1 KAPPA 2011

Production Logging

3. Interpretation
2 KAPPA 2011

Production Logging

Single phase
Interpretation
3 KAPPA 2011

Single Phase Interpretation

The single phase case is the simplest PL situation.

In single phase production the only questions are:

1. How much fluid is flowing from/into which perforations ?

2. Is there any flow behind casing ?

3. Is there any crossflow?

4 KAPPA 2011

Single Phase Interpretation

A simple flowmeter answers the main questions

However...

- Caliper is essential for hole size changes

- Temperature is needed to look for flow behind casing

- Density can also be useful, even in single phase.

5 KAPPA 2011

Single phase rate

Vm Q A Vm
A D
D2
A
4

D 2 Vm
Q In consistent units
4

Q 1.4 Vm D 2 Q [bbl/d]; Vm [ft/min]; D [inch]

Vm is the average fluid velocity; this is NOT the velocity seen by the
spinner
A: cross-sectional area
D: pipe inside diameter
6 KAPPA 2011

Flow in pipes

Spinner velocity depends on the shape of the velocity profile

and the section covered by the blades.

V m Vpcf Vapp
Velocity profile correction depends on
Reynolds number

Vm D
Re

Vpcf is taken as 0.83 for hand
calculations
7 KAPPA 2011

Velocity Correction

1.0
Spinner Blade Diameter/Pipe Internal Diameter 0.8
0.2
Ratio
0.8
TURBULENT FLOW Blade Diam
Pipe ID

0.6

LAMINAR FLOW
0.4
8 KAPPA 2011

Vm calculation

Vm the average velocity is a function of the Reynolds number, i.e. of:

the fluid density*

the fluid viscosity PVT

Reliable PVT parameters are critical even more so in multiphase

and..

the velocity Vm Iterative solution

* Density could be measured

9 KAPPA 2011

PVT behavior

Temperature
10 KAPPA 2011

Single phase workflow

Calibration > Vapp

Vpcf = 0.83

1..n

Vm = Vpcf x Vapp = f(tool response) Vpcf = f(Re)

with gradio

Q = 1.4 x Vm x D
Q [bbl/d]; Vapp, Vm [ft/min]; D [inch]
 KAPPA 2011

Definitions / results

D e p th Int. D ia m. (ID ) Z Flo wme te r (S P IN ) U s e r v ie w #2 R a te s (QZT ) R a te s (QZI)

ft 6. in 6. -10 rps 22 -20 V A P P P 1,I1 [ ft/ min] 220 -1000 B/D 9000 -500 B/D 7000

1. Total flow
Q1
2. Cumulatives
3. Contributions
8200

4. Contributions in %
dQ1
5. Multiphase

8300

k
Qtot i dQik , i zone, k phase

Q2
dQik Qik Qik1

dQ2 dQik
8400
Contrib %, zone i, phase k k
Qtot
12 KAPPA 2011

Surface Rates

Surface
? Surface results
measurements

FVF, Rs,

One possible way to reconcile surface rates and surface results is by

considering an additional factor In the conversion from Vapp to Vm

Beware of surface rates !!

13 KAPPA 2011

Single phase example

Interpretation # 2 Z Depth Veloc ity matc h QZ T QZ I Q

PPRE I1,I2 [psia] VAPP I1,I2 [ft/ min]
T EMP I1,I2 [F] ft ... -32000. B/ D 2000 -24000 B/ D 2000 -35000. B/ D 5000

14100

14200

14300

14400

14500
EX03.ke2
14 KAPPA 2011

Production Logging

Multiphase
Interpretation
15 KAPPA 2011

Conditions

2-phase flow:

Oil + water [ liquid + liquid]

Oil + gas [ liquid + gas ]
Water + gas [ liquid + gas ]

3-phase flow:

Oil + gas + water [liquid + liquid + gas]

The questions are:

- what is flowing from which perforations ?
- is there any flow behind casing and if so which fluid ?
- is free gas being produced ?
16 KAPPA 2011

Definitions

2-phase situation with a Heavy phase and a Light phase

Holdup: volume fraction of the pipe occupied per the phase

Velocity: the actual average phase velocity

Rate: the rate of a given phase: phase velocity x holdupxcross-section:
Q V Y A

H for heavy, L for light

17 KAPPA 2011

Holdup vs. cut

Ql
Qh
Cut = phase rate / total rate

Qh Vh A Yh yh x A (1-yh ) x A

Qh Ql Vh Yh Vl 1 Yh A

Heavy Light
With equal phase velocities:

Qh
Yh Qh Yh Qt A
Qt
18 KAPPA 2011

2-Phase equal velocities

With phase flowing at the same velocity it would be sufficient to have

A bulk rate and a way of measuring the holdups.

Qt 1.4 0.83 Vapp D 2 Q [bbl/d]; Vapp, Vm [ft/min]; D [inch]

l
Yh h Yl l Yh
h l
Qh Yh Qt ; Ql Qt Qh

NB: Vpcf and the friction correction (gradio) would require an iterative solution
method
19 KAPPA 2011

Slippage velocity

Vl=Vh+Vs Distinct phases usually do NOT flow at

Vh
the same velocity. The light phase
typically flows faster uphill, while a
heavier phase flows faster downhill.
The velocity difference is called the
slippage velocity:

Vs Vl Vh
Heavy Light

Q: For a 50-50 split of rate a mixture

A going uphill will be [heavier / lighter]
than the average weight ?
20 KAPPA 2011

2-Phase unequal velocities

Holdups: Yh Yl 1
Rates:
Qh Vh A Yh ; Ql Vl A Yl
Qh Ql Qt
Slippage:
Ql Qh Qt Qh Qh
Vs Vl Vh Vs
A Yl A Yh A 1 Yh A Yh
Rearranging:
Qh Yh Qt Yh 1 Yh Vs A

Qh Yh Qt 1 Yh Vs 1.4 D 2
Q [bbl/d]; Vapp, Vm [ft/min]; D [inch]
21 KAPPA 2011

2-Phase unequal velocities

If we can estimate the slippage velocity Vs it will be sufficient to have

a bulk rate and a way of measuring the holdups.

Qt 1.4 0.83 Vapp D 2 Q [bbl/d]; Vapp, Vm [ft/min]; D [inch]

l
Yh h Yl l Yh
h l

Qh Yh Qt 1 Yh Vs 1.4 D 2 ; Ql Qt Qh

NB: As before Vpcf and the friction correction (gradio) would require an iterative
solution method
22 KAPPA 2011

Slippage velocity correlations

Slippage velocity depends on the type of flow

regime.
Annular Mist
In Liquid-Gas a wide variety of regimes can
occur
Froth
In Liquid-Liquid bubble flow is usually
encountered (not near horizontal ) Slug
Gas
Oil
A number of models exist, empirical or
mechanistic to determine the flow regime and
calculate the slippage velocity
Single phase fluid
23 KAPPA 2011

Water-oil bubble flow

The slippage velocity can be found using this chart. (Choquette)

+ Deviation
24 KAPPA 2011

Water-oil workflow

Calibration > Vapp With Gradio + Spinner

Vpcf = 0.83 The estimation of holdup from a gradio

requires friction correction, functions of
velocity, and Holdup through the viscosity
Vm = Vpcf x Vapp Vpcf = f(Re)
If a nuclear density was used, the holdup
would be estimated at once
Qt = 1.4 x Vm x D
If a direct holdup tool was used we would
know the holdup beforehand
estimate from tool-response

Yh=(- l/(h- l
In the general case, the slippage velocity
is a function of the actual rates, not just
Estimate Vs the holdups. Iteration is required for Vs
and the rates as well.

Calculate Qh and Ql
Q [bbl/d]; Vapp, Vm [ft/min]; D [inch]
25 KAPPA 2011

Non-linear regression

For computer aided interpretation, non-linear regression offers

a general framework to include any type of response/behavior

EX05.ke2
26 KAPPA 2011

Flow Models

Two Phase Flow: Correlation

Liquid-Gas Liquid-Liquid (bubble)
Duns and Ross Nicolas
Aziz and Govier Choquette

Beggs and Brill
Dukler
Petalas & Aziz
Hagedorn-Brown

27 KAPPA 2011

Vertical flow regimes

28 KAPPA 2011

Horizontal flow regimes

INCREASING VG
29 KAPPA 2011

Duns & Ross

1963
Experimental
Vertical flow only
30 KAPPA 2011

Aziz & Govier

1972
Mechanistic
Vertical flow only
31 KAPPA 2011

Beggs & Brill

1973
Experimental
All pipe angles

Not good in vertical

oil flow
32 KAPPA 2011

Dukler

1980
Mechanistic
Vertical flow only
33 KAPPA 2011

Petalas & Aziz

1996
Mechanistic
All pipe angles

Empirical correlations involved in the model developed based on the Multiphase

Flow Database of Stanford University gathering 20,000 laboratory measurements
and 1800 measurements from actual wells.
34 KAPPA 2011

Graphical presentation

Q Qh
Yh h Yh
Qt 1 Yh Vs 1.4 D 2
No slip: With slip:
Qt

Yh versus Qh

Yh=1

Yh

Qt
Yh=0
Qh Ql

Qh Ql
35 KAPPA 2011

Graphical comparison
36 KAPPA 2011

Flow models

Flow models are required to estimate the slippage velocity because of

our current inability to measure phase velocities - or rates - directly.

Theempirical).
There is wide range of models (mechanistic, slippage velocity
implies that there will
Different models can lead to very different
beresults.
less of the light
phase seen in the pipe
Some models can be ruled out based on limiting assumptions of
irrelevant experimental conditions The heavy phase hold
up is larger
The
Surface conditions can help to select an relationship
appropriate model by
comparing the surface results to the actual values
becomes non-linear
37 KAPPA 2011

3 Phases

In 3 phase flow, the problem is extended with one more

holdup and one more phase velocity

All 3 phase velocities are a priori distinct so there will be 2

slippage velocities to be considered

3-Phase flow is usually treated as the combination of two 2-

phase situations. This is because most models are 2-phase
and there is no off-the-shelve model for 3-phase flow.

With a bulk rate measurement and the use of slippage

models, the interpretation is made from 2 independent
holdup measurements (e.g. density + water holdup, water
holdup + gas holdup, etc).
38 KAPPA 2011

Three Phase - Water/Oil/Gas

LIQUID-LIQUID-GAS MODEL

3 PHASE L-G

Water Oil Gas

Vslippage O-W

Liquid Gas

Vslippage L-G
39 KAPPA 2011

Deviated well challenges

In high angle wells, the flow is stratified.

The light phase flows faster at the top of the

pipe.

The heavier fluid may flow back down the pipe.

The shape of the well has an effect on the flow.

40 KAPPA 2011

Apparent Down Flow

The centered spinner measures the wrong flow!

The light phase is flowing much faster than the average
velocity as measured by the spinner in the heavy phase
on the low side of the pipe!
The resulting flow profile can result in the spinner
showing an apparent downflow
The density measurements could also give erroneous
readings, depending on the tool type and position inside
the wellbore (typically on the low side of the pipe, in the
heavier fluid!)
41 KAPPA 2011

Apparent Down Flow

Depth W ell Sk etc h Q Holdups QZ T
m -7.874 in 7.874 -6000 B/ D 6000 0 1 -500 B/ D 5000
42 KAPPA 2011

Horizontal well challenge

The deviated well can take any shape in three dimensions.

The changes in angle are what will cause problems.
43 KAPPA 2011

Horizontal wells

Horizontal wells have been drilled in large numbers since the late

1980s.

There are a number of reasons;

increased flow for low incremental cost

reduced coning, especially in wells with large gas caps

access fields or areas of fields far from the platform

reduce the pressure drop across the reservoir

cross fractures to increase flow

44 KAPPA 2011

Horizontal well shapes

Horizontal wells are NEVER horizontal!

The section where the well goes from the vertical to the
horizontal is called the heel, while the end of the well is
referred to as the toe
It is critical to have access to view the wellbore trajectory,
when interpreting PL data, since any changes in the
inclination will severely affect the flow regime and subsequent
flow profile.
Various completion designs are used:
Open hole, slotted liner, conventional perforations, external
packers, multilaterals.
45 KAPPA 2011

Horizontal well completions

Cemented/perforated casing Open hole

Slotted liner Prepack gravel

Multiple external packers

46 KAPPA 2011

Horizontal well problems

Specific flow regimes occur with high segregation between the

phases (stratified, stratified wavy, etc).

Large slippage velocities are seen: a phase may flow with a

significant rate, yet occupy a very small portion of the pipe (ie.
Small holdup)

Near horizontal, the dependency of the slippage velocity with

angle is exemplified.

+ the completions may produce channeling (gravel pack) for

instance
47 KAPPA 2011

Horizontal well flow regimes

48 KAPPA 2011

Slip variation with angle

1000bbl oil 1000bbl oil

1000bbl water 1000bbl water

90deg
Deviation
92deg Deviation 88deg Deviation
Qoil = Qwater
Qoil = Qwater Qoil = Qwater
Yoil = Ywater
Yoil >>> Ywater Yoil <<< Ywater
Voil = Vwater
Voil <<< Vwater Voil >>> Vwater
49 KAPPA 2011

Horizontal Well: Flow

The angle of the horizontal well gives the major problem in analyzing
the flow.

Assuming the well is at exactly 90 and the flow of water and oil is
equal, the flow, velocity and hold ups are split equally between the
two fluids.

If the angle goes to 88 the situation changes dramatically, the

heavy phase, water, slows down and occupies most of the pipe, as it
climbs up the slope.

If the angle goes to 92 the water speeds up occupying only a small

part of the pipe.
50 KAPPA 2011

Sumps - highs

The variations in the well track create lows (sumps), often trapping
water in these areas.
Oil flows from below this will pass over the top in a very thin layer, often
at higher velocities, sometimes creating apparent inflow zones.
It may be impossible to identify with the density tools.

The well track can create highs.

The highs can trap gas.
If there is enough gas trapped, there will be a gas lock blocking fluid
flow
51 KAPPA 2011

Horizontal W-O

Z Depth Veloc ity matc h Density matc h Capac itanc e matc h Q W ell View # 2 QZ T
-60 VASPIN P1,I2 [ft/ min] 220 0.4 DEN P1,I2 [g/ cc] 1.4 200 WHUMP P1,I2 [cps] 950
ft VASPINZ -> P1,I2 [ft/ min] 0.4 DENZ -> P1,I2 [g/ c c ] 1.4 200 W HUMPZ -> P1,I2 [c ps] 950 -1000 B/ D 11000 10115.3 ft -> Top 9768.63 -1000 B/ D 10000
10200

10300

10400

10500

10600

10700

10800

10900

11000

11100

11200

11300

11400

11500

11600

11700

11800
52 KAPPA 2011

Horizontal wells tools

New tools to address those issues, in particular with the objectives to:

assess the flow regime while running the tools

Sondex MAPS, Baker-Atlas MCFM, SLB Flagship, SLB FSI

view the actual phase distribution

measure phase velocities directly so that slip models are not needed
and/or can be checked
SLB PVS, oxygen activation, SLB FSI, Baker MCFM, Sondex MAPS

get unfocused holdup measurements

SLB RST, HRS GHT, Baker-Atlas PNHI
 KAPPA 2011

Flow Scan Imager (FSI)

 KAPPA 2011

MAPS

CAT SAT RAT

55 KAPPA 2011

MPT Tool workflow

MPT process

Get a 2D map of holdups and Velocity

Use the maps to calculate average values of phase rates and

holdups by integration

Interpretation

Solve without slip models

56 KAPPA 2011

2D model integration

Layered Profile Qp = (SAi x V x Ypi)/A

Yw,Yg V
57 KAPPA 2011

Prandtl & Mapflo

Yw Mapflo 3 Phase Flow

Velocity = [ Mapflo Yw x Gain + 0Offset ] x (1-|z|/r)1/7
0.0 Yg 1.0

11
Pipe X-axis (bottom to top)

0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 100 200 300 400 500

1.0 Yw 0.0

(MapFlo Yw MapFlo Yg ) x gain +offset

58 KAPPA 2011

Horizontal well tools

59 KAPPA 2011

Additional applications of PL

Temperature quantitative interpretation

Multi-rate production logging - SIP

Multilayer transient pressure tests

 KAPPA 2011

Temperature

Quantitative interpretation can be made.

Numerical or analytical models exist.

Analytical models usually comprise 2 components:

Inside inflow zones: enthalpy balance

Between inflow zones: heat convection+conduction
 KAPPA 2011

Enthalpy balance

TGeo

H t Q ot C po o Q wt C pw w Qt C pg g Tt
Qwt, Qot, Qgt
Tt, unknown

=
DH = (dQwx CpwX w dQox CpoX o dQgx Cpgx g) x Tgeo Qwb, Qob, Qgb

+ Tb, known

H b Q ob C po o Q wb C pw w Q gb C pg g Tb

From: Qs, dQs, Densities,Cps[*], Tgeo, Tb

Get: Tt

[*] = Heat capacities (PVT)

 KAPPA 2011

Conduction/convection
z
Tf ( z, t ) TGe g G z g G A Tfe TGe g G A e A

Z gG, slope

TG
f (t)
A q f Cpf e
2 kh Tfe Qwt, Qot, Qgt

From: TGe, Qs, Cps, Densities, A, Tfe

Get: Tf(z)
 KAPPA 2011

Joule-Thomson?

14
250 md - Frac
y = 0,0045x
12 250 md - Skin 10

100 md- Re=10k

10
500 md y = 0,0032x

8
500md Skin10

250 md - Skin 10 - 1000

6 BD - vs(t)

y = 0,0018x
2

0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500

-2
 KAPPA 2011

Temperature: Summary

PROS: Temperature is far superior to spinners: sees behind casing, not

affected by viscosity, sands, re-circulation, etc

CONS: Temperature inside the wellbore is influenced by the production

rates, the PVT properties of the produced fluids, the conductivity of the
surrounding formation/completion, the past production history, the pressure
gradient inside the reservoir, hence formation kh, Skin, Phi, .

Simplifying assumptions may lead to a solution in certain cases

Temperature interpretation application for Distributed Temperature

Sensors (DTS)
 KAPPA 2011

Selective Inflow Performance (SIP)

Memory PLT: 3 rates + Shut-in passes

Qg = 15 mmscf/d BHFP

Pav layer 1 Qg ~ c (Pres2 - BHFP2)n

Pav layer 2

Qg per layer
Layer 1
5 MMscf/d 0 5 10

Layer 2 Obtain Pres + productivity layerwise

10 MMscf/d Very good understanding of well behavior
 KAPPA 2011

SIP Construction

P zone A

] dQ, zone A

P, zone B

] dQ zone B

P &dQ zone C
 KAPPA 2011

Multilayer and PL

Multi-layer diagnostic using both pressure and layer rates

 KAPPA 2011

Homeworks

Ex1: Quizz
Ex2: Manual spinner calibration
Ex3: Single phase manual interpretation
Ex4: Qualitative diagnostic
Ex5: 2-phase Water-Oil manual interpretation

Explain what you do!

Beware: Contributions / Cumulatives (see next slide)

 KAPPA 2011

Definitions / results

i dQik , i zone, k phase

Depth Int. Diam. (ID) Z Flowmeter (SPIN) User view #2 Rates (QZT) Rates (QZI)
k
ft 6. in 6. -10 rps 22 -20 VAPP P1,I1 [ft/min] 220 -1000 B/D 9000 -500 B/D 7000 Qtot
Total flow
The rate in the wellbore above the top perf
Q1

Cumulatives, Qs
8200
1 The rates inside the wellbore (cumulatives of
dQ1 the zone contributions). This is what we
typically solve for in the calculations.

Contributions, dQs dQik Qik Qik1

What a zone gives (or takes)

8300

Contributions in %
Zone contribution / Total flow
Q2
dQik
2 Contrib %, zone i, phase k k
Qtot
dQ2
8400
 KAPPA 2011

Emeraude Roadmap

Document

Survey

Load log data

Load well data

Tool properties Data preparation

Interpretation Select reference

channels
Spinner
processing
PVT

Create rate
calculation zones

Zone rates

Rate logs
 KAPPA 2011

Emeraude Data Structure

Document
Well information General well data Doc unit system
Survey #3

Survey #2

Survey #1

Pass #4 Interpretation #3

Pass #3
Interpretation #2
Pass #2
Interpretation #1
Pass #1

channel
Data store channel
channel Reference
channel
channel channel channel
Datachannel
store
channel
channel
channel
channelchannel
channel Calibration
channel channel
Datachannel
store
channel
channel
channel PVT
channelchannel
channel
channel channel
channel
channel Zone rates
channel
channel
channel
channel
channel Log rates