as well as his exceptional knowledge
in the application of downhole video to the Coalinga field.
References
1. Peters, C.A., Schultz, P.K., and Cobb, C.C., “Development of an
Electro-Opto Logging Cable and Video System for Offshore and
Other Downhole Applications”, OTC paper 7608 presented at
the 26th Annual OTC, Houston, TX., 2-5 May 1994.
2. Ward, S.L., et al.: “Diagnosing Production Problems with
Downhole Video Surveying at Prudhoe Bay.” JPT (Nov 1994)
973.
3. Whittaker, J.L., Golich, G.M., and Smolen, J.J., “Diagnosing
Horizontal Well Production in the Belridge Field with
Downhole Video and Production Logs”, paper SPE 38295
presented at the 67th Annual Western Regional Meeting, Long
Beach, California, 25-27 June 1997.
4. Tague, J.R., Hollman, G.F., and Chaffin, G., “Downhole Video
Optimizes Scale-Removal Program,” paper SPE 54600
presented at the 1999 Western Regional Conference, Anchorage,
Alaska, May 26-28.