Sie sind auf Seite 1von 71

1

PRODUCTION LOGGING MEASUREMENTS AND ANALYSIS

I. Introduction

Production logging encompasses a number of cased hole logging measurements usually run in completed injection or production wells to evaluate the performance of the well itself or of the reservoir. Although the most common application of production logging is to obtain the well flow profile, a measure of the distribution of fluid flow into or out of the wellbore, there are numerous other applications, such as detecting channels or leaks. In .this article, the primary production logging measurements and interpretation procedures will be reviewed; the application of production logging to well and reservoir behavior diagnosis is treated in Chapter 14. The chapter is organized according to the logging environment or logging objective. First, the use of temperature, radioactive tracer, and spinner flowmeter logs for measuring flow profiles in single-phase flow is described. Then, the more difficult application of logging in multiphase flow is treated, introducing the basket flowmeter, density, and capacitance logs that are used in this environment. Finally, production logging techniques for completion evaluation are considered. For a more complete treatment of the logging methods presented here, the reader is referred to Hill [1990].

II. Production Logging Measurements in Single-Phase Flow

2.1 Temperature Logging

The temperature log is probably the simplest, most accurate, and most widely applicable production log. A temperature log is a measurement of the temperature in the well as a function of depth -a typical temperature log from a gas production well is shown in Figure 1 [Atlas Wireline Services, 1982.]

2

2 Fig. 1 Typical temperature log displays Notice that two curves are displayed, with one being

Fig. 1 Typical temperature log displays

Notice that two curves are displayed, with one being the temperature versus depth (usually called the gradient curve) and the other being the derivative of temperature with depth (the differential curve). The differential curve is recorded to accentuate changes in temperature behavior. Often, temperature logs will be run both with the well flowing and with the well shut-in, since a shut-in period will sometimes result in larger temperature anomalies at injection or production intervals. The temperature in a well depends on many factors, including the temperature of the surrounding formations, the wellbore flow conditions, the heat transfer characteristics of the completion, and fluid movements near the wellbore. The natural temperature distribution in the earth is called the geothermal temperature profile. Because of the heat transfer from the earth’s interior to the atmosphere, the temperature in the earth’s crust increases with depth, leading to a geothermal temperature profile such as that shown in Figure 2 [Connolly, 1965] from a region in Canada.

3

3 Fig. 2 Geothermal temperature profile, Leduc area, Canada The geothermal temperature profile varies significantly from

Fig. 2 Geothermal temperature profile, Leduc area, Canada

The geothermal temperature profile varies significantly from area to area, and the slope of the geothermal temperature (the geothermal gradient) varies from formation to formation. Knowledge of the geothermal temperature profile is often necessary for temperature log interpretation. Also, the geothermal gradient is generally assumed to be constant when interpreting temperature logs. When significant variations in lithology

4

occur, as in Fig. 2, the variation in geothermal gradient should be considered. When fluids are injected or produced through a wellbore, the temperature is perturbed from the geothermal temperature. In general, fluid injection will cool the wellbore relative to the surrounding formations, while fluid production leads to wellbore temperatures that are higher than the surroundings, as illustrated in Fig. 3 [Hill, 1990.]

the surroundings, as illustrated in Fig. 3 [Hill, 1990.] Fig. 3 Temperature behavior in injection or

Fig. 3 Temperature behavior in injection or production wells

Ramey [1962] presented a model for the temperature in a well away from any injection or production intervals as follows:

dT

T

T

G

 

=

(1)

dz

A

R

where

A R =

mCPf

[

λ

+

f

( )

t r U

1

]

2

Π

λ

r U

1

In

these

equations,

T

is

the

wellbore

temperature,

T G

is

the

(2)

geothermal

5

temperature, z is depth, m is the mass flow rate, C pf is the heat capacity of the wellbore fluid, λ is the thermal conductivity of the formation, r 1 is the radius of the wellbore flow path (the tubing inside radius, or the casing inside radius, if no tubing is present), U is the overall heat transfer coefficient of the completion, and f(t) is a time function. If the geothermal temperature varies linearly with depth (constant geothermal gradient), the solution to Equation 1 is

T =

g z

G

+

Ts

g A

G

R

+

[

T

ο

( t ) +

g A

G

R

]

Ts e

z

/

A

R

(3)

where T s is the formation temperature at z=0, g G is the geothermal gradient, and T o (t) is the wellbore fluid temperature at z=0. The function f(t) in Eq. 2 depends on the form of the boundary condition assumed and is given graphically in Fig. 4.

condition assumed and is given graphically in Fig. 4. Fig. 4 Time function in the Ramey

Fig. 4 Time function in the Ramey equation

For later times (log (αt/r2 2 > 2.5), all solutions converge to the line-source solution, and f(t) is given approximately by

f

( )

t

=−

ln

r 2 2 α t
r
2
2
α
t

0.290

(4)

6

where α is the formation thermal diffusivity, equal to λ/ρC p, and r 2 is the casing outside radius. Equation 4 can be used to calculate the wellbore temperature as a function of depth above the zones where fluid is entering or leaving the wellbore while Eq. 1 can be used directly to interpret temperature logs.

Example 1

Calculation of Wellbore Temperature Profile

Calculate the wellbore temperature as a function of depth from the surface to 10,000 ft after 60 days of injection of 500 b/d of fresh water. The following conditions are known:

casing OD = 7 inch λ = 5 Btu/hr-ft- F

geothermal temperature = 68 F + (0.01 F/ft) (z) water temperature at the surface = 80 F

tubing ID = 2.5 inch α = 0.06 ft 2 /hr

U = 300 Btu/day-ft 2 F

Solution Using Eq. 3, the wellbore temperature at a number of depth locations can be calculated to determine the wellbore temperature profile. First, f(t) is determined by calculating log(αt/r 2 2 ):

log

2

2

αt

r

= log


0.06

ft

2

hr

(

60

)

days

hr  

 

24

day

3.5

12

2

ft

2

= 3.01

(5)

If log (αt/r 2 2 ) is greater than about 2.5, f(t) can be calculated with Eq. 4:

f(t) = -ln

 


3.5

 

12

2

(
(

0.06

)( )(

60

24

)

0.290

=

3.86

(6)

7

A

R

=

m

= (

7,300

500

lb

m

b

/

d

)

1

5.615

Btu

ft

bbl

3

   

62.4

lb

ft

m

3

5

Btu

  day

= 7,300

24

hr

lb

m

hr

+

(

)(

3.86 0.104

ft

)

12.5

 

Btu

 

(7)

hr

 

lb

−°

m

F

hr

ft −°

F

hr

ft

2

−°

F

 

2

π

5

 

Btu

  1.25

 

ft   12.5

 

Btu

 

hr

ft −°

F

12

hr

ft

2

−°

F

(8)

= 1,788 ft

Substituting in Eq. 3, the temperature as a function of depth is

T

=

0.01

z

+

68

(

)(

0.01 1,788

)

+

(

80

+

(

)(

0.01 1,788

)

68

)

e

z /1788

(9)

The calculated wellbore temperature profile is shown in Figure 5.

wellbore temperature profile is shown in Figure 5. Fig. 5 Temperature profile calculated with the Ramey

Fig. 5 Temperature profile calculated with the Ramey equation

The Ramey solution (Eq. 1 or 3) does not account for convective heat transfer occurring with fluid movement in the formation and thus cannot be applied opposite injection or production zones. No simple solution exists for the temperature behavior in

such regions, and qualitative methods are generally applied to interpret temperature logs.

In injection wells, the injected fluid will usually be cooler than the reservoir. The

injection of large volumes of cool fluid into the reservoir creates a cool region around the

8

wellbore that can be detected with temperature logs. When the well is shut-in, the wellbore will begin to warm towards the geothermal temperature, but in the injection zones, this warming is slower than elsewhere because of the bank of cool fluid around the wellbore. Fig. 6 illustrates injection zones can be identified as cool anomalies on a shut-in temperature log. Although the base of the injection interval is easily identified on both the flowing and shut-in temperature profiles, the top of the injection interval can usually only be identified with the shut-in log.

can usually only be identified with the shut-in log. Fig. 6 Flowing and shut-in logs for

Fig. 6 Flowing and shut-in logs for an injection well

In production wells, production zones may or may not be clearly identifiable on a temperature log, depending on fluid properties and fluid entry rates. When a free gas phase is flowing in the reservoir, significant cooling of the gas may occur in the near- wellbore vicinity due to Joule-Thomson cooling. When this occurs, gas entries are identified as the locations of cool anomalies on a temperature log (Fig. 7 [Kunz and Tixier, 1955]). Joule-Thomson cooling will be more significant for relatively low bottomhole pressures, high production rates, and high drawdown.

9

9 Fig. 7. Gas-entry locations identified by cool regions on a temperature log In oil production

Fig. 7. Gas-entry locations identified by cool regions on a temperature log

In oil production wells, the temperature of the oil entering the wellbore will be the geothermal temperature at the depth or slightly higher because of frictional heating. The temperature will vary little across individual production intervals; however, there may be significant changes between production zones. An estimate of the flow profile can be obtained from these changes by using the Ramey equation (Eq. 1) or by applying an energy balance.

The Romero-Juarez Method Romero-Juarez [1969] pointed out that Eq. 1 can be rearranged to estimate the

10

flow rate from a temperature log. If the fluid properties and heat transfer characteristics of all zones are the same, substituting 2 into 1 and applying the result at different wellbore locations, we have

q

i

T

G

T

dT

dz

i

=

q

o

T

G

T

dT

dz

o

(10)

where i denotes any wellbore position and o denotes a location above the uppermost production or injection zone. Since the Ramey model does not apply in or near a production or injection interval, the locations for log interpretation must be selected far enough from these zones to avoid their influence.

The Mixing Method When fluid enters the wellbore and mixes with the fluid stream from below that location, and if the heat capacities of all the fluids are the same, an energy balance on the mixing zone yields

m

i

T

A

T

B

=

m

o

T

i

T

B

(11)

where m i is the mass flow rate from the Zone i, m o is the mass flow rate above the mixing zone, T A and T B are the temperatures above and below the mixing zone, respectively, and T i is the temperature of the fluid room Zone i. T A and T B can be read from the temperature log; T i is the geothermal temperature of Zone i if no significant Joule- Thomson cooling or frictional heating is occurring.

Example 2

Interpreting the Flow Profile with a Temperature Log

The temperature log is shown in Fig. 8 was obtained in a well producing oil and water. Estimate the fraction of flow from each perforated zone (the flow profile) using the Romero-Juarez Method and the Mixing Method.

11

11 Fig. 8 Example 2 temperature log Solution Romero-Juarez Method The analysis consists of the following

Fig. 8 Example 2 temperature log

Solution

Romero-Juarez Method The analysis consists of the following steps:

1. Choose stations for interpretation. These should be approximately midway between perforated zones.

12

3. Measure the difference between the wellbore temperature and the geothermal temperature, T-T G , at each station.

4. Calculate the fraction of flow at each station using Eq. 10.

For the example log, the middle set of perforations did not appear to be producing any fluids, so stations were chosen at 5690 ft, above the top perforations, and at 5740 ft, approximately midway between the top and bottom perforations. In this well, the geothermal temperature could be extrapolated from the temperature log response in the rathole below the lowest perforations. The values of dT/dz and T-T G for each station were then obtained as shown in Fig. 9 and are summarized in Table 1.

obtained as shown in Fig. 9 and are summarized in Table 1. Fig. 9 Romero-Juarez interpretation

Fig. 9 Romero-Juarez interpretation of Example 2 log

Table 1

13

Romero-Juarez Temperature Log Interpretation (Example 2)

Station

Depth

dT/dz

T-T G

A R

% total flow

(ft)

F/ft

F

ft

A 5690

0.0033

1.1

333

100

B 5740

0.008

0.4

50

15

The interpretation shows about 85% of the total flow coming from the top zone and about 15% from the bottom zone.

Mixing Method Applying the mixing method at the bottom of Zone 1, TA and TB are read from the temperature log and Ti determined from the estimated geothermal profile, as shown in Fig. 10. The fraction of flow from Zone 1 is then calculated with Eq. 11. Zone 1 is estimated to contribute 80% of the total flow, compared with 85% found with the Romero-Juarez method.

the total flow, compared with 85% found with the Romero-Juarez method. Fig. 10 Mixing method interpretation

14

2.2 Radioactive Tracer Logging

Radioactive tracer logs are most commonly used to measure flow profiles in water injection wells, though they are also sometimes used in steam or CO 2 injection wells and in production wells. A radioactive tracer log is run by ejecting from the tool a small amount of radioactive material that is miscible with the wellbore fluid. The tracer mixes with the wellbore fluid and moves down the wellbore while its movement is monitored by one or more γ-ray detectors. The two most common logging methods are the tracer loss method and the velocity shot method.

Tracer Loss Method In the tracer loss method, a relatively large tracer slug is ejected above all injection zones and its movement tracked by passing the γ-ray detectors repeatedly through the slug. Thus, a tracer loss log will consist of a number of recordings of high γ-ray intensity that follow the path of the tracer down the wellbore fluid, the area under each γ-ray intensity curve is proportional to the wellbore flow rate at that location. The interpretation consists of measuring the areas under the γ-ray intensity curves; then

q

i

q

o

=

A

i

A

o

(12)

where q i is the flow rate at the depth of the γ-ray curve peak, q o is the flow rate above all injection zones, and A i and A o are the areas under the γ-ray intensity curves corresponding to these depth locations. Since all calculations are normalized with the area under a γ-ray intensity curve above all injection zones, it is important that a good measurement of the tracer slug (preferably two or more) is made above the injection intervals.

Velocity Shot Method

To run a velocity shot log, the radioactive tracer logging tool is positioned stationary at a number of depth locations; at each location, a small shot of tracer is ejected and its travel time between two detectors is measured. The travel time is usually measured either as the difference between the arrival times of the first detectable tracer at each detector (the leading edge travel time) or as the difference between the arrival times of the γ-ray intensity peak at each detector (the peak to peak travel time). If the flow is turbulent, the

15

leading edge travel time measures the maximum velocity of the flow stream, while the peak to peak travel time corresponds to the average velocity. For a discussion of tracer logging in laminar flow, see Hill [1990]. The volumetric flow rate is calculated from the travel time as

q =

π (

D

2

D

2

t

)

L

4 t

pp

(13)

when the peak to peak travel time is measured, or by

q =

π

(

D

2

D

2

t

)

L

u

4

t

le

u

max

(14)

when the leading edge travel time is used. In these equations, D is the casing ID,

D t is the logging tool OD, and L is the spacing between detectors. The ration,

Equation 13-14 ranges from 0.75 to 0.86 and is usually taken to be 0.83 in production log interpretation. If the wellbore cross-sectional area is constant and the flow is turbulent at all velocity shot locations, the flow at any depth location is related to the flow rate above all injection zones by

u / u

, in

max

q

i

t

o

=

q

o

t

i

(15)

The flow rates calculated with velocity shot logs should generally be assigned to the depth midway between the two detectors.

Example 3

Radioactive Tracer Log Interpretation

Determine the flow profile from the tracer loss log shown in Fig. 11 and from the velocity shot data obtained from the same well, given in Table 3. For the velocity shot log, the detector spacing is 5 ft and the travel times given are leading edge travel times. The injection rate into the well is 460 b/d, the tool OD is 1-3/8 in., and the ID of the 4-1/2 in. casing is 4.09 in.

16

16 Fig. 11 Tracer loss log Solution Tracer loss log To determine the flow profile, the

Fig. 11 Tracer loss log

Solution Tracer loss log To determine the flow profile, the area under each γ-ray curve must be calculated. Notice that a base γ-ray log was recorded – this background radiation level should be subtracted from the area computed. The areas obtained by planimetry are shown in Table 2. The tracer slug was logged three times before it reached the first perforations, so the first three γ-ray traces can be averaged to yield A o. The fraction of total flow at each tracer peak depth is then calculated with Eq. 12, with the results shown in Table 2. The interpreted flow profile is sketched in Figure 12.

17

17 Fig. 12 Flow profiles interpreted from radioactive tracer logs Table 2 depth Tracer Loss Log

Fig. 12 Flow profiles interpreted from radioactive tracer logs

Table 2

depth

Tracer Loss Log Results (Example 3) area of γ-ray curve

% of total flow (q i /q o x100)

3735

21.32

100.0

3750

22.24

average = 23.16

100.0

3765

25.92

100.0

3797

23.76

103.0

3826

23.84

103.0

3842

17.88

75.0

3860

16.20

68.0

3883

13.56

56.5

3898

10.00

41.5

3912

9.68

40.0

3922

10.00

41.5

3936

6.36

26.5

18

3944

0.16

0.01

Velocity shot log Since the wellbore cross-sectional area is presumably constant throughout the logged interval, the fraction of flow at each velocity shot location can be calculated with Eq. 15; the results are given in Table 3. The flow profile is plotted in Fig. 12. It is good practice to calculate the volumetric flow rate from a velocity shot measurement above the perforations so that it can be compared with the surface rate (a large discrepancy can indicate a tubing leak). For station 1, using Eq. 14 since the travel times are leading edge travel times,

q

=

π

(

4.09

2

1.375

2

in

2

)(

5

ft

)

ft

2

 

 

(

 

 

 

144

in

2

)

4 13.5sec

(

day

 

  5.615

 

ft

3

 

86,400sec

bbl

0.85

)

=

392

b

/

d

(16)

This compares fairly well with the surface rate of 460 b/d.

In general, the velocity shot log is more accurate than the tracer loss log, primarily because of its better depth resolution.

Table 3 Velocity Shot Data and Analysis Results (Example 3)

Shot No.

Depth-top detector

Δt (sec)

Δt o /Δt i

q

i /q o

1

3715

13.50

1.00

1.00

2

3745

14.25

0.95

0.95

3

3777

13.50

1.00

1.00

4

3795

13.50

1.00

1.00

5

3807

15.00

0.90

0.90

6

3827

13.50

1.00

1.00

7

3830

15.90

0.85

0.85

8

3835

16.50

0.82

0.82

9

3840

18.30

0.74

0.74

19

10

3853

22.20

0.61

0.61

11

3865

21.00

0.64

0.64

12

3877

21.00

0.64

0.64

13

3933

36.00

0.38

0.38

14

3957

234.0

0.06

0.04

15

3979

294.0

0.05

0.04

16

3999

0.00

0.00

2.3 Spinner Flowmeter Logging

Another commonly used device for measuring flow profiles, both in injection and production wells, is the spinner flowmeter. A spinner flowmeter is an impeller that is placed in the well to measure fluid velocity in the same matter that a turbine meter measures flow rate in a pipeline. Like a turbine meter, the force of the moving fluid causes the spinner to rotate. The rotational velocity of the spinner is assumed linearly proportional to fluid velocity and some electronic means are incorporated in the tool to monitor rotational velocity and sometimes direction. The preferred method of running a spinner flowmeter log involves making several passes of the spinner at different tool speeds, moving both upwards and downwards through the region to be logged. It is also helpful to make a series of measurements with the tool held stationary at different depth locations. With multiple passes of the spinner through the well at different cable speeds, an in-situ calibration of the spinner response is obtained; this method of running and interpreting a spinner flowmeter log is called the multipass method. The multipass interpretation is based on the linear spinner response,

f

(

= m u

f

+ u u

t

T

)

(17)

where f is the spinner response, usually recorded in rps, m is the slope of the spinner response versus cable speed curve, u f is fluid velocity, u t is tool velocity (cable speed), and u T is the threshold velocity. Solving for the fluid velocity when the tool velocity is zero yields

u

f

=

f

o

m

+ u

T

(18)

20

where f o is the intercept of the spinner response curve at u t = 0. With the spinner centralized, as it always should be, the velocity measured is near the maximum velocity. The volumetric flow rate is then

q = Au f

u

u

max

(19)

where A is the wellbore cross-sectional area. Thus, to interpret multiple passes of a spinner flowmeter log using Eqs. 18 and 19, we need the slope and intercept of the spinner response curve and an estimate of the threshold velocity. The threshold velocity is the velocity needed to force the spinner to begin turning if the response is perfectly linear and is obtained from a plot of spinner response versus cable speed. If the spinner has been run at a variety of cable speeds, both in the direction of and opposite the direction of flow, a calibration such as that shown in Fig. 13 can be obtained.

of flow, a calibration such as that shown in Fig. 13 can be obtained. Fig. 13

Fig. 13 Spinner flowmeter in-situ calibration plot

21

The negative responses shown occur when the spinner is rotating in the opposite direction from the runs that yield positive responses. For example, in an injection well, when the spinner is being pulled up against the flow, the spinner will rotate in one direction throughout the well (assume these are clockwise rotations). When the spinner is moved downwards in the direction of flow, the spinner will experience a net downward force and continue to rotate clockwise unless the fluid velocity is less than the tool velocity. When the tool velocity exceeds the fluid velocity, the net force is upwards and the tool will rotate counterclockwise. Since there is a threshold velocity for each direction of rotation, when all responses are plotted as in Fig. 13, the difference in the calibration curve intercepts on the cable speed axis is approximately twice the threshold velocity, or

u

=

u

tp

u

tn

T 2

(20)

where u tp and u tn are the intercepts of the positive and negative spinner response curves with the f=0 axis, respectively. The threshold velocity is usually obtained in the lower part of the well where the lower fluid velocity makes it easier to obtain data with both clockwise and

counterclockwise rotations of the spinner. It is not good practice to measure the threshold velocity in the rathole, since the rathole fluid may be different from the produced fluid. The threshold velocity can also be measured with the well shut-in. In this case, the threshold velocity should be measured above all injection or production intervals to avoid the effects of crossflow that may occur between zones in a shut-in well. The steps in the multipass method are summarized below.

1.

Choose the stations (depth locations) at which the flow rates will be calculated. As a minimum, a station should be chosen between each perforated interval.

2.

Read the spinner response at different cable speeds at each station.

3.

For each station, plot spinner response versus tool velocity (cable speed).

4.

Calculate the slope, m p or m n , for each response line.

5.

For each station where positive and negative spinner responses occur, determine the threshold velocity, u T , from Eq. 20.

6.

Calculate the fluid velocity at each station from the intercept of the response line at u t = 0, applying Eq. 18.

22

Example 4

Spinner Flowmeter Interpretation with the Multipass Method

The spinner flowmeter log shown in Fig. 14 was obtained in a water injection well with 6 in. ID casing using a Schlumberger Fullbore Flowmeter. Using the multipass method, calculate the volumetric flow rates at 5780, 5800, 5820, 5845, and 5880 ft.

flow rates at 5780, 5800, 5820, 5845, and 5880 ft. Fig. 14 Example 4 spinner flowmeter

Fig. 14 Example 4 spinner flowmeter log

Solution For the stations given, first the spinner responses at each cable speed are read.

23

Since the fullbore spinner does not sense direction of rotation, this must be determined from the character of the log so that positive or negative values can be assigned to the spinner responses. Since the spinner will rotate in the same direction throughout the well when it is pulled against the flow direction, it is convenient to assign positive values to the spinner responses on those passes. For this injection well, this means positive values are assigned to all spinner responses from the up passes. For the down passes, the spinner may be rotating in either direction. Notice that on the down run at a cable speed of 40 ft/min, the spinner response is low in the upper part of the well, drops to zero, then begins to increase in the lower part of the well. This behavior indicates that the spinner has reversed directions. In the upper part of the well, the fluid velocity is greater than the tool velocity and the spinner is rotating in the same direction as in the up passes; in the lower part of the well, the spinner is rotating in the opposite direction and negative values are assigned to the responses. At the higher cable speed in the down direction, the spinner response is negative throughout the well. The spinner responses are summarized in Table 4.

Table 4

Spinner Flowmeter Responses (Example 4) Cable Speed

Station

up 30 ft/min

up 60 ft/min

down 40 ft/min

down 80 ft/min

5780

2.85

4.10

0.08

-0.88

5800

2.50

3.68

0.00

-1.16

5820

2.08

3.26

-0.08

-1.68

5845

1.42

2.77

-0.50

-2.32

5880

0.85

2.10

-1.28

-2.85

24

24 Fig. 15 Multipass method in-situ calibration plot Next, the tool responses are plotted against cable

Fig. 15 Multipass method in-situ calibration plot

Next, the tool responses are plotted against cable speed for each station as in Fig. 15. From the station at 5880 ft the threshold velocity is found with Eq. 20 as

u T

=

9.6

ft

min

−  − 7.4

ft

min


 

2

=

8.5

ft

min

(21)

For each station, the slope, m p , and the cable-speed axis intercept are determined and the fluid velocity and volumetric flow rate are calculated from Eqs. 18 and 19. For example, at 5780 feet, m p = 0.040 rps/ft/min, f o = 1.67 rps, and

u f

q

=

=

1.67

rps

0.04

rps

ft / min

+

8.5

ft

min

50.2

ft

min

 

 

 

π

4

12

  6

ft

2

= 50.2

(

)

0.83

ft

min

bbl

5.615 ft

3

  1,440 min

 =

day

2,100

b

/

d

(22)

25

 

(23)

The results are summarized in Table 5.

 
 

Table 5 Multipass Interpretation Results (Example 4)

 

station

m p

m n

f o

v f

q

rps/ft/min

rps/ft/min

rps

ft/min

b/d

5780

0.040

--

1.67

50.2

2100

5800

0.039

--

1.32

42.1

1800

5820

0.039

0.040

0.90

31.4

1300

5845

0.045

0.046

0.07

10.1

400

5880

0.042

0.039

-0.40

0

0

This log had the minimum number of passes needed to apply the multipass method- two in each direction. Preferably, three or more passes are run in each direction. Notice that there was some variation in the spinner response curve slopes, with m p ranging from 0.039 to 0.045. This variation is caused by the tool itself or unsteady flow conditions in the well and is an indication of some inaccuracy in the log. In the interpretation, the slope obtained at each station was used to calculate the flow rate at that station. However, often an average value of m p is used for all stations. Finally, at 5880 ft, the intercept f o , was negative. This indicates that the fluid velocity at that depth is below the threshold velocity and Eq. 18 no longer applies. The fluid velocity is assumed to be approximately zero in this instance.

III. Production Logging Measurements in Multiphase Flow

In production wells, most of the time two or more phases flow simultaneously. Water is produced in many wells and free gas flows in the wellbore whenever the wellbore pressure is below the bubble point. The goal of production logging in production wells is to determine the locations and rates of oil, water, and gas entries to the wellbore, a much more difficult task than the measurement of a single-phase flow profile. In multiphase flow, in addition to measuring velocity or total flow rate, it is necessary to make measurements of the amount of each fluid present in different

26

locations in the wellbore. These measurements are interpreted using models of two-phase flow behavior to estimate the flow distribution into the wellbore.

3.1 Fluid Velocity Measurement

The same radioactive tracer and spinner flowmeter logging techniques used in single-phase flow are applied in multiphase flow. A third device, a flow-concentrating flowmeter, is also used to measure flow velocity in production wells. Radioactive tracer logging (the velocity shot method) can be used to measure velocity in production wells. Because radioactive material is produced to the surface, these techniques are seldom used in production wells. However, by taking precautions such as storing the produced fluid until the level of radioactivity has decayed to a safe level, radioactive tracer logs can be used in production wells. In a multiphase stream, a radioactive tracer will most likely move with the continuous phase. Thus, a radioactive tracer log will provide a measure of the in-situ average velocity of the continuous phase, not the average velocity of the total flow stream. The same spinner flowmeters used in single-phase flow logging are employed to measure velocity in multiphase flow. The spinner flowmeter’s efficacy is greatly diminished in multiphase flow, however, because of the complexity of the flow itself. One major difficulty is that a spinner flowmeter measures a localized velocity that does not necessarily represent the average flow velocity. Since the velocity profile in multiphase flow is much less predictable than that in single-phase flow, the small sampling area of a spinner flowmeter can be a serious detriment. Particularly when the well is inclined, the velocity distribution in multiphase flow can be highly non-uniform, causing serious interpretation problems with spinner flowmeters. Velocity fluctuations in multiphase flow also contribute to the inaccuracy of spinner flowmeters. Spinner flowmeters will yield better results in multiphase flow the more homogeneous the flow stream; e.g., when relatively small bubbles of one phase are distributed relatively uniformly in another phase, a spinner flowmeter can be expected to perform well. In general, spinner flowmeters will be more reliable in high velocity flow streams in multiphase flow. No absolute guidelines are available at present to predict what flow rates are sufficient for accurate use of spinner flowmeters. When running a spinner flowmeter in a multiphase well, the standard single-phase interpretation methods are often unreliable. It is often best to first make a few passes with the spinner flowmeter in the well to get a general picture of the flow behavior, then make a series of stationary measurements. With the spinner stationary, the response can be averaged over time,

27

eliminating some of the error caused by flow fluctuations. The best devices currently available to measure velocity in multiphase flow when the volumetric flow rates are relatively low are flow-concentrating flowmeters, tools that force all flow to pass through a small chamber containing a turbine flowmeter. By forcing the flow into a much smaller diameter flow path inside the tool, the fluid velocities are increased enough to make the flow stream relatively homogeneous and thus the turbine meter responds linearly to total velocity. Two types of flow concentrating flowmeters have been used – the packer flowmeter and the basket flowmeter. Currently, the basket type flowmeter is the most commonly used flow concentrating flowmeter.

3.2 Fluid Density Measurement

In two-phase flow, the in-situ average density, ρ is related to the holdup by

ρ = y1ρ1 + (1 y1)ρg

for gas-liquid flow, or

ρ = ywpw + (1 yw)ρo

(24)

(25)

for oil-water flow. (See Chapter 7 for a discussion of holdup and other general features of two-phase flow). Thus, a measurement of the average density of the flow stream provides a measure of the holdup of each phase in a two-phase flow. Two types of tools are used to measure fluid density-those based on γ-ray absorption and those based on a pressure drop measurement. The most common type of fluid density tool is the γ-ray densitometer. This tool is based on the fact that γ-ray absorbance is inversely proportional to the density of the material through which the γ-rays are passing. The device consists of a γ-ray source (a collimated beam), an open space through which wellbore fluid can pass, and a γ-ray detector. A collimated beam is used to prevent backscatter from the casing wall. The tool response decreases logarithmically as the fluid density increases so that

log K = a bρ

(26)

where K is the count rate (HZ), a and b are constants, and ρ is the fluid density.

A γ-ray densitometer has several inherent limitations, including the statistical

28

nature of the measurement, small sampling size, and low sensitivity in oil-water flow.

Like any nuclear measurement, there will be statistical fluctuations in γ-ray densitometer readings because the γ-ray source does not emit radiation at a constant rate. This effect can be minimized by using a strong γ-ray source and by averaging the tool response over a finite time period. Thus, stationary measurements are advantageous with a γ-ray densitometer so that the response can be averaged to eliminate statistical fluctuations. Another major problem with a γ-ray tool is the small sampling size. As with a spinner flowmeter, a γ-ray densitometer is sensing density of only a small portion of the flow stream and thus the density measured may not represent the average fluid density. If the flow regime is highly nonuniform, as in inclined flow, a γ-ray densitometer may yield

a reading that has no relation to average density. As with any density tool, sensitivity is low in an oil-water stream in which there is

a small difference between the densities of the oil and the water. A density tool will most

clearly distinguish between gas and liquids. The primary density tool based on a measurement of pressure drop is the Schlumberger Gradiomanometer TM .The Gradiomanometer determines average fluid density by measuring the pressure differential across two feet of wellbore. Assuming that Δp KE , the pressure gradient due to kinetic energy change is negligible, and that the frictional pressure gradient, Δp F , is small compared to the hydrostatic head term, then

p = g ρ cosθ

(27)

where θ is the wellbore deviation from vertical. Thus, for these conditions, the average

fluid density, ρ , can be determined from a measurement of pressure gradient in the

wellbore. If the frictional pressure drop is significant compared to the gravitational term, the fluid density calculated from Eq. 27 will, of course, be in error. Using ρ GR to represent the apparent density from the gradiomanometer reading,

gρGR = g ρ + ∆pF

written in practice as ρ GR ρ = 1 + F
written in practice as
ρ
GR
ρ
=
1 + F

(28)

(29)

29

where F is a correction factor to account for frictional pressure losses. Schlumberger has empirically determined values of F for flow rates greater than 2000 b/d.

3.3 Fluid Capacitance Measurements

To overcome the problems inherent in fluid density tools in distinguishing between oil and water, another class of tools has been developed to measure the water fraction in multiphase flow more accurately. These devices are based on a measurement of electrical capacitance and are sometimes referred to as holdup meters or watercut meters.

Capacitance tools are essentially coaxial capacitors. By applying a voltage potential between a central electrode and the outside of the logging tool, the capacitance of the device is determined. Since the capacitance measured is a function of the dielectric constant of the fluids in the sample chamber, the capacitance tool provides a measurement of the dielectric constant. Liquid hydrocarbons have dielectric constants on the order of 2 to 6 while water has a dielectric constant of about 80 and thus a dielectric constant measurement distinguishes well between hydrocarbons and water. Since the dielectric constants of gases are near 1, the capacitance log does not discriminate well between oil and gas. The advantage, then, of a capacitance tool measurement is the wider separation between the responses to oil and water, thus providing a better means of measuring water holdup. Furthermore, in three-phase flow, a capacitance measurement in conjunction with a density measurement can provide an estimate of the holdup of each phase. Capacitance tools do not respond linearly to water fraction. When water is the continuous phase in a multiphase flow, a capacitance tool has little sensitivity since a continuous electrical path exists through the water. A typical calibration curve for a capacitance tool is shown in Fig. 16 [Carlson and Roesner, 1982]. Notice that when the input water fraction is greater than 0.5, the tool sensitivity to water fraction is greatly diminished compared with the behavior at lower water fractions.

30

30 Fig. 16 Capacitance tool flow loop calibration The capacitance tool shares the problem of small

Fig. 16 Capacitance tool flow loop calibration

The capacitance tool shares the problem of small sampling size with the density and spinner flowmeter logs. Particularly in inclined wells a capacitance log may indicate 100% water even though a significant oil stream is present because the oil is flowing along the upper side of the pipe and is undetected by the capacitance tool.

3.4 Production Log Interpretation in Multiphase Flow

Log interpretation in multiphase flow is generally based upon the measurement of the average total velocity or mixture velocity, u m , and the holdup, y, of the phases. When three phases are present (oil, water, and gas), we assume that there is no slip between the liquids, so that the oil and water can be treated as a single liquid phase. Thus, the analysis is always for two-phase flow of gas and liquid or oil and water. Letting α denote the less dense phase and β denote the denser phase, the volumetric flow rates of the phases are obtained from

q

α

(

1

= A y

β

)(

u

s

y

β

+ u

m

)

(30)

31

q

t

= Au

m

q

β

=

q

t

q

α

(31)

(32)

where q α , q β , and q t are the volumetric flow rates of phase α, phase β, and the total flow stream and u s is the slip velocity. Applying these equations to oil-water flow, α is the oil phase and β is the water phase, while in gas-liquid flow, α denotes the gas and β denotes the liquid. The slip velocity must be obtained independently from the log measurements. Several methods of estimating the slip velocity are commonly used [Hill, 1990]. Two methods are presented here – the correlation of Nicolas and Witterholt [1972] and the method suggested by Curtis [1967]. The Nicolas-Witterholt correlation is based on laboratory measurements of slip velocity in bubble flow and is given by

u s

=( )

y

w

n

u with

1/ 2〈〈2 n

where u , the terminal bubble rise velocity is

u

= c

g

σρ

2

ρ

β

1

4

with

1.53

〈〈 c

1.61

(33)

(34)

In these equations, c is usually taken to be 1.53, n is usually assumed equal to one, g is the acceleration of gravity, σ is the interfacial tension, Δρ is the difference between the phase densities, and ρβ is the density of the denser phase. Hill [1992] found this correlation to work particularly well for vertical oil-water flow, though it appears to overestimate u . The Curtis method is based on the knowledge of the flow rates of both phases above the production zones from the surface flow rates. For example, in oil-water flow,

and

q

q

o

w

= B q

o

os

= B

w

q

ws

(35)

(36)

where q o and q w are the downhole volumetric flow rates of oil and water above all production zones, q os and q ws are the phase volumetric flow rates at the surface, and B o and B w are the formation volume factors of the oil and water. With a measurement of y w above the perforations, Eqs. 30 through 32 can be solved for the slip velocity to yield

32

u

s

=

q

o q

w

A

(

1

y

w

)

Ay

w

(37)

The slip velocity calculated for the location above the perforations is then used to interpret the log responses at all other locations; i.e., the slip velocity is assumed to be constant throughout the well.

Example 5:

Determination of the Flow Profile in a Two-Phase Production Well

A schematic of a well producing oil and gas and the production log data obtained at five stations with a basket flowmeter and a gradiomanometer are shown in Fig. 17. The

volumetric flow rates at station 1 above all the perforations are determined from surface

conditions to be 2000 b/d oil and 10,000 ft

wellbore as free gas. At bottomhole conditions, the oil density is 0.85 g/cc, the gas density is 0.10 g/cc and the interfacial tension is 30 dynes/cm. Calculate the flow profile for this well, first using the Nicolas-Witterholt correlation, then using the Curtis method.

3 / d gas. Assume that all the gas enters the

method. 3 / d gas. Assume that all the gas enters the Fig. 17 Example 5

Fig. 17 Example 5 schematic and log values

Solution

Nicolas-Witterholt

33

Eqs. 30 through 32 apply. First y o and u m are determined at each station from the log data. Rearranging Eq. 24 to solve for holdup and applying the result for station 1,

y

o

=

ρ ρ

g

 

0.64

 

0.1 =

 

=

p

o

ρ

g

0.75

0.1

0.72

(38)

Similar calculations are performed for the other stations.

Basket flowmeters are usually assumed to respond linearly to total average velocity (u m ) with negligible threshold velocity. Thus, the mixture velocity at any station can be obtained from the known mixture velocity at a station above the perforations. For station 1,

u m 1

=

q

o

+

q

g

A

=

At any other station i,

u

f

i

=

mi f

1

u

m 1

(

2,000

b

/

d

)

5.615

ft

3

bbl

 +

10,000

ft

3

day

0.2 ft

2


1 day

1,440 min

=  73.7

ft

min

(39)

(40)

where f i and f 1 are the flowmeter responses at stations i and 1, respectively. To calculate the slip velocity, u is calculated with Eq. 34:

u

= 1.53


 


0.0022

lbm

sec

2

dyne

cm

 


(

 

32.2

ft

dynes

cm

 

 

)

62.4

lbm  

ft

3



  30

sec

2

0.85

0.1

 

(

)(

0.85 62.4

)

lbm

 

3

ft

2

1

4

=

0.66

ft

sec

(41)

= 39.8

ft

min

Then the slip velocity at each station is calculated with Eq. 33. Finally, the volumetric

34

flow rates are calculated with Eqs. 30 through 32. For example, for station 1,

u s

q

q

g

T

q o

=

=

=

=

(

0.72

)

(

(

0.2

0.2

ft

ft

2

2

21,200

39.8

ft

min

= 28.7

ft

min

)(

1

)

74

0.72

)(

0.72

)

28.7

ft

  1,440 min

min

day

ft

min

+ 74

ft

  1,440 min

 = 7,600

min

day

= 21,200

ft

3

day

7,600

=

13,600

ft

3

day

= 2,400

b

d

ft

3

day

The results for all stations are given in Table 6.

Table 6

(42)

(43)

(44)

(45)

Nicolas-Witterholt Interpretation Results (Example 5)

station

flowmeter

density

y o

u m

u s

q T

q g (ft 3 /d)

q o (ft 3 /d)

q o

(rps)

(g/cc)

(ft/min)

(ft/min)

(ft 3 /d)

(b/d)

1

85

0.64

0.72

74

28.7

21200

7600

13600

2400

2

62

0.52

0.56

54

22.3

15500

8400

7100

1300

3

46

0.62

0.69

40

27.6

11500

5200

6300

1100

4

23

0.80

0.93

20

37.1

5700

1000

4700

800

5

0

1.05

1+

0

-

0

0

0

0

Curtis Method

With this method, the slip velocity above the perforations (station 1) is calculated from the known rates at this location using Eq. 37. This slip velocity is then used at all other stations to calculate the volumetric flow rates of the phases. The total average velocity, u m , and hence, the total volumetric flow rate will be the same for this method as with the Nicolas-Witterholt method. Thus,

u s

=

ft

3

day

10,000

1

0.2 ft

2

(

1

0.72

)

d

)

ft

3

bbl

 

 

(

2,000

b

/

5.615

0.72


day

1,440 min

= 69.8

ft

min

(46)

35

Using this value of u s , q g , q o , and q T are calculated with Eqs. 30 through 32; the results are shown in Table 7.

Table 7 Curtis Method Interpretation Results (Example 5)

station

q T (ft 3 /d)

q g (ft 3 /d)

q o (ft 3 /d)

q o

(b/d)

1

21200

10000

11200

2000

2

15500

11800

3700

700

3

11500

7800

3700

650

4

5700

1700

4000

700

5

0

0

0

0

The flow profiles obtained are plotted in Fig. 18. The profile is presented as a plot of total flow rate and a plot of oil flow rate, with the difference between these values being the gas flow rate. A few points about these results are worth noting. First, at station 5, the flowmeter reads 0 rps and the density tool shows a density higher than the oil density. These results show this to be the rathole region, indicating no oil or gas is flowing at this depth.

36

36 Fig. 18 Example 5 two-phase log interpreted flow profile Comparing the results obtained with the

Fig. 18 Example 5 two-phase log interpreted flow profile

Comparing the results obtained with the Nicolas-Witterholt correlation with those obtained with the Curtis method, qualitatively they are similar, with both showing the majority of the oil production coming from Zones A and D. Both show the primary gas production from Zones B and C. However, notice that with the Curtis method, Zones B and C are interpreted to produce essentially no oil, while with the Nicolas-Witterholt interpretation, over 400 b/d of oil is found to be produced by these zones. Unfortunately, it is not possible to know which is more correct, as both methods are empirical correlations of complex two-phase flow phenomena.

IV. Completion Evaluation with Production Logs

Production logs are often used to inspect the well completion. Locating tubing, casing, or packer leaks, detecting channels behind pipe, and evaluating the condition of the cement are all common applications. In this section, we will review methods for locating channels or leaks followed by a discussion of cement evaluation.

Channel and Leak Detection

37

Channels through the cemented region behind the casing can be located with temperature, radioactive tracer, and noise logs while leaks in casing or tubing are routinely detected with noise and radioactive tracer logs. Sometimes, a comparison of two or more production logs is the best means of locating leaks or channels. A temperature log can sometimes indirectly detect channeling in an injection well by locating a cool anomaly away from the intended injection intervals. If there is no means for fluid to exit the wellbore at the location of the anomaly (such as through a casing leak), the fluid cooling the formation apparently traveled to the cool region through a channel.

Example 6

Channel Detection with a Temperature Log

Figure 19 [Hill, 1990] is an 18 hour shut-in temperature log from a well with a suspected channel. Looking first at the perforated interval, no cool anomaly has developed in this region, so it appears that little of the injected fluid is entering the formation opposite the perforations. The cool anomaly from 4790 ft to 4844 ft suggests that fluid is entering the formation over this interval after channeling up from the perforations beginning at 4848 ft. The cool anomaly at 4924 ft-4950 ft is likely due to injection into the openhole section of the well at this depth. On this particular log, the flowing temperature log indicates where fluid leaves the wellbore as the regions where temperature is increasing more rapidly with depth, such as from 4855 to 4865 ft. However, in most injection wells, the flowing temperature log will show little definition across the overall injection interval.

38

38 Fig. 19 Temperature log showing channeling behind casing Radioactive tracer logs can also be used

Fig. 19 Temperature log showing channeling behind casing

Radioactive tracer logs can also be used to find leaks and channels. Since the gamma-rays generated by the radioactive tracer can penetrate 1-2 ft, it is possible to observe fluid movement outside of the casing with tracer loss logs. If the fluid movement can be clearly identified as being outside the casing, the tracer loss log can give a positive indication of channeling. Channeling is identified on a tracer loss log by the development of a secondary peak of tracer concentration (gamma-ray intensity). Figure 20 illustrates this technique [Schlumberger, 1973]. After tracer enters the perforations at Sand #3, a secondary peak develops which moves back up the well (f, j, n, v). This movement indicates fluid channeling up the casing-formation annulus to Sand #4. Also, tracer is detected moving below the lowest perforated interval at Sand #2 (1, p). Presumably, this movement is due to channeling down to Sand #1. Finally, the secondary tracer peak remaining stationary at the packer is attributed to tracer caught in the hardware and in turbulent eddies and is not an indication of channeling.

39

39 Fig. 20 Hypothetical behavior of a tracer loss log in a well with channeling behind

Fig. 20 Hypothetical behavior of a tracer loss log in a well with channeling behind pipe

The noise log is one of the most positive means of detecting leaks or channels. A noise log is simply a record of a passive measure of the audible sound detected by a sensitive hydrophone at a number of locations in the wellbore. Since sound is generated by fluid turbulence, high noise amplitudes indicate locations where the flow path is such that additional turbulence is developed. Fluid moving through restricted channels, leaks, flow from perforations, and flow past the logging sonde are among the phenomena that can produce characteristic sounds in the wellbore and thus may be detected with a noise log. Analysis of the frequency characteristics of the measured noise can distinguish between the various possible sources of high sound amplitudes. The noise log has been used primarily as a qualitative indicator of channeling behind pipe [McKinley et al., 1973]. Flow in a channel is indicated on a noise log by the presence of high amplitude noise at places where restrictions in the channel cause

40

throttling of the fluid, as shown in Fig. 21 [Atlas Wireline Services, 1982]. Similarly, flow through a leak results in a pressure drop that generates detectable noise. Fig. 21 Noise

pressure drop that generates detectable noise. Fig. 21 Noise Fig. 21 Noise log Example 7 Detection

Fig. 21 Noise log

Example 7

Detection of a Leak with a Noise Log

Figure 22 [Hill, 1990] shows a noise log run in a well with a suspected packer leak allowing flow into the annulus. The log shown in Fig. 22 was run with 1200 psi surface pressure on the annulus; with this backpressure, no leak is evident as no noise anomalies occur at the packer location. Pressure was then bled off the annulus and the noise log repeated (Fig. 23 [Hill, 1990]). With low pressure in the annulus, a leak at the packer was clearly indicated by the noise amplitude peaks at the packer location.

41

41 Fig. 22 Noise log to detect a packer leak – pressure on the annulus

Fig. 22 Noise log to detect a packer leak – pressure on the annulus

42

42 Fig. 23 packer leak indicated on noise log with annulus pressure bled off Sometimes, a

Fig. 23 packer leak indicated on noise log with annulus pressure bled off

Sometimes, a combination of logs is needed to clearly distinguish between leaks and channeling behind pipe. Consider, for example, the log responses that would be obtained in an injection well with a channel downward from the lowest perforations and another injection well with a casing leak below the lowest perforations [Hill, 1990]. The temperature log responses that would be expected in these situations are shown in Figs. 24 and 25.

43

43 Fig. 24 Temperature logs for injection well with a downward channel

Fig. 24 Temperature logs for injection well with a downward channel

43 Fig. 24 Temperature logs for injection well with a downward channel

44

Fig. 25 Temperature logs for injection well with a casing leak below the bottom zone

The temperature logs are identical, as the temperature responds primarily to where the fluid enters the formation. Spinner and radioactive tracer logs for these wells are shown in Figs. 26 and 27. Now differences are seen between the logs. When channeling is occurring, the spinner and velocity shot logs detect no flow below the perforations (Fig. 26), while a casing leak results in flow in the wellbore past the bottom of the perforations, as detected by the spinner or velocity shot log. In the case of channeling, the spinner or velocity shot log alone cannot find the anomalous well behavior. However, when they are compared with a temperature or tracer loss log, channeling is conclusively identified.

or tracer loss log, channeling is conclusively identified. Fig. 26 Radioactive tracer logs for injection well

Fig. 26 Radioactive tracer logs for injection well with a downward channel

45

45 Fig. 27 Radioactive tracer logs for injection well with a casing leak below the bottom

Fig. 27 Radioactive tracer logs for injection well with a casing leak below the bottom zone

4.2 Cement Evaluation

Acoustic logging techniques, primarily the cement bond log, have been used for many years to try to directly measure the quality of the cement between the casing and the formation. More recently, ultrasonic pulse-echo techniques have been developed in an attempt to eliminate some of the deficiencies of the cement bond log for cement evaluation. A primary function of the cement is to prevent fluid movement between the various zones in a reservoir and between the reservoir and other zones up or down the hole. Thus, cement quality logging is aimed at determining whether the cement is of sufficient strength and is sufficiently distributed to prevent fluid communication between zones. Ideally, a cement quality log should indicate whether the cement is bonded to the pipe, if the cement is bonded to the formation, and if the channels are present in the cement. A cement quality log does not directly measure the capability of the cement to prevent fluid communication – this is inferred from the

46

degree of acoustic coupling of the cement to the pipe and the formation as measured by the logs. For this reason, cement quality logs are not an absolute measure of the hydraulic integrity of the cement; however, when run and interpreted properly, they have been shown to be generally reliable predictors of cement placement. The two primary logs for evaluating cement quality, the cement bond log and the ultrasonic cement evaluation log, are both acoustic logs that differ primarily in the path taken by the sound waves between the transmitter and the detector. With the cement bond log, sound travels axially down the casing and through the cement and formation to detectors (usually two) located below the sound source on the logging tool (Fig. 28 [Hill, 1990]). An ultrasonic cement tool, on the other hand, has an array of transducers, or rotating transducers, that serve as both transmitters and receivers of sound energy, so that the sound path is radial to and from the transducers – Schlumberger’s Cement Evaluation Tool is pictured in Fig. 29 [Froelich et al., 1982]. Alternatively, the ultrasonic logging devises have transducers mounted on a rotating section of the tool . so that continuous acoustic scans of the cement conditions around the borehole circumference can be made. Thus, the two types of logs are fundamentally different measurements and must be treated separately.

two types of logs are fundamentally different measurements and must be treated separately. Fig. 28 Cement

Fig. 28 Cement bond log tool

47

47 Fig. 29 Ultrasonic pulse-echo log tool Cement Bond Log A cement bond log usually records

Fig. 29 Ultrasonic pulse-echo log tool

Cement Bond Log A cement bond log usually records three separate measurements of the acoustic energy received: the transit time, a measure of the time from sound transmission to the first arrival of sound energy at the near detector; the amplitude, the amplitude of the first wave arriving at the near detector; and the full wave train, a presentation of all the acoustic energy received by the far detector for a short time period. The full wave train is often displayed as a variable density log, constructed by rectifying the wave train and assigning varying shades of gray to the waves, based on their amplitude. These logs yield information about the acoustic coupling between the cement and the pipe and between the cement and the formation. Following are a few examples of cement bond log interpretation for different bonding conditions.

48

Free pipe – In uncemented casing, the amplitude log shows high amplitude and the transit time corresponds to the casing arrival time (the time required for sound waves to pass through the wellbore fluid and the casing). The variable density log shows strongly contrasting parallel vertical lines with no indication of formation signals. Casing collars show up distinctively on a cement bond log in free pipe. Collar reflections result in chevrons (capital W’s on their sides) on the variable density log, a decrease in amplitude, and an increase in transit time. A cement bond log in free pipe is shown in Fig. 30 [Hill, 1990]. It is important to log in an area of free pipe if possible when running a cement bond log. Any deviation from the expected response in free pipe indicates a malfunctioning or improperly centralized tool. This calibrates the tool in a known environment under logging conditions.

the tool in a known environment under logging conditions. Fig. 30 Cement bond log in free

Fig. 30 Cement bond log in free pipe

Good bond to formation and casing –With good bonding, the amplitude is low. The full wave train display shows weak or no casing signals and strong formation arrivals unless the formation attenuation is high such as would be observed for an unconsolidated

49

gas sand, weak shales, or other low velocity formations. Comparison of the cement bond log with an open hole sonic log can help identify regions of high attenuation in the formation. An example of good bonding to the pipe and the formation is presented in Fig. 31 [Hill, 1990].

pipe and the formation is presented in Fig. 31 [Hill, 1990]. Fig. 31 Cement bond log

Fig. 31 Cement bond log with good bonding to the pipe and the formation

Good casing bond but poor formation bond – This is characterized by weak casing arrivals as indicated by low amplitude and low contrast on the variable density log at casing arrival times and weak formation signals on a full wave train display. Unfortunately, these same characteristics can be caused by other factors including high

50

formation acoustic attenuation and tool eccentricity. Good bonding to the pipe but not to the formation can easily occur opposite permeable zones where a mud cake is built up that is not displaced by cement. Figure 32 from Bigelow [1985] presents such a case where both casing and formation amplitudes are low. Interpretation of the bonding from the amplitude curve alone would give an erroneous picture of cement integrity – the lack of acoustic coupling to the formation indicates poor cementing even though the pipe amplitude is quite low. However, this behavior alone is not sufficient to prove a lack of hydraulic seal, as mud occupying the space between the cement and the formation may be immobile.

space between the cement and the formation may be immobile. Fig. 32 Cement bond showing good

Fig. 32 Cement bond showing good bond to the pipe but poor bonding to the formation

Ultrasonic pulse-echo logs

Ultrasonic pulse-echo techniques have been developed in an attempt to overcome some of the deficiencies of traditional cement bond logs. The primary advantage of the ultrasonic devices is that they provide a circumferential picture of cement quality by utilizing multiple

51

transducers arrayed around the tool, or by rotating the transducer(s) to give continuous measurement of cement conditions around the well circumference. The ultrasonic measurements are less sensitive, however, to acoustic coupling to the formation. Ultrasonic pulse-echo tool originally consisted of an array of eight ultrasonic transducers spaced around the body of the tool such as shown for the Schlumberger Cement Evaluation Tool in Fig. 29. A ninth transducer is aligned axially and aimed at an acoustic mirror so that an in-situ measure of travel time in the wellbore fluid can be made. Pulse-echo tools operate within the resonance frequency of steel pipe, so that the casing will resonate if it is not well bonded by cement. These tools measure the bonding to the casing by measuring the rate of decay of casing vibration. The output from the eight transducer is presented as a map of the bonding conditions around the casing. Newer ultrasonic tools have replaced the eight fixed transducers with rotatable transducers that continually sweep around the borehole (Fig. 33, Morris et al.,2007). The angled transducers measure flextural attenuation of the acoustic energy.

measure flextural attenuation of the acoustic energy. Fig. 33 Rotating ultrasonic transducers on cement imaging

Fig. 33 Rotating ultrasonic transducers on cement imaging tool

52

One of the primary advantages of the ultrasonic pulse-echo log is that it can identify unsupported sections of the pipe circumference since it measures bonding conditions at eight positions circumferentially around the pipe. Figures 34 from Catala et al. [1984] shows a typical response to a channel, with a few of the tracks showing poor bonding, while good bonding is indicated around the rest of the pipe. The channel appears to be spiraling around the pipe; however, the relative bearing recording indicates that the tool was slowly rotating as the log was run – the channel is consistently on one side of the pipe.

run – the channel is consistently on one side of the pipe. Fig. 34 Ultrasonic pulse-echo

Fig. 34 Ultrasonic pulse-echo log

V. Production Logging Tools and Methods for Inclined or Horizontal Wells

53

5.1 Introduction The recognition of the asymmetric phase distributions that occur in multiphase flow in inclined or horizontal wellbores, and the rapid implementation of horizontal wells beginning in the 80’s has led to the gradual development of a new class of production logging tools and techniques. When the phases tend to segregate with the lighter phase concentrated on the upper side of the wellbore and the denser phase primarily occupying the lower side, it is clear that single point measurements with small tools such as traditional spinner flowmeters could not possibly measure average flow properties. The advent of horizontal wells has had other profound impacts on production logging measurements. Fluid density measurements based on a Δp measurement are not possible in a horizontal well because there is no potential energy pressure drop along a horizontal wellbore. Temperature log interpretations of the well flow profile which are based on fluids from different zones having different geothermal temperatures do not work for horizontal wells. These difficulties, particularly the tendency for phases to segregate in a two-or- three- phase flow in horizontal wells, has led to the development of an entire new class of production logging tools and methodologies. For the flow regimes that occur in horizontal two-phase flow [Brill and Beggs, 1978] (Fig. 35), to measure the volumetric flow rates of all phases present requires one of three approaches: (1) make measurements that interrogate the full cross-sectional area of flow and properly average the properties of interest; (2) use an array of sensors, make measurements at multiple locations in the wellbore cross-section; or (3) make a measurement that targets a specific phase. All three of these approaches are being applied in the new class of production logging instruments. In this section, we will describe the following tools and logging methods – capacitance probes, optical probes, spinner flowmeter arrays, tracer methods targeting specific phases, and unfocused γ-ray density tools. The section also includes a discussion of combinations of these measurements.

54

54 Fig. 35 Two-phase Flow Regimes in Horizontal Wells 5.2 Arrays of Capacitance or Optical Probes

Fig. 35 Two-phase Flow Regimes in Horizontal Wells

5.2 Arrays of Capacitance or Optical Probes

A simple deployment of capacitance probes to get some measure of the phase distribution is to attach capacitance probes to centralizer arms that are usually included with production logging strings as shown in Fig. 36 [Mas et al., 2001].

55

55 Fig. 36 Array of Capacitance Probes Attached to Centralizer Bands Each probe will send signals

Fig. 36 Array of Capacitance Probes Attached to Centralizer Bands

Each probe will send signals like those in Fig. 37 that yield the average length of time that the probe is immersed in a particular phase [Theron et al., 2000].

56

56 Fig. 37 Output from a Probe Sensitive to the Phase Contacting the Probe Capacitance probes

Fig. 37

Output from a Probe Sensitive to the Phase Contacting the Probe

Capacitance probes distinguish between hydrocarbons and water, while the optical probes are most sensitive in identifying gas versus liquid. These local holdup measurements provide an approximate map of the average distribution of the phases at a location in the well. This type measurement is best made with the tool stationary (or moving very slowly) so that a representative temporal average is obtained. The measurement relies on discrete bubbles being measurable by the probe, which requires the bubbles to be the size of the probe or larger. This can lead to underestimation of the holdup of the dispersed phase when bubbles are very small, as occurs in high velocity flows.

A more elaborate use of an array of capacitance probes is used on the tool shown in Fig. 38 [Chase et al., 2000]. Capacitance probes are distributed in 8 locations along the extended arm of the tool, giving 8 measurements of local holdup from the high to the low side of the wellbore. In addition, in six of these locations, there are 4 probes aligned axially with the tool body. The purpose of these aligned probes is to measure the velocity of bubbles passing the probes. By timing the arrivals of the signal changes that occur when the phase contacting the probes changes, a time of flight velocity measurement is obtained. This approach depends on discrete bubbles of one phase being dispersed in the other phase.

57

57 Fig. 38 Capacitance Arrays on Extendable Arms to Measure Local Holdup and Velocity Distributions Optical

Fig. 38

Capacitance Arrays on Extendable Arms to Measure Local Holdup and Velocity Distributions

Optical probes are used to measure the local holdup in gas-liquid flows [Mas et al., 2001, Jackson et al., 2001] and can also be used to distinguish between oil and water. Each optical probe on this tool measures the refractive index of the fluid in which it is immersed by sending light from an LED to a sapphire tip on the probe. When immersed in gas, all of the light reaching the tip is reflected, while only part of the light is reflected when immersed in oil or water [Mas et al., 2001].

5.3 Arrays of Spinner Flowmeters

A tool developed to measure the velocity profile using an array of spinner flowmeters is shown in Fig. 39 [Dandaray et al., 2005], while Fig. 40 depicts such a tool in a gas-oil-water flow [www.slb.com, 2009]. As with the capacitance array tool, this tool uses an extendable arm that folds into the tool housing to place the multiple spinners across the flow stream. By averaging the output of each spinner over a short time period with the tool held stationary, the velocity profile can be constructed. Combining this with an array of capacitance or optical probes allows for the mapping of the flow distribution of multiple phases. For example, Fig. 41 [Dandaray et al., 2005] shows a velocity profile measured with a spinner array in a deviated well. High upwards velocities were measured in the upper part of the pipe, while a reverse flow was measured with the bottom spinner. This type of fallback of a denser phase is common in inclined wellbores [Hill and Oolman, 1982].

58

58 Fig. 39 An Array of Spinner Flowmeters

Fig. 39

An Array of Spinner Flowmeters

59

59 Fig. 40 Multiple Spinners in Complex Multiphase Flow Fig. 41 Velocity Profile Measured with an

Fig. 40

Multiple Spinners in Complex Multiphase Flow

59 Fig. 40 Multiple Spinners in Complex Multiphase Flow Fig. 41 Velocity Profile Measured with an

60

5.4 Tracer Methods in Multiphase Flow

Tracers have the potential to directly measure the velocity of only one of the multiple phases present in a complex multiphase flow if the tracer can be presumed to reside in only one phase. The two tracer techniques that are currently applied in multiphase flow are the activation of water with neutron pulses to create a short-lived

isotope to track water movement, and chemical tracers, either oil or water soluble, that can be introduced into the flow and tracked with a pulsed neutron log.

A pulsed neutron logging instrument can be used to activate water molecules, and

track the movement of the resulting isotopes traveling in the water in the wellbore as they move past multiple γ-ray detectors. Fig. 42 [Chase et al., 2000] illustrates this technique. The neutron pulses activate the oxygen molecules in the water to N 17 , which immediately begins decaying back to O 16 , emitting γ-radiation in the process. This radiation is detected by the γ-ray detectors located downstream of the neutron source. By timing the passage of a cloud of decaying N 17 , the velocity of the water is obtained. If this velocity is combined with a valid overall holdup measurement, the volumetric flow rate of water is directly obtained as

q

w

=

v

w

y

w

A

(5.1)

The wellbore cross-sectional area is the annular area between the casing inner diameter and the tool diameter.

between the casing inner diameter and the tool diameter. Fig. 42 Oxygen Activation Method to Measure

Fig. 42

Oxygen Activation Method to Measure Water Velocity

In theory, radioactive tracers, such as solutions of Iodine 131 could be injected into

the flow stream using a traditional radioactive tracer logging tool to measure phase velocities in multiphase production wells. In practice, this is not done because of the

61

hazards of producing the radioactive tracer material to the surface. Instead, a chemical marker method has been developed [Roscoe et al., 1997] in which an element, gadolinium, having a very high macroscopic capture cross-section, is injected into the well upstream of the neutron source of a pulsed neutron instrument (Fig. 43). With its very high capture cross-section (1000 times that of chlorine), the gadolinium creates a great deal of γ-radiation after being activated by the neutron pulse. Both oil and water soluble gadolinium tracers were developed so that the velocity of either phase can be measured. In order to measure the velocity of a dispersed phase with this technique, the tracer must be able to pass through the continuous phase and mix with the dispersed phase before reaching the neutron source. Whether this is possible will likely depend on the flow regime.

this is possible will likely depend on the flow regime. Fig. 43 Chemical Markers to Measure

Fig. 43

Chemical Markers to Measure Individual Phase Velocities

5.5

Unfocused γ-ray Fluid Density Measurements

The traditional in-line γ-ray densitometers that are used to measure wellbore fluid density do not measure the average flow stream density when the phases are non- uniformly distributed, as is so often the case in inclined or horizontal wellbores because the fluid passing between the γ-ray source and detector is not in the same proportion of phases as the overall average. To overcome this problem, an unfocused γ-ray densitometer has been developed (Fig. 44 [Kessler and Frisch, 1995]). This tool has a radiation shield between the γ-ray source and detector so that the radiation detected is from back-scattered radiation from all around the pipe cross-section. Laboratory tests with this tool have shown good linearity between the overall holdup of liquid in a gas- liquid flow, even with segregated flow regimes.

62

62 Fig. 44 Unfocused γ -ray Density Tool 5.6 Interpretations and Log Displays with Distributed Measurements

Fig. 44

Unfocused γ-ray Density Tool

5.6

Interpretations and Log Displays with Distributed Measurements

With measurements of local holdup and/or velocity at multiple locations around the wellbore cross-section, we can now map the distribution of these properties to gain more insight into the flow conditions in the wellbore. Integration of the product of velocity and local holdup yields an estimate of the volumetric flow rates of multiple phases at any position along the wellbore. Following are examples of such interpretations and log displays.

Stagnant Water along a Horizontal Well Figures 45 and 46 are logs from a capacitance array tool run during two tests of a well being initially brought on production [Chandran et al., 2005]. Producing with a smaller choke setting, and hence, lower total flow rate, the log shows large water holdups in the lower elevation (sump) regions along the well (Fig. 45), in spite of the low produced water cut of 7-10%. With the choke size increased, approximately doubling the total production rate from the well, the amount of stagnant water in the sumps has been

63

significantly reduced (Fig. 46). The velocity profiles plotted in the middle tracks of these logs shows that the velocity in the water in the sumps is near zero, with the oil flowing over the standing water. This type profile is typical of nominally horizontal wells with slight undulations in trajectory.

horizontal wells with slight undulations in trajectory. Fig. 45 Horizontal Well Flow Profile with Small Choke

64

64 Fig. 46 Horizontal Well Flow Profile with Large Choke Size Analysis of Water Shutoff Procedure

Fig. 46 Horizontal Well Flow Profile with Large Choke Size

Analysis of Water Shutoff Procedure

65

Figs. 47 and 48 show production logs run with optical and electrical probe arrays to measure holdup profiles before and after a casing patch was run to shut off a zone producing excessive water [Jackson et al., 2001]. The log before the workover (Fig. 5.13) shows the well was producing large volumes of water from 6,494 to 6,460 feet. After a casing patch was set across this interval, the subsequent log showed that the water entry had been eliminated, though there was now some water production from just above the patch location.

some water production from just above the patch location. Fig. 47 Production Logs Showing Water Inflow

Fig. 47 Production Logs Showing Water Inflow Before Casing Patch Workover

66

66 Fig. 48 Production Logs Showing Altered Water Inflow After Placement of Casing Patch Effect of

Fig. 48

Production Logs Showing Altered Water Inflow After Placement of Casing Patch

Effect of Small Inclination Changes on Holdup Behavior In nominally horizontal wells, small changes in well inclination can change the flow regime and the holdup in the well significantly. With traditional, single point production logging measurements, such changes often lead to misinterpretations of the well profile and the phase inflows. Distributed holdup measurements make these two- phase flow effects readily identifiable. Fig. 49 [Fitz et al., 2006] shows production logs run with arrays of spinners and holdup probes in a nominally horizontal well with very slight variations in inclination. In this gas-liquid producing well, in regions of the well towards the toe where the inclination is slightly downward, the liquid holdup is relatively small, reflecting the segregated flow regime that occurs in a downward flow. In the slightly upwardly inclined section near the heel of the well, almost of the pipe is liquid filled, with gas flowing along the upwards part of the pipe as a bubbly flow.

67

67 Fig. 49 Effect of Slight Inclination Changes on Phase Distribution in a Nominally Horizontal Well

Fig. 49

Effect of Slight Inclination Changes on Phase Distribution in a Nominally Horizontal Well

5.7

Downhole Video as an Alternative to Production Logs

Advances in downhole video equipment now offer this measurement as an alternative to traditional or the new class of production logging measurements. In most production wells, it is possible to clearly see oil or gas entries into the well, because almost all production wells contain water through which the hydrocarbons are passing. Thus, a downhole video log is a means of directly measuring the locations of oil and gas entries into wellbore. High rate water entries can also be detected from the image distortion caused by high levels of turbulence. Oil entries in a production well typically are clearly visible as dark bubbles of oil entering the wellbore from perforations as shown in Fig. 50 [Whittaker, 2009]. With a video image, the oil entry rate can be estimated by measuring the rate of bubble entry and estimating the bubble sizes (the diameter being approximately the diameter of perforations.) Gas entries are often not as clearly distinguishable as oil entries because of gas-water miscibility and small bubble sizes, but they are still usually detectable. The location of both water and gas entries with downhole video in a horizontal well was illustrated by Sask et al. [2007]. Gas inflows into a water-filled wellbore were seen as streams of gas bubbles (Fig. 51). The location of the gas-liquid interface (Fig. 52) in different sections of the well indicated water entry locations.

68

68 Fig. 50 Video Image of Oil Entry Fig. 51 Video Image of Gas Entry Fig.

Fig. 50

Video Image of Oil Entry

68 Fig. 50 Video Image of Oil Entry Fig. 51 Video Image of Gas Entry Fig.

Fig. 51 Video Image of Gas Entry

50 Video Image of Oil Entry Fig. 51 Video Image of Gas Entry Fig. 52 Video

69

References

Bigelow, E. L.: “A Practical Approach to the Interpretation of Cement Bond Logs,” JPT, (July 1985) 1285-1294.

Brill, J. P. and Beggs, H. D., Two-Phase Flow in Pipes, University of Tulsa, Tulsa, OK,

1978.

Carlson, N. R. and Roesner, R. E.: “Water-Oil Flow Surveys with Basket Fluid Capacitance Tool,” Proceedings, SPWLA Annual Logging Symposium, Corpus Christi, Texas (July 6-9, 1982) paper F.

Catala, G. N., Stowe, I. D., and Henry, D. J.: “A Combination of Acoustic Measurements to Evaluate Cementations,” paper SPE 13139, 1984.

Chandran, T., Talabani, S., Jehad, A., Al-Anzi, E., Clark, jr., R., and Wells, J.C.:

“Solutions to Challenges in Production Logging of Horizontal Wells Using New Tool,” SPE 10248 presented at the International Petroleum Technology Conference, Doha, Qatar, Nov. 21-23, 2005.

Chase, David, Wang, J., Mirzwinski, R., Maxit, J., and Trcka, D.,: “Applications of a New Multiple Sensor Production Logging System for Horizontal and Highly-Deviated Multiphase Producers,” SPE 63141 presented at the SPE ATCE, Oct. 1-4, 2000, Dallas, Texas.

Connolly, E. T.: “Resume and Current Status of the Use of Logs in Production,” Proceedings, 1965 SPWLA Annual Logging Symposium, Dallas, Texas, May 4-7, 1965.

Curtis, R. M.: “Flow Analysis in Producing Wells,” paper SPE 1908, 1967.

Dandaray, H., Al-Mutairi, A., Abdouche, G., Khedr, O., and Elkadi, A.: “A New Production Logging Tool Allows a Superior Mapping of the Fluid Velocities and Holdups Inside the Wellbore,” SPE 93556 presented at 14 th SPE Middle East Oil and Gas Show and Conference, Bahrain, March 12-15, 2005.

Fitz, D. E., Guzman-Garcia, Angel, Sunder, Ram, Billingham, Matt, and Smolensky, Vitaly: “Pushing the Envelope for Production Logging in Extended Reach Horizontal

70

Wells in Chayvo Field, Sakhalin, Russia – New Conveyance and Flow Profiling Approach,” SPE 103589 presented at the SPE Russian Oil and Gas Technical Conference and Exhibition, Moscow, Russia, Oct. 3-6, 2006.

Froelich, B., Pittman, D., and Seeman, B.: “Cement Evaluation Tool: A New Approach to Cement Evaluation,” JPT (Aug. 1982) p. 1835-1841.

Interpretive Methods for Production Well Logs, 2 nd Edition, Atlas Wireline Services, Western Atlas Inc., Houston (1982).

Jackson, R. R., Ayan, C., and Wakefield, J.: “Flow Diagnosis and Production Evaluation in High Flowrate Oil-Water Producers Using Optical-Fibre Holdup Sensors,” SPE 71727 presented at the SPE ATCE, New Orleans, LA., Sept. 30 – Oct. 3, 2001.

Kessler, Calvin and Frisch, Gary: “New Fullbore Logging Sensor Improves the Evaluation of Production in Deviated and Horizontal Wells,” SPE 29815 presented at the 1995 Middle East Oil Technical Conference and Exhibition, Bahrain, March 11-14, 1995.

Mas, C., Walterhouse, B., Van Vliet, J. P. M., and Rahman, H. A.: “Evaluations of Sub Horizontal Well Performance with Optical and Electrical Probes,” SPE 72150 presented at the SPE Asia Pacific Improved Recovery Conference, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, Oct. 8-9, 2001.

Morris, C., Sabbagh, L., Wydrinski, R., Hupp, J., Van Kuijk, R., and Froelich, B.:

“Application of Enhanced Ultrasonic Measurements for Cement and Casing Evaluation,” SPE 105648 presented at the SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, Feb. 20-22, 2007.

Sask, D., Hundt, C. D., Slade, J. M., and Daly, P.: “Production and Video Logging in Horizontal Low-Permeability Gas Wells,” SPE 108084 presented at the SPE Rocky Mountain Oil and Gas Technology Symposium, Denver, CO., April 16-18, 2007.

Theron, B., Vuhoang, D., Rezgui, F., Catala, G., McKeon, D., and Silipigno, L.:

“Improved Determination of Gas Holdup Using Optical Fibre Sensors,” presented at the SPWLA Annual Symposium, Dallas, Texas, June 4-7, 2000. SPWLA (cited in SPE

71727).

71

Whittaker, Jeff, Expro Group, personal communication, 2009.