Professional Documents
Culture Documents
MANAGEMENT
identification and treatment
of water-control problems
for improved reservoir recovery efficiency
WATER
MANAGEMENT MANUAL
CONTENTS
• Introduction
• Table of Contents
• Conformance Problems
• Data Collection
• Computer Programs
• Treatment Options
Introduction
What Is Conformance The Conformance
Technology? Control Process
Conformance Technology is the The first step in effective conform-
application of processes to reservoirs ance control is understanding
and boreholes to reduce water potential conformance problems.
production, enhance recovery effi- Chapter 1 of this book reviews the
ciency, or satisfy a broad range of characteristics of correct reservoir
reservoir management and environ- behavior and identifies both near-
mental objectives. Although the use of wellbore and reservoir-related
conformance processes may not result conformance problems.
in increased production, such pro-
Historically, operators assessed the
cesses can often improve an
production of unwanted fluids based
operator’s profitability as a result of
on individual wells. Recent experi-
the following benefits:
ence, however, suggests that reservoir
• longer productive well life descriptions and reservoir evaluations
can often provide valuable informa-
• reduced lifting costs
tion that may result in more effective
• reduced environmental conformance control. Chapter 2
concerns and costs explains the principles of reservoir
description and reservoir evaluation
• minimized treatment and
and provides information regarding
disposal of water
static and dynamic reservoir proper-
• reduced well maintenance costs ties and how these properties can
affect the design of typical conform-
Ideally, conformance control should
ance treatments.
be performed before a condition can
result in serious damage. As with Before an effective conformance
personal health, treating potential treatment can be designed, the
problems before they become serious conformance problem must be
is considerably less costly than thoroughly examined. Chapter 3
allowing a condition to deteriorate provides information regarding the
until drastic actions must be taken. production logs, cement logs,
For example, just as changing lifestyle reservoir monitoring tools,
habits can reduce a person’s risk of downhole video equipment, and
heart disease, treating a well’s tracer surveys used for problem
potential coning problem may prevent prediction, problem identification,
it from “bottoming out” in the future. and treatment evaluation.
Introduction 0-1
HOME
CONFORMANCE TECHNOLOGY
A simulator, such as the QuikLook simulator, can be used When a chemical system has been selected, designers
to help optimize the design of a conformance treatment must focus their attention on selecting the appropriate
and evaluate the chosen solution. A tool that can provide placement techniques and equipment. Chapter 6 de-
assistance during the diagnosis and treatment selection scribes various placement techniques as well as the
phases is Halliburton’s XERO water-control expert pumping, mixing, monitoring, and filtering systems
system. This PC-based program uses artificial intelli- typically used for conformance control. This chapter also
gence techniques to identify the problem, select the provides information regarding the use of coiled tubing,
proper fluid system for treating the problem, and recom- which is becoming a popular alternative to the traditional
mend treatment designs based on the identified problem workover rig.
and built-in engineering calculations. Chapter 4 provides
After a treatment has been performed, engineers can
a detailed description of the QuikLook simulator and the
perform several tests to monitor the treatment’s success.
XERO system.
Chapter 7 briefly summarizes treatment evaluation
When a conformance problem is identified, engineers methods.
should choose an appropriate chemical system to treat the
problem. Chapter 5 provides more specific information
about water-based polymer systems and diesel systems.
0-2 Introduction
HOME
HALLIBURTON
Contents
Contents i
HOME
CONFORMANCE TECHNOLOGY
ii Contents
HOME
HALLIBURTON
Contents iii
HOME
CONFORMANCE TECHNOLOGY
iv Contents
HOME
HALLIBURTON
Contents v
HOME
CONFORMANCE TECHNOLOGY
vi Contents
HOME
Chapter 1
Depletion (Solution Gas)
By understanding correct reservoir
behavior, engineers can better Drive Conformance
determine if current gas or water
production is excessive or whether it
could become excessive in the future.
The depletion drive mechanism
depends on solution gas and oil
Problems
The production rates and ultimate expansion as its source of energy to
recoveries of hydrocarbons and move fluids. In an undersaturated
unwanted fluids from a reservoir reservoir, the expansion of oil and
depend on drive mechanisms, rock dissolved gas is responsible for fluid
properties, fluid properties, structural production. As the pressure drops
relief, well locations, and reservoir below the bubble point, the reservoir
management techniques. This chapter becomes saturated, and the liberated
explains primary and secondary gas initially replaces the produced oil
recovery mechanisms and describes on an equal-volume basis, providing
common near-wellbore and reservoir- more reservoir energy than liquid
related problems. expansion alone. Once the saturation
of the gas reaches the point where it
can flow, the gas is produced with the
Recovery Mechanisms oil, which depletes the gas as a source
This section covers primary and of energy. As a result, more gas
secondary recovery mechanisms. expansion is necessary per unit
volume of oil produced. The relative
Primary Recovery permeability to oil is reduced, and the
produced gas-oil ratio (GOR) in-
The principal mechanisms driving creases rapidly.
hydrocarbon recovery are depletion,
water drive, segregation, and gravity Segregation Drive
processes. For oil reservoirs, deple- without Counterflow
tion (solution gas) drives result in the
lowest recoveries (15 to 27%) and In high-relief geologic structures
natural waterdrives result in the containing reservoirs with both oil and
highest recoveries (35 to 70%), as gas, the oil and gas may exist as
shown in Figure 1.1 (Page 1-2). For stratified or segregated phases; for
dry gas reservoirs, depletion drive example, a gas cap may overlay an oil
generally results in the highest zone. In this type of reservoir, low
recoveries (70 to 90%). Between vertical permeability or the presence
these extremes are combination of shale stringers or other imperme-
mechanisms involving limited water- able zones suppresses the counterflow
or gas-cap drives, segregation of oil and gas associated with gravity
conditions, and gravity drainage drainage processes. The primary drive
processes. The following paragraphs mechanism is gas-cap expansion.
discuss each drive mechanism.
100
90
Waterdrive
Percent of Original Reservoir Pressure
80
70
60
50
Gas-Cap Drive
40
30
20
Solution Gas Drive
10
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Percent of Original Oil Produced
Figure 1.1—For oil reservoirs, solution gas drives result in lowest recoveries. Natural waterdrives result in highest recoveries.
Although gas-cap depletion through coning or other has an active waterdrive. If the primary movement of
means is harmful, this type of reservoir is often a candi- water is from the edge inward, approximately parallel to
date for pressure maintenance through gas injection into the bedding plane, the reservoir has an edgewater drive. If
the gas cap. the primary water movement is upward from below, the
reservoir has a bottomwater drive.
Gravity Drainage Water usually provides a strong energy support mecha-
(Segregation Drive with Counterflow) nism, but it does so at a cost. Often, depending on the
The development and expansion of a gas cap over an oil (1) completion length of the interval, (2) oil viscosity,
zone can result from an active fluid segregation process (3) vertical permeability, (4) density difference between
in which oil migrates downward because of gravity, and the oil and water, (5) distance between the perforations,
gas migrates upward from buoyancy effects. In this type and (6) water-oil contact, the water underlying the oil
of reservoir, the vertical permeability must favor hydro- can eventually move into the well.
carbon movement, and the volume of gas moving up must Vertical water encroachment (bottomwater drive) occurs
be equal to the amount of oil moving down. The rate of when water from an underlying aquifer, possibly con-
fluid segregation increases as the mobility of oil ap- nected to an outcrop, replaces the produced hydrocarbon
proaches that of gas. Depletion of the gas cap through volume. The upward moving water-oil contact resulting
coning or other means is especially detrimental to from reservoir depletion can eventually reach the perfora-
reservoir performance because this type of reservoir is tions, causing water production.
not a candidate for gas injection into the gas cap.
Horizontal water encroachment (edgewater drive) into an
Waterdrive oil reservoir may result from a hydraulic connection with
an outcrop, which can conduct large amounts of water.
Natural waterdrive reservoirs occur when an oil-bearing Generally, this effect appears as a constant-pressure
stratum is embedded into an aquifer or when a hydraulic boundary in the solution of the diffusivity equation for oil
connection exists between the reservoir and an outcrop or gas. If permeability is heterogeneous, the drive water
that allows water infiltration. When enough water volume can channel through the higher-permeability streaks,
exists to replace the produced oil volume, the reservoir bypassing much of the oil contained in the lower-
ally cause leaks. Downhole video can also show engi- migration during the initial phases of cement hydration
neers the condition of the wellbore and where various has been thoroughly researched and several control
fluids enter the wellbore. Engineers can also compare methods have been developed. These methods include
water analyses between the produced water and those of systems that exhibit controlled fluid loss, modified SGS
nearby formations to locate the source of the leak. development, and compressible systems.
Gas influx can also occur after the cement has set. This
Channels Behind Casing type of long-term gas migration is thought to occur
Channels can develop behind the casing throughout the because of poor displacement or the debonding of the
life of the well, but such channels are most likely to occur pipe/cement/formation sheath. In the case of poor
immediately after the well is completed or after the well displacement, gas flow dehydrates the drilling fluid that
is stimulated. Unexpected water production at these times the cement bypasses and results in a highly permeable
strongly indicates that a channel may exist. Channels in flow path for gas migration. Drilling/production/
the casing-formation annulus result from poor cement/ workover operations can break the cement/casing bond or
casing bonds or cement/formation bonds. Fluid influx can cause the cement sheath to fail, resulting in a path for
only be prevented if proper displacement techniques are fluid migration. The use of good displacement practices
used. The factors affecting displacement efficiency are and expansive cements should help solve such “long-
listed below. term” gas migration problems.
Condition of the Drilling Fluid—Maximum circulatable Once a well has been cemented, Halliburton can use
hole should be achieved, and the mobility of the drilling diagnostic sonic tools (cement bond and pulse echo tools)
fluid should be increased through the control of filter- to determine the effectiveness of the cement job. The logs
cake buildup. In vertical applications, these practices will these tools generate must be interpreted, and this interpre-
result in low gel strength and viscosity. In deviated tation is historically used as the basis for remedial work,
wellbores, the drilling fluid should be conditioned to such as squeezing off water and gas. Data from these
prevent the dynamic settling of solids to the low side of sonic tools provide information about cement-to-pipe
the wellbore. bonding and the quality of the cement-annulus seal.
Pipe Movement—Rotating or reciprocating the casing Temperature logs that exhibit deviation from the geother-
provides a mechanical means of controlling gel strength mal gradient when the well is shut in indicate fluid
buildup. Pipe movement can eliminate a solids-settled migration behind the pipe. A zone with an abnormally high
channel. temperature indicates that fluid is migrating upward.
Abnormally low temperatures indicate that fluid is
Pipe Centralization—Centralizers can be used to
migrating downward. TMD and PSGT logs can detect and
improve pipe standoff and to equalize the forces in the
quantify water flow in a channel behind the casing. When
annulus. The result is uniform fluid flow around the
the well is shut in, borehole audio tracer surveys (BATS)
casing. In deviated wellbores, a standoff of at least 70%
help indicate possible fluid movement behind the pipe.
is preferred.
Displacement Fluid Velocity—Fluids should be dis- Barrier Breakdown
placed from the annulus at the highest rate possible while
Even if natural barriers, such as dense shale layers,
wellbore control is still maintained.
separate the different fluid zones and a good cement job
Gas influx or fluid migration through the unset cement exists, the shales can heave and fracture near the wellbore.
column occurs because the slurry cannot maintain As a result of production, the pressure differential across
overbalance pressure while the cement is in a gelled these shales allows fluid to migrate through the wellbore
phase, which allows gas percolation to form a gas (Figure 1.2, Page 1-5). More often, this type of failure is
channel. Once a cement slurry is in place, it begins to associated with stimulation attempts. Fractures can break
develop static gel strength (SGS). Gel strength develop- through the shale layer, or acids can dissolve channels
ment inhibits the slurry from transmitting hydrostatic through it. Temperature, TMD, and PSGT logs can be used
pressure, and when combined with hydration/fluid-loss to detect fluid migration caused by barrier breakdown.
volume reductions, the result is gas migration. Gas
Shale Barrier
Water Water
Fingering
Injection Water
Unfavorable mobility ratios (>1) allow the more mobile
displacing fluid (from either primary or enhanced
recovery operations) to finger through and bypass large Injector
amounts of oil. Once breakthrough occurs, very little
additional oil will be produced as the drive fluid contin- Figure 1.5—Fingering
ues to flow directly from the source to the production
well (Figure 1.5).
Reservoir- and drive-fluid mobilities derived from fluid tion well, an out-of-zone fracture can allow early break-
and core data are probably the most important factors through of water or gas. If the fracturing treatment is
for determining whether fingering is a potential prob- performed on an injection well, a fracture that connects
lem. Engineers can use reservoir simulations or avail- the flooded interval to an aquifer or other permeable zone
able information on ideal systems to determine if sweep can divert the injected fluid to the aquifer, providing very
efficiencies are within range expected if fingering did little benefit in sweeping the oil zone. Engineers can use
not exist. temperature logs, tracer surveys, and detailed reviews of
the fracturing treatment to identify this problem.
Fracturing Out of Zone
Microfrac treatments and long-spaced sonic logs, usually
An improperly designed or poorly performed stimulation performed before the fracturing treatment, help verify the
treatment can allow a hydraulic fracture to enter a water existence of vertical stress contrasts that might indicate a
or gas zone. If the stimulation is performed on a produc- potential for uncontained fracture height growth.
Byrne, W.B. and Morse, R.A.: “Waterconing May Not Joshi, S.D.: Horizontal Well Technology, PennWell
Be Harmful–1,” OGJ (Sept. 3, 1973) 66-70. Publishing Company, Tulsa, OK, 1991.
Chaperon, I.: “Theoretical Study of Coning Toward Kabir, C.S.: “Predicting Gas Well Performance: Coning
Horizontal and Vertical Wells in Anisotropic Forma- Water in Bottom-Water-Drive Reservoirs,” paper SPE
tions: Subcritical and Critical Rates,” paper SPE 12068 presented at the 1983 SPE Annual Technical
15377 presented at the 1986 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Francisco, Oct. 5-8.
Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, Oct. 5-8.
Karp, J.C., Lowe, D.K., and Marusov, N.: “Horizontal
Chapplelear, J.E. and Hirasaki, G.J.: “A Model of Oil- Barriers for Controlling Water Coning,” JPT (July
Water Coning for Two-Dimensional, Areal Reservoir 1962) 783-90.
Simulation,” SPEJ (April 1976) 65-72.
Lake, L.W.: Enhanced Oil Recovery, Prentice Hall,
Coats, K.H.: “An Analysis for Simulating Reservoir Englewood Cliffs, NJ (1989) 223.
Performance Under Pressure Maintenance by Gas
Meyer, H.I. and Garder, A.O.: “Mechanics of Two
and/or Water Injection,” SPEJ (Dec. 1968) 331-40.
Immiscible Fluids in Porous Media,” Journal of
Collins, D.A., Ngheim, L.X., and Grabenstrotter, J.E.: Applied Physics, 25, No. 11, 1400.
“An Efficient Approach to Adaptive-Implicit Compo-
Mungan, N.: “A Theoretical and Experimental Coning
sitional Simulation with an Equation-of-State,” paper
Study,” SPEJ (June, 1975) 247-54.
SPE 15133 presented at the 1986 California Regional
Meeting of SPE, Oakland, CA, April 2-4. Muskat, M.: The Flow of Homogeneous Fluids Through
Porous Media, IHRDC, Boston (1982) 454-476.
Cottin, R.H. and Ombret, R.L.: “Application of a Multi-
phase Coning Model to Optimize Completion and Papatzacos, P., Gustafson, S.A., and Skaeveland, S.M.:
Production of Thin Oil Columns Lying Between Gas “Critical Time for Cone Breakthrough in Horizontal
Cap and Water Zone,” paper SPE 4632 presented at Wells,” presented at the 1988 Seminar on Recovery
the 1973 SPE Annual Fall Meeting, Las Vegas, from Thin Oil Zones, Norwegian Petroleum Director
Sept. 30-Oct. 3. ate, Stavanger, Norway, April 21-22.
Dahl, J.A. et al.: “Current Water-Control Treatment Papatzacos, P. et al.: “Cone Breakthrough Time for
Designs,” paper SPE 25029 presented at the 1992 SPE Horizontal Wells,” paper SPE 19822 presented at the
European Petroleum Conference, Cannes, France, 1989 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
Nov. 16-18. San Antonio, TX, Oct. 8-11.
Graig, F.F.: The Reservoir Engineering Aspects of Water- Reed, R.N. and Wheatley, M.J.: “Oil and Water Produc-
flooding, Monograph Series, SPE, Richardson, TX tion in a Reservoir With Significant Capillary Transi-
(1980) 3. tion Zone,” paper SPE 12066 presented at the 1983
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
Giger, F.M.: “Analytic 2-D Models of Water Cresting
San Francisco, Oct. 5-9.
Before Breakthrough for Horizontal Wells,” SPE
Reservoir Engineering (Nov. 1989) 409-16. Slider, H.C.: Practical Petroleum Reservoir Engineering
Methods, Petroleum Publishing Company, Tulsa
Giger, F.M.: “Horizontal Wells Production Techniques in
(1976) 353-364.
Heterogeneous Reservoirs,” paper SPE 13710 pre-
sented at the 1985 SPE Middle East Oil Technical Sobocinski, D.P. and Cornelius, A.J.: “A Correlation for
Conference, Bahrain, March 11-14. Predicting Water Coning Time,” JPT (May 1965)
594-600.
Høyland, L.A., Papatzacos, P., and Skjaeveland, S. M.:
“Critical Rate for Water Coning: Correlation and Weber, K.J.: “How Heterogeneity Affects Oil Recovery,”
Analytical Solution,” SPE Reservoir Engineering Reservoir Characterization, Academic Press, Or-
(Nov. 1989) 495-502. lando, FL, 487-544.
Joshi S.D.: “Augmentation of Well Productivity Using
Slant and Horizontal Wells,” JPT (June 1988) 729-39.
Structural Stratigraphic
Configuration Framework
h
Volumetric
Geologic Estimate
φ Model of Fluids
in Place
Reservoir
Simulator
Dynamic Reservoir Properties
k
Figure 2.2—Integrated approach to reservoir description
P
Sw
Q
φ = porosity
h = thickness reservoir engineer with the information necessary to
k = permeability identify or treat a conformance problem such as chan-
P = pressure
Q = rate neling through natural fractures.
Sw = water saturation
Any reservoir description should be based on an inte-
grated dataset (geology, geophysics, petrophysics,
Figure 2.1—Static and dynamic reservoir properties
(modified after Bateman, 1993)
engineering) prepared by a multidisciplinary team
(Figure 2.2). A field-scale reservoir description allows
team members to quickly classify the primary production
mechanism, identify large-scale trends, and incorporate
performed at various scales, ranging from a broad basin reservoir heterogeneity when planning secondary or
analysis to an individual reservoir unit analysis. Static improved oil recovery.
properties do not usually change with time and include
the size, shape, position, and storage capacity of the flow Reservoir Heterogeneity
units. Dynamic properties vary with time and include the and Conformance
initial, current, and future distribution of fluids in the
flow units (Figure 2.1). Various heterogeneities control the distribution and
movement of fluids in a field and reservoir. These hetero-
Ideally, a reservoir description should result in a geneities include faults, stratigraphic surfaces, flow-unit
conceptual 3D model that describes the spatial distribu- boundaries, and fractures (Figure 2.3, Page 2-5).
tion of fluid and rock properties within the gross Because of macroscopic and microscopic features,
thickness and areal extent of the reservoir. However, a porosity and permeability are also heterogeneously
more limited or problem-specific reservoir description, distributed throughout a reservoir and field. Table 2.1
such as a study of natural fractures, may provide the (Page 2-6) shows the impact of various types of reservoir
heterogeneity on fluid distribution and movement.
5. Sedimentary structures
Lamination
Cross-bedding
Bioturbation
6. Microscopic heterogeneity
Textural types
Pore types
Cements
Clays
7. Fractures
Open
Partially cemented
Cemented
Healed
Figures 2.4 and 2.5 (Page 2-7) illustrate the effects that A well-defined geologic model provides the information
reservoir and field-scale heterogeneity have on fluid necessary for the next phases of field/reservoir develop-
distribution and movement on waterfloods and oil produc- ment. This model must be dynamic, must be updated as
tion. Accurate descriptions and a thorough understanding new data is acquired, and must evolve with field
of field and reservoir heterogeneity allow design teams to development.
predict, manage, and even control the movement of
Effective assessment of a reservoir’s dynamic properties
reservoir-related fluids (oil and water) and gas.
is essential before and during the development phase. To
A reservoir’s static properties do not generally change derive fluid types, properties, and distribution, team
during the life of a field. Therefore, engineers can members can examine petrophysical, well-test, and
delineate the structural features (faults and folds) and production data and use advanced reservoir simulators
determine stratigraphic surfaces and geometries by based on the geologic model.
interpreting 2D or 3D seismic data.
Simulation is a vital part of the reservoir management
Wireline logs provide detailed views of near-wellbore decision-making process because it yields production
formation thickness, dip, natural and induced fractures, forecasts for a variety of production alternatives and
and petrophysical properties such as porosity, lithology, economic scenarios. In mature fields, where production
and fluid saturations. Studies of cores and cuttings rates have declined and formation pressures have fallen,
provide details on sedimentary structures, rock texture/ the team may be required to evaluate existing secondary
fabric, mineralogy, pore types and networks, and other recovery activity and model possible secondary recovery
microscopic heterogeneities. By integrating these options. Strategies for pressure maintenance, infill drilling,
datasets, a design team can construct a stratigraphic workover, and conformance problems can be improved if
framework and develop structural, depositional, and the results of a reservoir simulation are available.
diagenetic models. The team can then use these models to
Existing geological, geophysical, petrophysical, and
construct a 3D geologic model that represents the
engineering data may often seem sparse in comparison
distribution of the various types of reservoir heterogene-
with reservoir size and complexity, and acquiring new
ity throughout the field.
Table 2.2 (1 of 2)—Value of Data for the Identification and Qualification of Heterogeneity
Reservoir Standard Special ROS Outcrop or
Heterogeneity Production Well Well Well SWS Analog
Type Logs Logging Logging Logging Cores Cuttings Reservoir
Sealing fault — O X X X — X
Semisealing fault — O — — X — X
Nonsealing fault — O X — X — X
Boundaries
X O O X O X O
as genetic units
Permeability zonation
X O X O O X O
within genetic units
Baffles within genetic
X O X — O — O
units
Lamination,
— O — — O — O
crossbedding
Microscopic
— — — — — — —
heterogeneity
Textural types — — — — — — —
Mineralogy — — X X O X X
Tight fracturing — — — — O — X
Open fracturing O X — — O X X
X = Major value O = Minor value — = No value
Table 2.2 (2 of 2)—Value of Data for the Identification and Qualification of Heterogeneity
Horizontal Vertical
Reservoir Reservoir Reservoir
Heterogeneity Detailed Pressure Pressure Production Pulse Tracer Production
Type Seismic Distribution Distribution Tests Tests Tests History
Sealing fault O O X X O X O
Semisealing fault O O X X X X X
Nonsealing fault O X X — — — —
Boundaries
X O O X X X X
as genetic units
Permeability zonation
— — X X X — —
within genetic units
Baffles within genetic
— — X — X — X
units
Lamination,
— — — — — — —
crossbedding
Microscopic
— — — — — — —
heterogeneity
Textural types — — — — — — —
Mineralogy — — — — — — —
Tight fracturing — — — O — — O
Open fracturing X O X O O X O
X = Major value O = Minor value — = No value
field and the mechanical strength of the rock at reservoir detailed geologic study is required before permeability
conditions, engineers can accurately determine formation barriers can be identified, quantified, and mapped.
parting pressure and the probable intensity, spacing, length,
If the design team chooses to inject fluid to stabilize or
and orientation of any induced fractures. With this informa-
repressure a reservoir, they must carefully consider the
tion, the design team can plan or modify injection activities
distribution and geometry of the permeability barriers in
to minimize or prevent nonconformance problems.
the interwell space; otherwise, the production plan will
likely contain inefficient production and injection designs.
Natural Fractures
Natural fractures are common components of many Development Planning
reservoirs and can provide significant flow paths for fluid
movement. Natural fractures can connect oil and water In addition to identifying and providing solutions to
zones and define flow patterns or trends for subsurface reservoir-related conformance problems, reservoir
fluids. Fractures can also provide a significant portion of description can provide valuable information for field
reservoir quality by contributing permeability, porosity, development and production planning. Specifically,
or both. reservoir description can significantly enhance the
quality and accuracy of performance predictions for the
When planning production and injection activities, following:
engineers must consider the influence and effects that the
fracture system has on hydrocarbon and water distribu- • waterflooding
tion and movement. To understand natural fractures, • infill drilling
engineers must determine fracture geometry, orientation,
intensity, and distribution in 3D space. • horizontal/highly deviated wells
The reservoir properties of the fracture system (fluid flow • improved/enhanced oil-recovery schemes
interaction or crossflow related to the fracture system, and • stimulation applications
the fracture system’s contribution to total reservoir quality)
must be qualitatively or quantitatively determined. Rocks Field Development
that have a multistage history of deformation may contain
several sets of fractures, each with different characteristics During reservoir description, team members characterize
and effects on reservoir performance. and model the fluid types, fluid properties, and field-scale
heterogeneities. This information can then be applied to
Permeability Barriers well-pattern planning. For example, reservoir conditions
quantified by the reservoir description model can be used
The assumption that no horizontal or vertical permeabil- to simulate the results of various injection schemes based
ity barriers exist in a typical reservoir is generally wrong. on a variety of common patterns for injection and
Intrareservoir heterogeneities, such as depositional producing wells. In addition, special features of the
boundaries (nonconformities), facies changes, diagenetic reservoir and/or field, such as natural fracture distribution
effects, sedimentary structures, and irregular pore and orientation and permeability trends, can be included
networks can all produce permeability barriers. in the evaluation of optimal well patterns.
These barriers disrupt predicted fluid flow, resulting in By identifying, understanding, and mapping both the
diminished sweep efficiency and nonconformance permeability barriers and reservoir continuity, designers
problems. For example, horizontal permeability barriers can determine effective well spacing and assess sweep
may halt or redirect waterflood fronts, while vertical efficiency based on their understanding of the static and
permeability barriers directly affect water coning and dynamic properties of the reservoir provided in the
could, in some cases, promote a more uniform flood front reservoir description.
or prevent gravity segregation.
If the reservoir is not well understood, fluid movements
Production tests and production/injection profiles often may occur outside modeled predictions and unexpected
show the influence and effects of permeability barriers. heterogeneity may occur in production and injection
Field maps of production and injection data (histories) volumes across the field. Poor reservoir understanding
also often reflect the influence of reservoir permeability will fail to uncover reservoir heterogeneities that can
barriers (“dead zones”). However, in most cases, a significantly impact the fluid distribution and movement
Seismic
Verification Well Test Analysis
During this phase, team members should analyze well
Simulation tests as they would for a normal reservoir description
Model Building
study. Specifically, members should determine permeabil-
Simulation ity and barrier locations to situate geologic changes
Verification within the reservoir.
N
Sg Difference, OSEBERG 3
100
0.05
23
0.20
0.35
20 4
Meters
0.50
50
0.65
24 0.80
0.95
900 850 800 750 700 650 600 550 500 450
Meters
Figure 2.7—Gas-saturation difference map showing gas-displaced area estimated by simulation (Courtesy Norsk Hydro,
Bergen, Norway)
100
0.04
23
0.08
0.12
20
Meters
4 0.16
50
0.20
24
0.24
0.28
0
900 850 800 750 700 650 600 550 500 450
Meters
Figure 2.8—Gas saturation difference map showing actual gas-front position (Courtesy Norsk Hydro, Bergen, Norway)
tracer is necessary, using a tracer volume of a few barrels Another source of information of reservoir behavior is to
of water to give the pump truck enough fluid to prime the trace injected water with a chemical and observe when
pump would be simpler. (Everything the truck pumps for and where that chemical is produced. Several tracer tests
a day or two may be dyed after pumping these materials.) have been reported in the literature (Page 1-5) that
After placement of the dye, return the well to normal provide design and analysis techniques. A well-planned
injection to displace the tracer. and executed tracer test can provide information in some,
if not all, of the following areas.
Monitor offset producers fairly often over the next
several days for the presence of the dye. The tracer Directional Flow Trends
typically “spreads out” in the formation and continues to
When a chemical tracer is injected into an injection well
show up for some time after initial breakthrough. The
and the surrounding producing wells are monitored,
initial appearance is the piece of data that allows observa-
different arrival times for the tracer could indicate
tion to estimate the shortest path between the injector and
preferred flow paths or directional flow trends. These
offset producers.
preferred flow paths would be from the injector to the
If more quantitative calculations are required, such as mass specific producers that receive the most tracer at the
balances, use other nonadsorbing tracers. Several are earliest time. Adjustment of injection and withdrawal
available that require only simple lab (or field) chemical rates could alter these directional flow trends, giving an
testing. A good reference on these is listed below. improved sweep efficiency.
Terry, R. E., et al.: Manual for Tracer Test Design and Identification of Rapid Interwell Communication
Evaluation, published by Tertiary Oil Recovery Project,
If a channel or high-permeability streak exists between an
4008 Learned Hill, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS
injector and a producing well, a tracer experiences a very
66045. Co-Directors: Don W. Green and G. Paul Willhite.
early breakthrough. This early breakthrough identifies
The majority of the manual published by TORP follows. problem injection wells that could require a treatment to
alter permeability.
Manual for Tracer Test Design and Volumetric Sweep
Evaluation
Through a knowledge of injection and production rates,
pattern layout, and the pore volume in the reservoir,
Abstract
breakthrough of tracers often yields an estimate for the
The purpose of this information is twofold: (1) to provide volumetric sweep efficiency. Very small injected volumes
background information on a technique that utilizes of floodwater to breakthrough indicate the existence of a
chemical tracers to describe fluid flow in reservoirs and channel or high-permeability streak and give an estimate
(2) to provide information that will assist an operator in for the volume of that zone. Larger injected volumes to
the design, implementation, and analysis of a tracer study. breakthrough indicate a more uniform permeability
distribution, and again, a volume of the swept zone could
Background Information be estimated.
As the need for implementation of enhanced oil recovery Delineation of Flow Barriers
processes increases, the need for better reservoir and
If a fault or some other barrier to fluid flow is thought to
fluid-flow description also increases. Enhanced oil
exist near a producing well, tracers can be injected into
recovery processes often use expensive chemicals, such
injection wells surrounding the suspect producing well.
as polymers, surfactants, and cosurfactants. A knowledge
The failure to observe one or more tracers in the produc-
of the path those chemicals will traverse in the reservoir
ing well could be the result of a flow barrier.
is necessary to make wise and efficient use of them. Well
logs and core permeability data provide some information Two other areas where the use of tracers provide useful
about the region near the wellbore. information are (1) evaluation of sweep improvement
techniques and (2) evaluation of relative flow of two
A knowledge of previous waterflooding history can add
different fluids, such as brine and polymer. The former
useful information about interwell communication. Also,
requires that a tracer study be conducted before and after
pressure transient tests, which can be rather expensive,
the application of a sweep improvement process. The
can supply information about fluid flow between wells.
Ammonium Thiocyanate (NH4SCN) The importance of keeping good records of all production
and injection data and workover information for each
well in the pilot area cannot be overemphasized. These For example, consider the injection well in Figure 3.1
records need to be kept for each well in the pilot area. It and the corresponding reservoir data.
is not enough to know the production rate for the entire
field or pattern area. A test on each production well once
or twice a month would be sufficient to identify the
individual well rates. The individual well production and
injection rates are necessary to make material balance
calculations and also, as mentioned above, to provide
input data for the mathematical treatment of the data. The
material balance calculation is useful in determining
expected breakthrough times and places.
Before any tracers are injected, the reservoir must be
“pressured up.” This requires that the reservoir be on
waterflood long enough to fill any void space, therefore
minimizing potential loss of tracer material.
Another major consideration in designing a tracer test is
the information obtained from the analysis of field brines
and supply waters used in injection wells. Background
levels should be determined for all chemicals being
considered as tracers. Often, a chemical analysis has been
conducted on a water sample. This analysis usually
DN001136
provides concentrations of Na+ and Cl- ions, bivalent ions,
such as Ba2+, Ca2+, and SO42-, and the amount of total
dissolved solids, density, viscosity, and turbidity of the Figure 3.1—Pattern Layout for Tracer Amount
water sample. A synthetic brine can be made using the Calculation.
compositions determined from the water analysis. Syn-
thetic brines are usually easier to work with than actual
field brines, and as a result, tracer analysis techniques are Average reservoir thickness, h = 20 ft
typically developed in the synthetic brine. However, before
Average reservoir porosity, φ = 25%
a specific tracer is finally chosen, it is necessary to
determine the background level and test the analysis Average water saturation, Sw = 55%
procedure for the tracer in the actual field brine and/or Density of tracer solution, 350 lb/bbl
supply water. If a tracer is not compatible with the field The areal extent of the reservoir associated with this
brine or the field brine contains ions that interfere with the injection well will be given by:
tracer analysis test, that tracer should not be used.
Area = d2
A knowledge of which, if any, chemicals are being used
The distance between producing wells (d) can be calcu-
as treating agents is also useful in the design of a tracer
lated from:
test. Oxygen scavengers or bactericides are frequently
used to keep corrosion to a minimum. If bactericides are 2 (2002) = d2
used, the water-soluble alcohols become prime candidates d = 283 ft
for use as tracers. The pore volume associated with this injection well is:
Calculation of Tracer Amounts Pore Volume = (Area) (h) (φ)
The amount of a tracer that should be used for a given PV = (80,000) (20) (0.25)
application can be calculated by several different meth- PV = 400,000 ft3 or 71,238 bbl
ods. This section isolates one of those methods. The water pore volume can be obtained by multiplying by
If the pore volume associated with a given injection well the water saturation.
can be determined, the amount of tracer can be calculated (PV) Sw = 71,238 (0.55) = 39,181 bbl
by assuming the tracer will dilute the entire pore volume.
Mass of tracer occupying entire water pore volume, mpv. m = 54.3 (Area) (h) (φ) (Sw)
mpv: 39,181 (Density) = 39,181 (350) = 13.71 x 106 lb Injection and Sampling
If the required concentration is 10 ppm of tracer in the Tracers are injected into the reservoir as rapidly as
effluent, the amount of tracer (m) that needs to be inject- possible. The alcohols and other liquid tracers should be
ed will be: diluted at least 50% with the injection water before
m = (mass) (concentration in effluent) injection. The solid tracers, usually obtainable in 50- to
100-lb bags, need to be mixed with the injection water.
m = (13.71 x 106) (10/106)
Care should be taken to stay well below the solubility of
m = 137 lb the tracers in the brine water. Table 3.1 lists solubility
Frequently a safety factor is used in engineering calcula- data for several common tracers in distilled water.
tions. The magnitude of the safety factor is in the range of 2
The solubility of the tracers in actual field brines is less
to 5 but can be higher, depending on the operator. A safety
than those listed in Table 3.1. Once a concentration is
factor of 2 means that 274 lb of tracer would be required.
determined, it should always be tested in the actual field
Summing up the calculations and combining them into one
brine. This test gives the operator an indication of how
equation gives the following expression for m.
much mixing time will be required to dissolve the tracer
Eq. 3.1: and confirms that it will be soluble. The third column in
Table 3.1 gives recommended concentrations. These
m = 0.356 (Area) (h) (φ) (Sw) (Density) (Desired Concen-
recommended concentrations can be used as starting
tration)
points for specific applications.
The constant contains a safety factor of 2 and a conver-
sion factor, 5.615 ft3/bbl, to convert the pore volume in ft3 Figure 3.2 (Page 3-6) is a schematic representation of an
to barrels. injection system. The system consists of a pumping unit,
mixing tank, and lubricator. The mixing tank should have
If the area is known in acres, the equation becomes: a capacity of about 10 bbl. The lubricator should have a
Eq. 3.2: capacity of about 2 bbl. The solution of water-soluble
salts can be prepared easily in the mixing tank using the
m = 15,516 (Area) (h) (φ) (Sw) (Density) (Required pump to recirculate the water. While the water is circu-
Concentration) lated, the tracer is added to the system. The circulation
Assuming a desired breakthrough concentration of 10 action is usually enough agitation to solubilize the tracer.
ppm and a density of 350 lb/bbl, Eqs. 3.1 and 3.2
become:
Alcohols
Lubricator For tracing water flow, only water-soluble alcohols, such
as methanol (methyl alcohol), ethanol (ethyl alcohol), 1-
Pump propanol (n-propyl alcohol), and 2-propanol (isopropyl
DN001137
Pump alcohol) are useful. Analysis of any of these alcohols
requires equipment not normally found in the oil field.
Mixing Tank
The easiest and most rapid method of analysis for water-
Figure 3.2—Typical injection system. soluble alcohols is by gas chromatography. Operating the
equipment can be performed by field personnel. How-
ever, setup, maintenance, and interpretation of unusual
results requires trained personnel. Since analysis of
Table 3.2—Sampling Frequency in Terms alcohols by gas chromatograph does not lend itself to
of Expected Breakthrough onsite analysis, no details of analytical procedure are
Breakthrough Sampling Interval included in this version of the (TORP) manual.
1 day 1 to 2 hours For completeness, the advantages and disadvantages of
2 days 2 to 3 hours alcohol tracers are listed below.
3 days 4 to 8 hours
4 to 7 days 8 to 16 hours Advantages
1 to 2 weeks once a day 1. Alcohols listed above are compatible with injection
2 to 4 weeks every other day waters.
1 or more months once a week 2. Four tracers can be detected and determined in one
analysis.
3. Analysis procedure lends itself to automation in the
laboratory.
Sampling the produced water in the surrounding produc- 4. Alcohols are relatively inexpensive.
ing wells is a very important part of the tracer program. Disadvantages
Samples need to be taken often enough that the initial
breakthrough of tracers is not missed. On the other hand, 1. Alcohols are susceptible to biological
the more often samples are taken, the more analytical degradation.
work needs to be done, which adds expense to the 2. Propanol has some solubility in oil.
program. A rule of thumb for sampling frequency in terms 3. Analysis does not lend itself to rapid onsite determi-
of expected breakthrough is presented in Table 3.2. nation by field personnel.
Any information the operator has on the field, i.e., 4. Alcohols are flammable and can be
response to waterflood, etc., should be used to help dangerous.
determine a sampling frequency. 5. Alcohols are sometimes found in well-
treating fluids.
Chemical Analysis of Data
Salts
A variety of chemicals have been used to follow the flow
Various inorganic salts have been used to trace the flow
of water through porous media. An ideal tracer is a
of water. A salt is comprised of two parts: the cation and
material that is easy to detect, does not interact with the
an anion, which provides two distinct entities when
rock or the oil, is inexpensive, and free of environmental
dissolved in water. For example, sodium chloride
hazards. All these characteristics cannot be found in a
dissolves in water to give sodium cations and chloride
single substance. However, several chemicals have been
anions. Each ion is a tracer. Chloride anion can be
identified that meet part of the criteria and have been
determined easily, but the sodium cation is determined
successfully used to monitor flow of water in oil reser-
with difficulty. Using chloride anion as a tracer does not
voirs. Only two classes of chemicals are considered in
depend on the sodium cation.
this (TORP) manual: alcohols and salts.
Thus, potassium or ammonium chloride could be substi-
tuted for sodium chloride, if chloride is the tracer.
DN001138
DN000850
DN001117
Figure 3.7—StiMRIL presentation showing flow estimates and zoning based on permeability.
DN001118
Figure 3.8—Example log showing (a) free pipe, (b) partially bonded, and (c) fully bonded.
The output frequency of the ultrasonic tool ranges from • Track 2 provides information from both the CBL
approximately 300 to 600 kHz. However, in the region of (amplitude curves) and CAST-V (FCBI) about the
a gas-filled microannulus (or in cement containing gas cement to pipe bond. High-amplitude readings
bubbles), the ultrasonic bond log may indicate free pipe. indicate free pipe while low amplitude readings
indicate good bonding. The FCBI curve is generated
The preferred cement evaluation program combines the
from the impedance map and is a method to show
CBL and the CAST-V tools. As illustrated in Figure 3.9,
the percent of cement to casing bond.
the combined data from both logs provides a more
complete and reliable evaluation. • Track 3 consists of the CBL waveform, which
indicates both the cement-to-pipe bond and
The tracks provide the following information: cement-to-formation bond. In fact the CBL tool is
• Track 1 provides correlation data, average the only tool available to help determine the
impedance, and tool centralization information. cement-to-formation bond.
DN001119
DN001120
Figure 3.10—Segmented presentation with the impedance map showing the activity level and impedance values.
This activity level, called the statistical variation process • Track 2 provides information from both the CBL
(SVP), allows analysts to discern solid crystalline (amplitude curves) and CAST-V (ZP BI, CEMENT
structures, such as cements, from fluids. Solid-free BI) about the cement-to-pipe bond. ZP BI is the
liquids have a consistent or steady activity level on logs normal bond index from the impedance map
while solids, when mixed with either fluid or gas, have an without any further processing. CEMENT BI is the
irregular activity level. Cement, with a mixture of solids, bond index from the cement image. These curves
liquids, or gases, should exhibit a high degree of variabil- should track the amplitude curve from the CBL
ity in the impedance measurement. A consistent phase, because both measurements are an indication of
such as water, gas, or drilling mud, will exhibit less cement-to-pipe bond.
variation in the computed impedance. After tool position • Track 3 consists of the CBL waveform, which
is taken into account, analysis of the vertical rate of indicates both the cement-to-pipe bond and
impedance change can easily determine whether foamed cement-to-formation bond.
cement or liquid is present.
• In Track 4, the CBL variance shows the difference
SVP processing assumes that cements are not consistent, between vertical samples of the acoustic wave
but it does not use the impedance values directly in form. The initial vertical distance between the two
determining if the material is solid or liquid. Combining sides of the wedge is about five feet, the same as
the SVP processing methods with the original impedance the distance between the CBL source and receiver.
data provides an easier method for determining the pipe-to- As the pipe-to-cement bond increases, the ends of
cement bond. Because liquids should have both low this wedge narrow and approach five feet. As the
impedance and low activity level, this information can help quality of the cement bond increases, the collar
determine if the annular material is solid or liquid. This response disappears almost entirely. The colors
new image combines the original impedance data with the change as the bond increases from the top to the
variance data to create a new image called cement. bottom of the log.
Adapting this technique to the CBL waveform data • Track 5 presents the standard impedance image.
highlighted information not currently being used in the • Track 6 consists of the cement image, which is
evaluation of cement bonding. The essential portions of determined from the impedance and variance
this interpretation are collar response and the waveform calculation. The channel is still present and
amplitudes and behavior in free, bonded, partially probably will not allow zonal isolation over the
bonded, and microannulus situations. Subtle changes in interval.
the CBL waveform can be seen by the naked eye. Such
changes would be lost when presented in the conventional Casing Evaluation Logs
MSG display. Applying the SVP processing to the entire Many water-entry problems are caused by poor mechani-
acoustical waveform and determining the variance cal integrity of the casing. Holes caused by corrosion or
between vertical sample points makes these subtle wear and splits caused by flaws, excessive pressure, or
changes recognizable. Normally the variance processing formation deformation can allow unwanted reservoir
results are added to the standard CBL waveform, high- fluids to enter the casing. Halliburton uses the following
lighting both the high-amplitude portion of the CBL mechanical, electromagnetic, and ultrasonic logging tools
waveform and the differences. to inspect casing:
This entire process is known as Advanced Cement Evalua- • Multi-Arm Caliper tool
tion (ACE). ACE can expand cement evaluation for any
service company and tools, including segmented bond logs • Casing Inspection tool (CIT)
and other ultrasonic tools, stationary or rotational. • Pipe Inspection tool (PIT) using Flux Leakage/
Eddy Current (FL/EC)
Figure 3.11 (Page 3-23) illustrates a complete new
analysis of both the CBL and ultrasonic data over the • Circumferential Acoustic Scanning tool (CAST)
same well as Figures 3.8 to 3.10. The tracks provide the • Pulse Echo tool (PET)
following information:
• Track 1 provides correlation data, average
impedance, and tool centralization information.
Mechanical Logging Devices (using a feeler width of 0.08 in.). In a 5.5-in., 17-lb/ft
casing, the fractional wall coverage is approximately
Mechanical devices use independent, spring-loaded feeler 21.0%. As a result, locating small holes or splits with a
arms or fingers to measure the internal radius of the mechanical caliper requires multiple passes with the tool.
casing. The number of arms can vary from 15 to 80,
depending on casing size and tool type. Mechanical The logs produced by most mechanical calipers present
calipers only provide information about internal casing minimum diameter (MINID), maximum diameter
condition. Their major deficiency is that they inspect only (MAXID), and remaining wall thickness (REMWAL)
a small circumferential fraction of the casing. The size of curves, as shown in Figure 3.12 (Page 3-24). To compute
this fraction depends on the number of feeler arms, the the remaining wall thickness, analysts subtract the
width of the arms, and the casing size and weight. For measured internal radius of the casing from the casing
example, a tool with 40 arms inspecting a 7-in., 35-lb/ft nominal outside radius.
casing (6.004-in. ID) would cover only 17.0% of the wall
REMWAL MAXID
0 Inch .5 8 Inch 10
MINID
8 Inch 10
DN001139
Figure 3.12—Multi-Arm Caliper log for casing inspection.
Electromagnetic Phase-Shift Devices deflection to the left followed by a large deflection to the
right indicates a decrease in metal.
Electromagnetic phase-shift devices measure the attenua-
tion and phase shift of a transmitted electromagnetic The CIT also measures casing ID, but with a coil array
signal to determine circumferential averages of casing that consists of one transmitter and one receiver. The
thickness and diameter. transmitter coil is driven by a continuous 30-kHz
source. The resulting electromagnetic field induces eddy
Casing Inspection Tool currents on the inside surface of the casing. The eddy
The Casing Inspection Tool (CIT) is an electromagnetic currents, in turn, generate an electromagnetic field that
phase-shift device. The CIT casing-thickness measure- the receiver coil detects. The phase shift between the
ment is made by the transmitter and the near receiver on transmitted and received signals is a function of the
a one-transmitter, two-receiver coil array. A 30-Hz casing’s ID. This measurement is presented on the log as
pulsed electromagnetic field from the transmitter the caliper index curve.
induces eddy currents in the casing. The eddy currents One limitation of the CIT is that it cannot clearly distin-
generate an electromagnetic field that is sensed by the guish perforations because perforation diameters are
near receiver. Analysts can determine the casing significantly smaller than the measurement’s vertical
thickness by examining the phase shift between the resolution. If perforation diameters are small and shot
transmitter and near-receiver signals. densities are low, the volume of metal over a perforated
On the standard raw-data CIT the resulting curve is section of casing is not much different from the volume of
designated as the thickness index. The measurement has a metal over an unperforated section. Therefore, the
vertical resolution of approximately 18 in. Because this differential readings are small, and perforations are
measurement is omnidirectional and has a somewhat difficult to identify. The CIT can, however, distinguish
coarse resolution, it cannot clearly detect small anomalies. intervals perforated at high shot densities.
A second phase-shift is measured between the near and The Multifrequency Electromagnetic Tool
far receivers. This measurement detects casing anomalies The Multifrequency Electromagnetic Tool (METG) is used
over a short length of the casing. It has a vertical resolu- to gauge casing thickness for detection of defective or
tion of about 2.5 in., and the associated curve on the CIT damaged casing. This multi-frequency electromagnetic tool
log is designated as the differential index. On this curve, measures the casing’s magnetic properties, casing ID, and
a large deflection to the right followed by a large deflec- phase shift to accurately compute the casing thickness.
tion to the left indicates an increase in metal. A large
DN001122
• Track 3 consists of the ID from CASE and shows with diameters as small as 0.125 in. To help analysts
some internal wear. visualize the pipe condition, FL/EC logs provide plots
of the raw FL/EC curves from each pad as well as
• Track 4 compares two thickness curves (TH1L,
detailed 360° maps of the flux leakage and eddy current.
TH2L) with the average thickness from the CAST-V.
The PIT tool and associated software allow identification
• Track 5 shows the thickness image from the CAST-V.
of casing damage. Once a defect is located, the type, size,
• Track 6 provides thickness information from the two and percent of penetration are shown in Figure 3.14
receivers of the METG at two frequencies. (Page 3-27). The PIT processing algorithm allows the
Pipe Inspection Tool standard joint counter and grading programs to be used.
The tracks provide the following information:
The PIT is a FL/EC type of tool. FL/EC devices are
widely accepted for evaluating metal loss. The PIT • Track 1 provides the gamma, tension, and hall effect,
provides 360° wall coverage with high vertical resolution which indicates casing damage and/or quality control.
by using an array of pad-mounted coils. FL/EC tools • Track 2 provides the processed eddy curves that are
identify flaws in casing or tubular goods and then plotted on the same scale range with a different offset.
discriminate between flaws on the external or internal
surface of the pipe. • Track 3 provides the processed flux curves that are
plotted on the same scale range with a different offset.
• Flux Leakage. The flux leakage (FL) measurement
• Tracks 4 and 5 indicate whether the defects are on
is made by an induction coil near the pipe surface
the inside or outside of the casing. The extent to
that is positioned between the north and south poles
which the defects penetrate the casing (as a fraction
of a DC electromagnet. Current through the electro-
of casing thickness) determines the grade as shown.
magnet causes lines of magnetic flux in the pipe wall.
Casing grade is determined by defect penetration
Normally, this flux is contained within the walls of
(again, as a fraction of casing thickness).
the casing, but when holes, pitting, or other defects
exist in the wall of the pipe, perturbations in the flux • Track 6, the rightmost track on the log, flags casing
lines cause some flux to spill out of the confines of defects and identifies each defect as either isolated or
the wall. When the inductive sensor is passed over circumferential.
these perturbations, a voltage is generated in the coil. The log example shown in Figure 3.14 is from a well
The FL coil responds to holes and inner and outer without cement allowing pipe recovery. The pipe was
wall defects. retrieved and examined showing a hole at 93 meters. The
• Eddy Current. An eddy current (EC) excitation coil pipe was photographed as shown in Figure 3.15a (Page
is driven by an AC source. The sensor is designed so 3-27). The high sampling rate and full pipe coverage of
that in clean pipe, any signal induced into one the PIT allows accurate 3D images to be generated as
receiver coil is canceled by an equal signal in the shown in Figure 3.15b. The two images have an excel-
other receiver coil. Several factors control the depth lent match showing the casing damage. The hole was
that the current travels into the pipe wall, although determined to be approximately 1/8 of an inch across.
current frequency is the primary factor. Normally, the
depth of penetration is very shallow. Ultrasonic Casing Tools
When the PIT tool passes a defect on the inner wall, the Two types of ultrasonic tools are commonly used for
receiver coils become imbalanced, first in one direction, casing inspection: (1) the Circumferential Acoustic
then the other. In this manner, a characteristic signature is Scanning Tool (CAST) and (2) the Pulse Echo Tool
produced for the defect on the inner wall, but no response (PET).
occurs for flaws on the outer wall or internal flaws beyond
Circumferential Acoustic Scanning Tool
the skin depth of penetration of the excitation current.
The CAST has a rotating ultrasonic transducer that can
By comparing the response of the FL and EC signals,
accurately measure casing ID, casing thickness, casing
analysts can determine whether the defect is on the outer
ovality, and tool centralization. When the transducer is
wall only, the inner wall only, or is a through-hole
pulsed or fired in the “transmit” mode, a narrow acoustic
defect. FL curves can reveal holes with diameters as
beam propagates through borehole fluids toward the
small as 0.1 in. The EC measurements detect defects
DN001124
Figure 3.15—Video capture of the pipe in Figure 3.11 with 3D image of the casing damage using PIT data.
borehole wall. This beam reflects off the borehole wall Because the resonant frequency of casing decreases as
and travels back through the borehole fluids to the casing thickness increases, transducer frequency must be
transducer. The transducer then acts as a receiver to selected according to casing thickness. Further waveform
record the travel time and amplitude of the reflected processing provides information about the material in the
signal. The travel time (or time of flight) is the elapsed annular space between the casing and the wellbore wall.
time between the transducer’s firing and the instant when This annular space is normally filled with cement, drilling
the highest amount of reflected energy arrives back at the mud, water, gas, and other substances. The ultrasonic
transducer. Amplitude is a measure of that peak amount tools determine the impedance value of these materials
of returning ultrasonic energy. and indicate the amount of pipe-to-cement bonding.
The CAST-V operates in either image mode or cased-hole Waveform processing achieves cement evaluation and
mode. In image mode, the tool acquires data from the casing inspection at the same time, without requiring
interior diameter of the pipe or formation. In cased-hole additional passes. Thus, high telemetry data rates, intense
mode, data is acquired from the casing ID, the casing processing capabilities, and selective transducer frequen-
thickness, and the annular space between the casing OD cies are required. Before deciding to log with a CAST,
and surrounding formation. Both the amplitude and engineers must consider the wellbore fluid and the casing
travel-time data from both modes may be used to help wall condition. If the wellbore fluid contains large
determine the conditions of the casing or riser. The quantities of solids, the solids attenuate and disperse the
navigational package is required to provide geometry of transmitted and reflected signals. If the casing wall
the casing or hole. This will allow casing wear to be contains scale, paraffin, or other disruptive materials, the
monitored accurately. reflected signal can be significantly attenuated and
scattered, and the data will be useless.
• Image Mode. In image mode, the scanner evaluates
only the “inner” surface of the target (the formation Another major consideration in CAST logging is the
bounding the wellbore or the inner wall of the casing). distance from the transducer head to the casing’s inner
The high vertical resolution (60 samples per ft), and wall. If the transducer head is too close to the wall, a
extensive azimuthal sampling (200 shots or radial near-field phenomenon causes the data to be difficult to
measurements per sample depth) provide the neces- interpret. Under these conditions, the acoustic wave is
sary information needed for 2D and 3D images. The unable to travel a sufficient distance from the transducer
travel time and amplitude of the acoustic waveform to produce a wave front that is planar when it impacts the
can provide both visual and digital data to indicate casing wall. This planar condition is necessary for good
casing integrity or problems. These images are useful data. If the distance is too great, the acoustic amplitude of
for evaluating casing integrity by revealing distortion, the received signal is greatly reduced. Therefore, the
wear, holes, parting, and other anomalies on the inner proper transducer head size must be used to ensure
wall of the casing. optimal standoff distance.
• Cased-Hole Mode. The ultrasonic scanner also After the data is acquired in either mode to accurately
operates in cased-hole mode for a thorough casing evaluate the internal casing wear, tool position and
assessment including wall thickness or pipe-to- eccentering need to be accounted for. Spiral or patterns
cement evaluation. The cased-hole mode determines similar to a barbershop pole are indications of eccentric-
both the internal radii of the casing and the casing ity problems, not necessarily casing wear. Special
thickness. Casing thickness combined with the ID processing, provided both real time and post acquisition,
measurements can be used to indicate defects on the allows the travel time image to be corrected for the tool
exterior of the casing. The normal tool operation will eccentering.
provide a vertical resolution of four samples per ft, After the raw data is corrected, several different programs
and azimuthal sampling of 100 shots per sample will allow complete interpretation of the data to com-
depth. This data can be recorded at 12 samples per ft, pletely evaluate the casing damage. Figures 3.16 to 3.18
but the logging speed needs to be reduced. The (Pages 3-29 through 3-30) provide detailed information
amplitude and travel times are also recorded to about packer damage on 7-in., 26-lb/ft casing. These
provide image-interpretation capabilities. figures range from the raw data to 3D images. Figure
The acoustic waveform is processed in cased-hole mode. 3.16 shows where the packer was set and did not release
Casing thickness is calculated by a Fast-Fourier transfor- properly (B). The metal was peeled up when the packer
mation of the frequency content of the waveform itself.
DN001126
Figure 3.17—Computed results showing casing radius for the packer damage.
DN001127
Figure 3.18—Raw data along with three-dimensional image show casing damage.
was pulled. The amplitude and both the travel time • Track 3 is the amplitude of the first arrival in the
images in Figure 3.16 show the channels of the packer image mode. This will show the greatest detail
pins. They also show that peeled metal is still in the concerning any casing damage; Howeve,r the data
casing immediately above the damage (C). cannot be used in any further quantitative evaluation.
• Track 1 provides tool and casing eccentricity and • Track 4 is the uncorrected travel time for tool
ovality data eccentricity. This travel time will be used along with
the fluid travel time to determine the casing radius.
• Track 2 provides information about the travel time of
the fluid in the casing along with wellbore deviation • Track 5 is the corrected travel time for tool eccen-
tricity. The post-processing software will correct the
data for slight eccentricity errors.
DN001140
DN000853
Figure 3.20—TMD log showing water movement from packer leak and a channel outside pipe.
DN000854
Figure 3.21—PSG log showing oil/water contact and leaking squeezed perforations.
DN000855
Figure 3.23—RMT Elite in a steam flood environment showing fluid saturations, bypassed reserves, and fluid
movement behind casing.
• Track 2 displays the inelastic and capture ratios • Evaluate downhole flow patterns
measured from the RMT Elite. The red shading • Create quality injection profiles that can lead to
indicates the current location of steam in the reser-
improved conformance measures
voir. This example indicates that the steam chest has
changed when compared to the original formation • Reduce water disposal costs
contacts. Precise water velocity measurements using spectral data
• Track 3 displays the Carbon Oxygen and the Calcium are provided with continuous logs and stationary impulse
Silicon ratio curves. The green shading between the step-down tests:
two curves indicates hydrocarbons in the formation. • Use of a count-rate ratio from the two spectral
Also displayed in the track are the natural gamma ray gamma detectors, which provides a continuous log
measurement and the simultaneous recorded forma- but requires well calibrated detectors.
tion sigma.
• Use of an impulse/shutdown sequence, which is
• Track 4 of the example displays the computed oil
performed while the tool is stationary and is calibra-
saturation (shaded in green) and the gas saturation tion independent.
(shaded in red). These saturations were computed
using a combination of C/O and formation Sigma. Logging techniques have been developed that use a
combination of continuous and stationary logging
Spectral Flow (SPFL) measurements. This procedure allows water velocity
The Spectral Flow tool is designed to measure simulta- greater than 3 ft/min to be detected and, depending on the
neous up and down water flows. This tool was intended flow volume and location, accurate quantitative velocities
for use with additional production logging tools to as low as 5 ft/min can be measured. For velocities over
accurately determine water entry and movement. The 50 ft/min, improved accuracy is obtained by using the
SPFL is a high-energy PNS tool that activates the oxygen more distant natural gamma ray detector.
in water for a short time, allowing the oxygen to emit The example well for this SPFL was producing almost
gamma rays of specific energy. These gamma rays are 2,000 BWPD and 770 BOPD. The results of the station-
sensed and measured by detectors in the tools, and the ary impulse tests with the tool in inverted configuration
resulting measurements are used to determine water-flow indicated downward water flow in a channel outside the
velocities inside, as well as outside, casing. casing. Measurements made with the natural gamma ray
The SPFL tool uses two spectral gamma ray detectors and detector at the top of the tool showed simultaneous
a pulsed neutron generator with a special timing sequence upward water flow inside the casing. Variations in the
designed to emphasize activation measurements. These water-flow velocity from test to test suggest that the
spectral measurements enhance velocity estimates by cross-sectional area of the channel is not constant.
allowing gamma rays from oxygen activation to be The left side of Figure 3.24 (Page 3-39) shows the plots
distinguished from those arising from iron activation, of the SPFL continuous logs run with the SPFL tool in
silicon activation, and natural activity. normal mode; the right part of this figure shows the
Furthermore, spectral measurements permit analysis of plots of the continuous logs run with the SPFL tool in
Compton scattering to indicate whether water is flowing inverted mode. The normal-mode logs measured two
inside or outside the casing. The detectors are located far water-flow entry points at 9,806 ft and 9,720 ft as
enough from the source that oxygen decay in stationary indicated by the OAI measurements. The CRAT mea-
water, mud, formation or cement is not observed. Oxygen surements in Track 1of the log indicate the water flow
activation measurements clearly identify where the water is inside the wellbore.
moving and at what velocity. This allows the Spectra The OAI and CRAT measurements obtained in inverted
FlowSM Service to accurately detect and quantify downhole mode indicated water channeling behind pipe starting at
water flow to enhance the planning and improvement of 9,642 ft, with most entering the wellbore from perfora-
conformance and water management. Updating previous tions at 9,722 ft. The inverted-mode logs also weakly
reliable tools and interpretation software allows the SPFL indicate a second channel beginning at 9,736 ft and
service to achieve the following: continuing to the lower set of perforations. The arrows on
• Accurately identify the water entry points and chan- the CBL-GR plot the combined water-flow measured by
nels for timely planning of effective remedial action. the SPFL tool.
In addition to measurements made by the new water- Track 7 of the log in Figure 3.22, labeled Velocity, plots
velocity tool, a full set of production logs was recorded the velocity calculated from the PL spinner and the
on this well. The PL computed analysis is shown in continuous velocity measured by SPFL tool in normal
Figure 3.25 (Page 3-40). The analysis indicated that most mode. The velocity from the new tool is lower than the
of the water was being produced by the lower perfora- velocity from the spinner, which indicates that the oil was
tions at a rate of 1,880 BWPD and 420 BOPD. The upper flowing faster than the water. As the flow stabilized around
perforations showed that fluid was being produced out of 9,760 ft, the two velocities were nearly equal. The veloci-
the top 8 ft. This zone was only producing 75 BWPD and ties differed again with oil entry from the upper set of
350 BOPD. perforations and stabilized with an equal rate at 9,712 ft.
DN001130
The fluid-density tool continuously measures wellbore Because count rates are not directly related to only the
fluid densities. Changes in density can indicate either density of the fluid, the GHT may not be used as a fluid
contact of two different fluids or fluid entry into a well. In density tool. In many instances, the GHT may obviate the
the latter case, the tool can locate perforations or verify need for the center-sample radioactive fluid-density tool,
leaks in the casing or tubing. because the GHT obtains gas holdup directly.
The conventional center-sample radioactive fluid-density a small degree of activity, while the GHT shows more
tool employs a cesium-137 source and a Geiger-Mueller activity than the other tools. Very little gas production is
counter to measure the attenuation of the gamma rays in seen below XX850. Above XX850, the logs show gas
the volume between the source and the detector, a and fluid entry in both the raw data log (Figure 3.26) and
measurement that may not be representative of the entire the computed log (Figure 3.27). The computed analysis
well cross-section. This limitation could lead to measure- log shows that a consistent bubble flow regime is present,
ment inaccuracies, particularly in deviated and horizontal composed of oil and water.
wells, where stratified flows are common.
The temperature deflection at XX840 shows a heating
The GHT has a gas holdup accuracy of 3% and a resolu- anomaly, indicative of fluid entry, as confirmed by
tion of 1% in two-phase flow, given the pressure and increased spinner rates. The raw data shows that the well
temperature as an input. It has a vertical resolution of has not been stabilized, as indicated at approximately
approximately 1 ½ in. XX840. Here, the curves from each of the three tools
(FDEN, HYDRO, and GHTCO) diverge between
Another feature of the GHT is its insensitivity to the well-
different passes, showing a different depth for the fluid-
flow regime. The tool makes an accurate gas holdup
entry zone with each logging pass.
measurement, regardless of how the gas is mixed with
wellbore fluids. For a given fractional volume of gas, GHT-computed analysis uses PVT correlations to
approximately the same fraction is measured whether the accurately calculate volumes of free gas and solution gas
gas bubbles are floating on top of the liquid phase or are for the total gas flow-rate analysis. The Gas Flow Rates
more uniformly mixed. This characteristic makes mixing track displays free gas in solid red, while using pink
fluids unnecessary and provides a more accurate mea- bubbles to show solution gas. Computer analysis empha-
surement independent of the well conditions. This sizes the difference in interpretation of data gained by
insensitivity to well flow patterns is especially important center-sample tools versus the fullbore GHT.
because exploitation of a reservoir requires recognition of
Gas entry is indicated on the raw data log from XX788 to
the gas and its entry points.
XX795 by a slight temperature decrease accompanied by
Two holdup devices are required to obtain the informa- increased spinner rate. With typical center-sample tools
tion necessary for three-phase flow calculations. The (fluid density and hydro), the major oil/gas entry point at
fluid density tool is normally used in conjunction with depth X788 to X795 could easily be misdiagnosed as a
the capacitance tool to calculate holdups for each phase. major gas/water entry point. The Fluid Density/Hydro
The example logs in Figures 3.26 (Page 3-43) and 3.27 analysis indicates an increasing water and gas flow rate at
(Page 3-44) will show that capacitance tools are inaccu- X788, as indicated on the computer analysis (Figure 3.27,
rate during high water holdup, which causes short- Page 3-44) by an increase in the QLIQN curve, which
circuiting between the measurement plates. The new shows the water production rate. However, the Fluid Flow
technique capitalizes on the capability of the gas holdup Rates track, which uses GHT and Fluid Density readings,
tool to determine the gas holdup, independent of fluid shows a consistent QLIQ (water production rate curve),
density. Once the gas holdup is determined, a gas-free thereby indicating no water entry. Instead, it actually
fluid density can be calculated, leading to determination indicates increased oil production.
of the water and oil holdups. This technique, using GHT
This example highlights some of the problems faced in
and fluid-density sensors only, has been successfully
conformance work. Conformance treatments may be
used on several wells throughout the world, providing
deemed a failure due to continued fluid production. In
calculated surface production rates that agree with
reality the problem could be misdiagnosing of the
actual production rates.
conformance problem and an incorrect solution being
Below XX900, the raw data log (Figure 3.26, Page 3-43) applied to the reservoir or well.
shows that the hydro (capacitance) tool is short-circuited,
and offers only a straight-lined reading. The FDEN shows
Figure 3.26—PL raw data with GHT. Zones 1,3,5, indicate that the hydro is inactive, due to the high water
holdup. Zone 9 shows that all three sensors are now working properly.
DN001132
Figure 3.27—Interpretation of the raw data of Figure 3.26. The interpretation on the left uses the GHT/fluid
density, and the one on the right uses the hydro/fluid density combination. The hydro/fluid density combo
indicates water entry from Zone 8 while the GHT/fluid density combination indicates that the water is entering
from Zone 6.
DN001133
Figure 3.28—FloImager presentation of an horizontal well. This shows the ability of the CAT tool to locate
entry points of the wellbore fluids.
DN001134
Figure 3.29—Cross-sectional display showing depth and holdup calculation from the log in Figure 3.28.
Pressure Logs The fluid-density log indicates the type of fluid present.
Figure 3.30 (Page 3-49) consists of the fluid-density log, a
Pressure tools continuously measure pressure in the
wellbore schematic, and temperature, gamma, and collar
borehole. Two types of tools are available: the strain-
logs. Below X077 ft, the fluid density read 1.03 g/cm3,
gauge pressure tool (SPT) and the quartz pressure tool
indicating that the wellbore fluid was all water. From X073
(QPT). The SPT uses a strain gauge to measure the
to X077 ft, the density decreased to 0.73 g/cm3, which
downhole pressure, and the tool is designed to minimize
indicated gas production. Between the perforation depths
the effects of temperature. The QPT uses quartz sensors
of X055 to X060 ft, the fluid density again decreased from
specifically designed for gas and oil wells. The rugged
0.73 g/cm3 to 0.62 g/cm3, suggesting additional gas
quartz sensors have high-resolution measuring capabili-
production.
ties. A temperature sensor built into the quartz sensor
section accurately compensates for temperature effects. Figure 3.31 (Page 3-50) presents the temperature
information in the forms of amplified and differential
Temperature Logs
temperature logs. The amplified temperature log is the
Temperature logging tools continuously measure tem- temperature log presented with a more sensitive scale that
perature in the borehole and can detect liquid or gas allows analysts to identify minute differences. At X100 ft,
movement behind pipe. A highly sensitive resistance the amplified temperature log shows a warming anomaly,
thermometer in the tool provides reliable temperature which indicates that liquids are entering the wellbore.
measurements. Temperature decreases indicate gas entry caused by the
gas expansion. According to the amplified temperature
Since the temperature tool detects changes in borehole
log, gas is entering the wellbore at X090 and X060 ft.
temperature, it can locate cement tops and gas-entry
points. When it is near curing cement, the tool senses the The differential temperature is the difference between two
increased temperature caused by the heat of hydration. At temperature measurements at a set interval. The differential
gas-entry points, the tool detects reduced temperatures temperature log showed differences in the geothermal
caused by the gas expanding as it enters the wellbore. gradient, providing an excellent indicator of fluid move-
ment. The differential temperature log indicates a normal
Depending on the temperature of fluid entering the
geothermal gradient below X105 ft. Between X105 and
wellbore, the tool may be capable of indicating whether the
X091 ft, the log becomes negative, which indicates that
fluid is from the adjacent formation or if it has channeled
liquid is entering the wellbore. At the depth of X090 ft, the
from above or below. A temperature that is cooler than
differential temperature becomes positive, which suggests
expected may indicate channeling from a cooler formation,
the cooling temperatures that indicate gas entry.
which is normally higher in the wellbore. Similarly, a
temperature that is warmer than expected can indicate a By overlaying the fluid-density and temperature logs,
channel from below the formation. analysts can determine additional information. For
example, in Figure 3.32 (Page 3-51) the density log by
Temperature abnormalities can also indicate possible flow
itself does not indicate fluid movement at X100 ft. The
behind casing or tubing. These abnormalities are high-
temperature log, however, indicates water production.
lighted when the temperature gradient is compared to the
Multiple sensors provide additional valuable information
normal temperature gradient that was observed with the
for analysts to determine downhole performance.
well shutin. Increased temperatures indicate flow from
below the formation. Reduced temperatures indicate either Production logging analysis uses the available data to
flow from above the formation or the presence of gas. provide the answers shown in Figure 3.33 (Page 3-52).
The fluid density is used to calculate holdup, the area of
Examples
the pipe occupied by the phase. Below the bottom set of
Well 1 perforations, the wellbore is completely filled with water.
Above the top set of perforations, the pipe contains 60%
Well 1 was a gas-production well with high water produc-
water and 40% gas.
tion. This well was logged with fluid-density, temperature,
pressure, and spinner tools that provided information for
the production logging analysis (PLA) program.
Figure 3.30—Fluid-density log with a wellbore schematic and temperature, gamma, and collar logs.
DN000857
Figure 3.31—Temperature information in the forms of amplified and differential temperature logs.
DN000859
DN000860
Figure 3.35—Flowmeter with raw spinner data and cable logging speed.
DN000862
DN001135
Figure 3.38—ConformXpert log combines all the available well log data into one easy to use image. Missing
segments are shown to allow determination of the proper conformance treatment. Further data acquisition
could make the correct conformance treatment selection easier and the treatment results could be excellent.
to conformance applications in
two respects: (1) simulating the
injection of conformance
material into a formation that
may have been cooled down by
circulation and (2) in calculating
and understanding the process of
polymer gelation as a function of
time and temperature.
• In addition to calculating the
flow of oil, gas, and water,
QuikLook contains a fourth
phase that represents the
injection and flow of the
conformance fluid. This phase
enables the software to track the
location of the conformance
DN002238
fluid, leading to significantly
better solutions and predictions
of reservoir performance than
the conventional black-oil Figure 4.1–QuikLook Graphical User Interface
simulators. This option also
allows the user to modify the
placement technique to maxi- WELLCAT can be turned off so that remedies, and choose an optimal
mize the return and benefit of wellbore calculations cannot be treatment. The effect investigated
the conformance treatment. made. When WELLCAT is turned here is in terms of reservoir response
• QuikLook simulates the con- off, the data assumes no change in (rate and total production). QuikLook
formance fluid rheology and temperatures, pressures, and compo- is designed to help engineers estimate
polymer thickening (gelation) sitions of fluids traveling from the the value of a project as illustrated in
with time and temperature. surface to the bottom of the hole or Figure 4.2 (Page 4-3).
vice versa.
The basic philosophy behind the
• Several Halliburton conformance
simulator is to sacrifice some of the
fluids are built in to QuikLook, Purpose and Philosophy accuracy to gain speed in both
eliminating the need to enter the of QuikLook simulation and turnaround rate. The
properties of those fluids. goal is to achieve at least 85%
The main purpose of QuikLook is to
• QuikLook is linked to the provide Halliburton Engineers with a accuracy but reduce the turnaround
WELLCAT wellbore simulator. software tool designed to investigate rate to four hours or less. However,
the feasibility of applying a the user should recognize that some of
• QuikLook is designed to have a
Halliburton proprietary conformance the features incorporated in QuikLook
user-friendly GUI. treatment to oil or gas wells that are truly unique and do not exist in the
exhibit conformance problems. The commercially available simulators.
QuikLook capabilities are accessed
software simulates the application of Some of these features include the
through its GUI (Figure 4.1), into
conformance treatments for a given heat flow, a fourth component, and the
which all data are entered. The GUI
situation and provides guidance for linkage with a wellbore simulator.
controls the processing of the data by
choosing among options for conform- With the addition of these features, it
QuikLook and WELLCAT software
ance fluids and treatment design. The may be argued that the QuikLook
packages. The QuikLook solver and
program is designed to enable the results may be more accurate than the
WELLCAT model are completely
user to identify a problem, quickly results from a conventional simulator.
integrated to simulate a flow of fluids
in the wellbore and the reservoir. investigate the effects of various
WELLCAT Software
WELLCAT is a Landmark Graphics
software package that includes
several modules that can model a
variety of wellbore applications. Only
the WS-PROD module is used in the
QuikLook simulator. The WS-PROD
module simulates fluid flow and heat
transfer in wellbores during comple-
tion, production, stimulation, testing,
and well-servicing operations. It
handles both steady state and
transient single and multiphase flow.
DN002239
The WS-PROD module of
WELLCAT software is used to
calculate pressure and temperature
profiles in a wellbore for both
Figure 4.2—QuikLook conformance solution process flowing and shut-in conditions.
The WELLCAT capability in
QuikLook is required to help
QuikLook Theory Conformance Fluids determine the true state of the
QuikLook is a sophisticated numeri- Modeled by QuikLook conformance fluid as it enters the
cal simulator. Like all numerical formation at the bottom of the well.
The chemical sealants that are used
simulators, QuikLook solves a set of In practice, conformance fluid
for conformance are normally
differential equations that describe pressure, temperature, and related
designed to be placed at a low
flow of fluids and heat through a properties are measured only at the
viscosity and react in situ to form a
wellbore and porous media. These surface during treatment. Conform-
more viscous (usually highly
equations are solved by first convert- ance fluid properties at bottomhole
crosslinked) gel. In the QuikLook
ing the differential equations into a conditions where fluid goes from the
simulator, conformance fluids are
set of difference equations for each wellbore into the reservoir and/or
assumed to consist of a monomer and
cell in the reservoir. The difference behind casing should be calculated.
an activator that catalyzes the
equations would form a set of linear These calculations are the main
conversion of the monomer to a
algebraic equations. This set of function of WELLCAT software
gelled or partially gelled polymer.
equations is solved numerically using within the QuikLook simulator.
The following Halliburton conform-
matrix solution techniques. Descrip- ance fluids are built into QuikLook:
tions of how the difference equations
are formulated and solved are • H2Zero
provided in other literature.1,2
• Injectrol
• PermSeal
• PermTrol
General Data Requirements ing its results to results reported in three-dimensional black-oil simula-
two SPE comparative simulation tors. These companies were Amoco,
The QuikLook simulator requires the studies. In these two studies, the Exxon, Mobil, Shell, Intercomp
following basic engineering data: QuikLook simulator was run as a Resource Development, Computer
• Geological reservoir characteris- conventional black-oil simulator. In Modeling Group (CMG), and
tics (e.g. porosity, permeability the second set of examples, the Scientific Software Corp.
and thickness of the producing validity of QuikLook as a conform-
The reservoir geometry was simple: a
formation) ance simulator was investigated using
rectangular reservoir consisting of
a commercially available simulator.
three layers. Both a producer and a
• Rock properties such as relative
Among available simulators, only gas injector are in this reservoir. The
permeability and pore volume STARS and QuikLook could simulate injection well was located in one
compressibility (cr) the performance of a conformance corner of the reservoir and completed
• Well drainage radius, current treatment. The QuikLook simulator in the top layer only, while the
reservoir pressure, oil-water and has a distinct advantage of consider- production well was placed in the
gas-oil contacts ing both the wellbore and tempera- opposite corner and perforated in the
ture effects. However, both simula- bottom layer.
• Fluid properties for the reservoir tors have a fourth component to
Table 1 lists the reservoir properties
fluids (e.g. viscosity, density and simulate the presence of a conform-
and constraints specified for the
compressibility of the reservoir ance fluid. After the validity of the
study. PVT data and detailed descrip-
oil, gas and water) simulator was established, the
tions of the problem can be found in
features specially developed to
• Historical production and Reference 3. This reference also
simulate conformance studies were
injection data for the well or gives descriptions of the various
used in a series of runs.
wells to be treated (e.g. oil models used by the participating
production rates, pressures) companies. All simulators were 3-D,
Example 1—First SPE three-phase black-oil simulators, and
• Tubular goods configuration Comparative study none of the simulators considered
(e.g. casing, tubing, packers) and In an article that was published in heat flow.
completion intervals 1982,3 seven operating, software and The 10 × 10 × 3 reservoir grid system
The simulator has default values for consulting companies participated in used for this first SPE comparative
certain fluid and rock property data. a study to compare the results of their study is shown by the areal view in
In general, these default values will
not be appropriate for all situations,
so at least approximate values for all Table 4.1–Data and Constraints for Example 1
of the data should be available. In
Initial reservoir pressure (psi) 4,800
addition to the data listed for conven-
tional petroleum reservoir simulation, Depth (ft) 8,400
QuikLook requires fluid properties of Gas injection rate (MMCF/D) 100
the conformance fluids. Maximum oil production rate (STB/D) 20,000
Minimum oil rate (STB/D) 1,000
Validation of the QuikLook Minimum flowing pressure (psi) 1,000
Simulator Maximum saturation change during 0.05
Porosity at 14.7-psi base pressure 0.3
This section attempts to validate the
QuikLook simulator by comparing Wellbore radius (ft) 0.25
the output of the simulator to output Skin factor 0
from existing commercial simulators. Capillary pressure (psi) 0
Two different sets of runs were Reservoir temperature (°F) 200
implemented. In the first set of Gas specific gravity 0.792
examples, the basic validity of the Maximum project time (yr) 10
simulator was confirmed by compar-
Maximum GOR (SCF/STB) 20,000
DN002241
Figure 4.4–Cross-sectional view of the near wellbore area of (a) injector and (b) producer
DN002242
Figure 4.5–Oil production ratio vs. time for SPE Comparative Solution 1
Figure 4.7 (Page 4-8) provides the Figure 4.8 (Page 4-8) presents the gas to Figure 4.7, the peak pressure
producing pressure vs. time for the saturation history at the bottom layer reached by the QuikLook simulator is
various simulators. Although the where the production well is located. a little higher than the rest. These
QuikLook simulator reached a little (The simulators are in general results could be caused by the
higher peak at a slightly later time, it agreement.) Figure 4.9 (Page 4-9) differences in how the individual
generally agreed with the rest of the shows the pressure profile at the simulators handle the wellbore
simulators throughout the life of the injection well. (The simulators are in geometry.
project. general agreement.) However, similar
DN002244
Figure 4.7–Gridblock 10, 10, 3 pressure vs. time for SPE Comparative Solution 1
DN002245
Figure 4.8–Gridblock 10, 10, 3 gas saturation vs. time for SPE Comparative Solution 1
Example 2—Second SPE case of the first study, many of The given reservoir dimensions
Comparative Study these companies no longer exist. represent a drainage area of approxi-
mately 303 acres, or 3,634 ft ×
In an article that was published in The problem submitted to the
3,634 ft square drainage area. The
1986,4 eleven companies partici- various companies was essentially a
corresponding drainage area is
pated in a study to compare the water-coning problem. Figure 4.10
shown by the Cartesian grid system
results of their three-dimensional (Page 4-10) shows a cross-section of
in Figure 4.11-a (Page 4-10). Half of
black-oil simulators. These the 15-layer reservoir. Basic reser-
a vertical cross-section along the
companies were Arco, Chevron, voir properties are presented in
gridblocks in which the well is
Gulf, Shell, Intercomp Resource Table 4.2 (Page 4-10). Detailed
located is presented in Figure 4.11-b
Development, Scientific Software reservoir, fluid, and simulation data
(Page 4-10), showing the location of
Corp, D&S Research and Develop- are listed in Reference 4.
the perforations.
ment, Franlab Consultants,
The problem is obviously artificial in
Harwell, McCord Lewis Energy As in the first study, the initializa-
several aspects.4 The planned
Services, and J. S. Nolen & tion results (i.e. calculated the
production rate changes were
Associates. LGC’s VIP is based on amount of fluid in place) from the
unlikely to occur in real situations,
a simulator developed by J. S. QuikLook simulator agreed with the
and the GOR was very high for the
Nolen, while the QuikLook simulators used in the first SPE
specified oil. This makes the problem
simulator is based on a simulator comparative study.
difficult to solve and possibly a better
that was owned by D&S. As in the
test for the various simulators.
Production
Well
DEPTH
9000 FT
GOC - 9035
Block (1.7)
Block (1.8) 359 FT
WOC - 9209FT NZ =15
DN002247
rw = 0.25 FT 2050FT
NR = 10
DN002248
DN002249
Figure 4.12–Oil production rate vs. time (SPE Comparative Solution 2)
DN002250
DN002251
Figure 4.14–GOR vs. time (SPE Comparative Solution 2)
DN002252
QuikLook as a Conform- 2. Water coning of a single gas in Figure 4.18-a (Page 4-14). The
ance Simulator producer (H2Zero and PermSeal treatment interval is shown in Figure
solutions) 4.18-b (Page 4-14).
In this section, the capabilities of the
QuikLook simulator as a conformance 3. Water coning of a single oil This producer was flowed at initial
simulator are demonstrated. These producer (PermSeal solution) oil rate of 1,000 STB/D simulta-
capabilities are first matched against neously with water injection in the
STARS, then examples of QuikLook Case 1–Water Channeling injector. The injection pressure was
used for simulating channeling and in an Injector-Producer maintained at a maximum value of
2,000 psia. Oil, gas, and water
coning problems are illustrated. The System (PermSeal Solution)
examples demonstrate the use of the production histories are presented in
Case 1 is an example of a five-year Figure 4.19 (Page 4-15) and are
QuikLook engine, thermal model, and
production and water injection in a compared with STARS results for the
its linkage to WELLCAT for design-
13-layer black-oil reservoir system. base case using the simulators as
ing and optimizing the size and
Figure 4.17 (Page 4-14) shows the 21 black-oil simulators. The comparison
placement of a conformance treatment
× 21 × 13 ft Cartesian grid system, is excellent.
so that reservoir performance is
with the two wells in this reservoir,
maximized. Additionally, the predicted pres-
and a vertical cross-section across the
For this comparison, the following sures, both flowing and average
wells illustrating the refined grids in
three specialized data sets were used. pressure, show a very good match
the near-wellbore area.
Each data set reflects the application between the two simulators. Figure
This reservoir has an impermeable 4.20 (Page 4-15), a plot of average
of sealants for controlling the
layer at the middle of the productive pressure and bottomhole pressure
production of unwanted water from
zone (Layer 7), with high-permeabil- profiles for both QuikLook and
both oil and gas reservoirs.
ity layers at the top of this barrier and STARS simulation runs, shows a
1. Water channeling between low-permeability layers below it. A very good comparison between
injector/producer in a black-oil cross-sectional view of the produc- QuikLook and STARS results.
reservoir (PermSeal solution) tion and injection intervals is shown
DN002254
Figure 4.17–Cartesian grid system used for Case 1 and cross-sectional view across the wells
DN002255
Figure 4.18–Cross-sectional view of (a) producing and injection intervals and (b) treatment interval for Case 1
DN002257
Figure 4.20–QuikLook and STARS average reservoir and bottomhole pressures vs. time (Case 1)
As expected, a major portion of the jump in water production from intervention is necessary to produce
injected water flooded the highly essentially zero to over 400 bbl/D oil from the lower-permeability
permeable layers located at the top, and remaining almost constant layers. An appropriate treatment in
with water breakthrough in this thereafter. Meanwhile, the layers with this case is to inject PermSeal into
region occurring about 200 days from low formation permeability remained the high-permeability layers.
the beginning of production. This unswept, causing the oil rate to PermSeal will form a barrier that will
situation is graphically illustrated in remain low. prevent injected water from getting
Figure 4.21, which shows very high into the high-permeability layers.
Because the preferred path of the
water saturation in the high-perme- Instead, injected water will be
injected water, in this case, is the
ability layers. Figure 4.21 also shows diverted into the lower-permeability
already swept high-permeability
the water breakthrough at approxi- layers, sweeping these layers.
layers, conformance treatment
mately 200 days as manifested by the
DN002258
Figure 4.21–2-D QuikLook water saturation profile at water breakthrough
DN002259
Figure 4.22–QuikLook water saturation profiles four years after the conformance treatment
DN002260
Figure 4.23–QuikLook conformance fluid saturation profiles five days after treatment
DN002261
Figure 4.24–QuikLook and STARS oil, gas, and water production rates (treatment case)
DN002262
Figure 4.25–QuikLook oil, gas, and water production rates (with and without treatment)
Case 2–Water Coning of a section along the well showing both possible to the lowest perforations
Single Gas Producer the areal and vertical grid refinement while avoiding invasion of conform-
is presented in Figure 4.26-b. ance fluid into the producing interval
(H2Zero and PermSeal during treatment.
Solutions) The producing interval (perforations)
is placed at the very top of the forma- This well was produced at an initial
Case 2 involves a 640-acre dry gas tion so as to minimize water produc- gas rate of 10 MMcf/D. As shown in
reservoir with a producer located at tion, as shown by Figure 4.27-a. The Figure 4.28 (Page 4-21), water
the center. In this case, the effect of 5-ft injection zone, used for conform- coning began approximately two
H2Zero and PermSeal conformance ance treatment of this well, is shown months after the start of gas produc-
treatments on reservoir performance by the cross-sectional view in Figure tion. The comparison between
is examined. Figure 4.26-a shows the 4.27-b. This treatment interval was QuikLook and STARS water-
Cartesian grids used in the simulation placed almost 10 ft below the bottom production histories is quite good.
of the reservoir system. A cross- of the perforations–as close as However, following coning, the
DN002263
Figure 4.26–Cartesian grid system with locally refined grids used for Case 2 DN002264
Figure 4.27–Cross-sectional view of (a) producing interval and (b) injection interval for Case 2
DN002265
flowing bottomhole pressure) from
QuikLook and STARS match very
well. This match is illustrated in
Figure 4.29.
Figure 4.28–QuikLook and STARS gas and water production rates vs. To solve the coning problem,
time (base case) approximately 170 bbl of H2Zero was
used to treat this gas producer. Figure
4.30 (Page 4-22) presents the gas and
water production rates for both the
base and treated cases. The polymer
was injected into the formation two
months after the start of production.
This event appears as a discontinuity
in the water and gas rates, reflecting
the change in condition from produc-
tion water and gas to injection of
polymer and back to injection.
The graph clearly shows the effect
of H 2Zero on gas and water produc-
tion. The treatment increased both
gas rate and gas cumulative produc-
DN002266
DN002267
interval. In other words, within two
months of reservoir depletion, water
from the aquifer reached the perfo-
rated interval, resulting in early water
production in this well. Figure 4.30–QuikLook gas and water production rates vs. time after
H2Zero treatment
DN002268
Figure 4.31–QuikLook water saturation profiles (before and after the H2Zero treatment)
DN002269
case. In cases where reservoir was effective within a 28-ft diameter of the perforated interval (Figure
temperature is fairly high, some around the wellbore. In the case of the 4.33-c). This action reduced the
cooler fluid may need to be injected larger PermSeal jobs, Figure 4.33-b effectiveness of the treatment,
or circulated to reduce the reservoir shows an increase in the dimensions of indicating that the conformance
temperature enough to allow for the gel barrier, 32 ft and 60 ft in treatment design in such a situation
polymer injection without prema- diameter for the 300- and 960-bbl should not only include the type and
ture gelling. treatments, respectively. In the latter amount of conformance treatment to
case, however, the bulk of the be injected, but also where this
To investigate the effect of other
additional PermSeal (over the initial volume should be injected.
treatments, the same well was also
300 bbl) went to expand the barrier
treated with approximately 300 bbl of Gas and water production histories
thickness as a result of the relatively
PermSeal. Later, the well was treated for the two PermSeal treatments are
high vertical to horizontal permeabil-
with 960 bbl of PermSeal. Conform- plotted in Figure 4.34 (Page 4-25),
ity ratio. A lower permeability ratio
ance fluid distributions in the near- along with the base case. The larger
would cause the barrier to be thinner
wellbore area for the H2Zero and the treatment (960 bbl) considerably
and wider.
two PermSeal treatments are pre- improved reservoir performance; gas
sented in Figure 4.33. Another important observation is production increased significantly as
that the injected PermSeal plugged the water production rate decreased.
As seen in the previous H2Zero results
the formation around the lower part
given in Figure 4.31, the treatment
DN002270
Case 3–Water Coning of a is shown in Figure 4.37 (Page 4-27). previous case, increasing the size of
Black-Oil Producer For the base case, fluid predictions the conformance treatment could
by the QuikLook and STARS result in an unintended additional
(PermSeal Solution) simulators compare quite well except restriction near the perforated
This last case is similar to Case 2, that QuikLook predicts slightly interval. Similar to the previous
except that the reservoir fluid is a higher produced water than STARS, example, in reservoirs with high
black-oil system. In this example, the which also reflected on the slightly vertical permeability, the potential
initial reservoir pressure was 1,800 lower oil production rates. exists for some of the injected
psi. The reservoir was exploited conformance fluid to move up in the
Water saturation distribution inside
using a single well located at the formation and invade the original
the reservoir is shown in Figure 4.38
center of 160-acre drainage area, perforations.
(Page 4-27). Additionally, water
shown in Figure 4.35-a (Page 4-26).
coning is evident very early in the life Three conformance treatment
The well is produced under a con- of this oil well. Figures 4.38-b and options were considered in this case:
straint of 1,000 bbl/D maximum liquid 4.38-c show water saturation profiles 120 bbl, 300 bbl, and 1,000 bbl of
production rate. A vertical cross- just after the conformance treatment PermSeal conformance fluid. The
section showing the refined grids used (65 days) and roughly five years after effect of the injected volume was
in the near-wellbore area is presented the treatment, respectively. examined, along with the effect of
in Figure 4.35-b (Page 4-26). Figures the location of injection. In the first
As in the previous coning example,
4.36-a and 4.36-b (Page 4-26) show set of treatments the conformance
the water tends to bypass the gel
the locations of the producing and material was injected through
barrier over time. This phenomenon
treatment intervals, respectively. perforations in a 5-ft interval located
often calls for a large conformance
10 ft below the bottom of the
A summary of the simulation results treatment to ensure an extensive gel
producing interval.
for the base case (without treatment) barrier. However, as noted in the
DN002272
Figure 4.35–Cartesian grid system with local grid refinement used for Case 3
DN002273
Figure 4.36–Cross-sectional view of (a) producing interval and (b) injection interval for Case 3
DN002275
Fig. 4.38–QuikLook water saturation profiles (before and after conformance treatment)
Figure 4.39 shows a typical plot Conformance fluid distributions in the and tr6 correspond to treatment
from optimization runs based on near-wellbore area for these three volumes of 120 bbl, 300 bbl, and
job size. The extensions tr1, tr2, treatments with different treatment 1,000 bbl of PermSeal, respectively.
and tr3 represent treatment volumes volumes are presented in Figure 4.40
Figure 4.42 (Page 4-30) shows
of 120 bbl, 300 bbl, and 1,000 bbl, (Page 4-29). This figure shows only a
conformance fluid distributions in the
respectively. All the treatments limited gel barrier with a diameter of
near-wellbore area for these same
mitigated the coning problem in this approximately 20 feet for the 120-bbl
three treatments. The graphs illustrate
well. The 120-bbl conformance job conformance job.
the conclusions.
appears to be the best treatment for
Although the larger treatments result
this case. Figure 4.41 shows that increasing
in barriers with larger diameters, the
the volume of the injected conform-
Figure 4.39 also indicates that barriers were also larger in height and
ance fluid from 120 to 300 bbl
increasing the size of the conform- damaged part of the perforated
improved the performance of the
ance treatment results in worse oil interval. Therefore, the larger treat-
treatment. Increasing the volume to
and water production during the 5- ments did not perform as well as the
1,000 bbl still caused the well
year period. Although these results smaller treatment.
performance to decline, indicating
may initially appear to be illogical,
When the treatment was injected that for this reservoir injecting that
examination of the conformance fluid
15 ft below the producing perforated much volume merely 15 ft below the
distribution inside the reservoir helps
interval instead of just 5 ft, the producing perforated interval is not
clarify the results.
situation significantly changed as advised. Therefore, an optimized
shown in Figure 4.41 (Page 4-29). treatment size always exists for
In this figure, the extensions tr4, tr5, every reservoir situation.
DN002276
Figure 4.39–QuikLook oil and water production rates (with and without treatment)
DN002278
Figure 4.41–QuikLook oil and water production rates (treatment interval is 15 ft below bottom of original
perforations)
DN002279
Figure 4.42–QuikLook conformance fluid profiles (treatment interval is 15 ft below bottom of original
perforations)
RRF
100
PermTrol Service
PermTrol service is used in injection wells to treat high- 10 Chrome-crosslinked System
permeability streaks or poor injection profiles for Test 1
injection conditions to help ensure that the monomer Figure 5.1—Penetration depth of the H2Zero system.
placement is proportional to the amount of injection
water entering each zone. After placement, the well is
shut in to allow the fluid to polymerize. Once water
only provide a 3-ft seal, wasting large amounts of gel and
injection is resumed, the resulting high-viscosity polymer
money. However, the organic crosslinker in H2Zero
increases volumetric sweep efficiency by diverting
sealant remains in solution during injection, resulting in a
injection water from the most highly permeable zones to
strong seal throughout the entire treated interval.
previously unswept oil-bearing zones.
Temperature Stability. H2Zero is applicable in high-
The injection water following a PermTrol service
temperature formations. This system can be used at
treatment will slowly finger through the thick, water-
temperatures as high as 320°F (160°C). Chrome-
soluble PermTrol service polymer slug. This water
crosslinked systems have limited success at temperatures
becomes viscous as it solubilizes the polymer, yielding a
above 225°F (107°C).
more favorable water-oil mobility throughout the reser-
voir. The viscosified water behaves as a polymer fluid H2Zero consists of two components: a base polymer
treatment with the associated increase in volumetric and (HZ-10) and an organic crosslinker (HZ-20). HZ-10 is a
unit displacement efficiency. low-molecular-weight polymer solution that can be
crosslinked with either organic or metallic crosslinkers.
A typical PermTrol treatment volume ranges from 25 to
It is an acrylamide copolymer with enhanced thermal
30% of daily injection. The minimum recommended
stability that forms strong covalent bonds with the
PermTrol service treatment volume is 4,000 gal or a
system’s organic crosslinker, HZ-20.
volume sufficient to provide 5 ft of radial penetration in
the net pay interval, whichever is greater. Because both components of the H2Zero system are in
solution, they can be diluted in the mixing brine. There-
H2ZeroSM Service fore, system formulations can be batch-mixed or blended
on-the-fly. The two blended components are placed as a
H2ZeroSM is a crosslinkable polymer system that forms a single, low-viscosity fluid (3 to 35 cP) that is thermally
rigid gel capable of permanently sealing the target zone, activated to form a solid gel. H2Zero can be used for
effectively preventing water and gas flow. preventing or treating water-management problems or
The H2Zero system can provide the following benefits gas-management problems.
over chrome-crosslinked gel systems: H2Zero system treatment solutions contain HZ-10
Depth of Penetration. H2Zero penetrates deeper into polymer and HZ-20 crosslinker diluted in treatment
the formation than chrome-crosslinked gel systems water. The quality of the treatment design increases with
(Figure 5.1). At temperatures above 158°F (80°C) in the amount of available information, and treatement
matrices containing carbonate, chrome crosslinkers do designs are based on two interrelated parameters:
not remain in solution. As a result, the amount of polymer formulation and treatment volume. Volume
chrome-complexed gel placed may not provide a requirements are based on how far a gelant must enter
sufficient seal. For example, placing a volume of a into a formation and how much pore space it must fill.
chrome-crosslinked gel that should be sufficient for Polymer formulation depends on strength requirements
extending a 5-ft seal around the wellbore may actually and placement times.
Injectrol® Service column in the tubing tends to choke off oil flow from the
k1 through k3 lenses. Therefore, without an effective
Injectrol® service is an internally catalyzed silicate system correction treatment, such as Injectrol, large volumes of
that achieves intermediate depth-of-matrix penetration. oil can be left in place.
Injectrol is primarily used to decrease water-to-oil ratios
and water-injection profiles. The internal catalyst allows Typical reservoir conditions assist the effectiveness of a
operators to pump a low-viscosity solution (1.2 cp) into large-volume Injectrol treatment to correct the
the formation matrix before the material sets to a stiff gel. bottomwater production described. Usually, vertical
The stiff gel formed in the matrix seals the formation permeability is lower than horizontal permeability. As the
pores and diverts or blocks water production. distance away from the wellbore increases, less pressure
drop is available to drive the fluid vertically through the
This sealant can be used alone or with a tail-in cement zone. For example, at 40 ft from the perforations, 60% of
squeeze. When run with the cement, the Injectrol chemi- the pressure drop is lost. Therefore, Injectrol sealant is
cal reacts with the cement to become a gel, while the placed in the bottom few feet of the zone, extending 20 to
cement hydrates almost immediately. The resulting 40 ft from the casing to form a long-lasting barrier
cement has a high compressive strength near the wellbore against water production (Figure 5.4).
where the differential pressure is the highest.
Example
In the well shown in Figure 5.2, the oil is in lenses of
k1 < k2 < k3 < k4 Typical
varying permeability. Under waterdrive conditions, the k4 BOPD 50
lens produces the most volume (oil and some water). Out BWPD 180
of the total of 206 barrels of fluid per day (BFPD), 6 bbl
k1
is water, all produced from the k4 lens at the bottom. With
time, the water production in this well should increase.
The harder the well is drawn, the faster the water produc- k2
tion increases.
k3
In an advanced stage in the life of a waterdrive reservoir,
water production through the high-permeability lens
dominates (Figure 5.3). Because of its high mobility, k4
water is easily drawn up through the k4 lens. The in-
creased hydrostatic pressure from the water-dominated
Figure 5.3—Secondary oil production from a waterdrive
reservoir
k1
k1
k2
k2
k3
k3
k4
k4
5 10 20 30 40
Figure 5.2—Initial oil production from a waterdrive Figure 5.4—Water production corrected with a large-
reservoir volume Injectrol treatment
The Kw-FracSM service uses a special prepad treatment as Oxol II RPM Removal System
part of a Delta Frac treatment. A portion of the prepad fluid
contains two polymer components, KW-1 and KW-2, that If removal of an RPM is required, Oxol II is recom-
penetrate the created fracture-face matrix and react in situ mended. Oxol II treatments break down the backbone of
to form an RPM polymer. The RPM polymer will attach to the polymer, reducing the effect of the damage caused by
pore throats in the rock matrix in both sandstone and polymer blockages in the pore throats.
carbonate reservoirs. The reacted polymer has hydrophilic As a solid, Oxol II service offers several handling
polymer “branches” that create resistance to water flow in advantages. It is safer to work with than comparable
a high-water-saturation matrix. The apparent permeability concentrated liquid systems, and it has a shelf life of at
of the rock to oil or gas is affected very little, but the least one year.
matrix permeability to water is significantly reduced. The
system is compatible with CO2, H2S, and high-salinity Generally, operators run a tubular cleanup ahead of Oxol
brines after in-situ formation of the RPM polymer. II treatment to remove as much rust as possible. Oxol II
service spends on rust, resulting in lower effective
The Kw-Frac system has four primary benefits: concentrations downhole. Spacers between acids and
• Only minor changes to the Delta Frac system are Oxol II solutions are required. Treatment volumes can
required. range from 50 to 100 gal/ft of net pay. Oxol II cleaner is
generally slightly overdisplaced and left in place for 12 to
• No complicated procedures are required for 48 hours.
mixing materials on location that can affect the
performance of the polymer, such as crosslinking
agents or gelling agents.
Transition Zone
om001405
Figure 5.6—Under optimum treatment conditions, oil flows through a density-segregated portion of the reservoir that has low water
saturation. The treated region resists water flow into the fracture; oil and water flow through the reservoir together only in the
transition zone. This condition requires high vertical permeability
Squeeze Cementing
Many of the previously described chemical systems can
be enhanced with water-based or hydrocarbon-based
Low Sw
cement slurries as a tail-in to the chemical treatment. This
section describes basic cement slurry designs and
provides specific information about MOC/One diesel
cement slurry systems.
KW-Frac Treatment
om001406
Figure 5.8—Streaks of high horizontal permeability allow oil and water to flow through the matrix together. No vertical permeability
barriers are present. A Kw-Frac treatment would allow oil to flow to the wellbore, but an envelope of high water saturation would result
around the treated interval. Over time, lower total production would result
Low Sw
High Sw
High Horizontal
Permeability Streaks
Interwell Channeling
High Sw
Low Sw
High Sw
om001403
om001404
Figure 5.9—A high mobility ratio could result in channeling Figure 5.10—In this formation, water and oil are flowing through
from the injector to the producer, making this formation a poor the reservoir with little vertical permeability isolation. This
candidate for Kw-Frac treatment formation would be a poor candidate for a Kw-Frac treatment
formations), the pressure in the cement rapidly decreases. standard cement could be placed in the formation, and
This pressure decrease allows gas or brine to enter the water production did not decrease. A 4,000-gal, complexed
cement column, migrate upward, mix with the cement polyacrylamide treatment was then placed in the zone.
slurry, or form-flow channels for the brine or gas. Foam Again, water production remained the same. Eventually,
cement, Gas-Chek, GasStop, and thixotropic cements can production increased to 10 BOPD and 600 BWPD. At this
often effectively control this phenomenon. time, operators placed 2,500 lb of ultrafine cement in a
diesel slurry behind a 1,500-gal MOC-A treatment. After
Multiple Injection Zones two months, the well stabilized at 17 BOPD and only
200 BWPD.
Difficulties of squeezing more than one area with a single
job are mostly self-evident. However, treating multiple When MOC-A contains 20 gal/Mgal of hydrocarbon-
injection points or paths in a single zone is less under- carrying fluid, the resulting Micro Matrix cement slurry
stood. For instance, a reactive preflush or pad ahead of has a delayed gelation that allows it to be placed into
the slurry can result in complete blockage of one flow water-bearing formation fractures some distance from the
path, yet the following slurry meets very little added wellbore. The small size of the Micro Matrix cement also
restriction and no squeeze pressure is evident. allows for placement into near-wellbore microchannels
that may be communicating with adjacent water-bearing
This condition is best solved with either multiple-stage
formations.
squeeze jobs with a Flo-Chek® component preflush ahead
of each stage or treatment with a large volume of an
Injectrol® solution that reacts with the formation brine Conclusions
and has time-dependent gelation. Once a treatment design has been established, engineers
must determine the proper placement technique for
MOC/One Cement optimal treatment results. Chapter 6 provides informa-
tion regarding placement methods and mechanical
The one disadvantage of using DOC as a treatment
equipment.
method is that the standard cement’s larger particle size
(up to 120 µm) limits its penetration into the leak. As a
result, a job may have to be repeated several times before Bibliography
it is even marginally successful. Advances in Well Test Analysis, SPE Monograph Vol. 5,
In these situations, the use of the MOC/One service could Page 86.
provide more positive results. MOC/One consists of Avery, M.R. and Sutphen, J. A.: “Field Evaluation of
Micro Matrix cement, diesel or kerosene, and MOC-A Production Well Treatments in Kansas Using a
surfactant. MOC-A, when used at the recommended Crosslinked, Cationic Polymer Gel,” presented at the
concentration by volume of diesel, yields a densified 8th University of Kansas Tertiary Oil Recovery
slurry, which when contacted by water, delivers a low- Conference, Wichita, KS, March 8-9, 1989.
permeability slurry with high compressive strength.
Bonifay, W.E., Wheeler, J.G., and Garcia, J.G.:
With a maximum particle size of 10 µm or less, Micro “Cementitous Compositions and Method,” U. S.
Matrix cement can penetrate areas in the wellbore and Patent 5,071,484, Dec. 10, 1991.
surrounding formation that would otherwise be inacces-
sible. When this cement is used, MOC-A is necessary to Broussard, G.L., et al.: “Fluid Loss Control Using
prevent the immediate oil-wetting of the ultrafine Crosslinkable HEC in High-Permeability Offshore
cement. Like a standard DOC slurry, the ultrafine, Flexure Trend Completions,” paper SPE 19752
hydrocarbon-based slurry only sets when it contacts presented at the 1989 SPE Annual Technical
mobile water. Since ultrafine slurries have a delayed Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, TX,
gelation, however, they usually penetrate fractures more Oct. 8-11.
deeply before they set. The system can be used up to Clampitt, R. L., Al-Rikabi, H. M., and Dabbous, M. K.:
temperatures of 400°F (204°C). “A Hostile Environment Gelled Polymer for Well
For example, a well with an initial production of 10 Treatment and Profile Control,” paper SPE 25629
BOPD and 300 BWPD was first treated with hydrocar- presented at the 8th Middle East Oil Show and
bon-based, standard cement. Only 470 to 940 lb of Conference, Manama, Bahrain, April 3-6, 1993.
Kohler, N. et al.: “Weak Gel Formulations for Selective Murphey, J.R.: “Rapidly Dissolvable Silicates and
Control of Water Production in High-Permeability and Methods of Using the Same,” U. S. Patent No.
High-Temperature Wells,” paper SPE 25225 4,521,136 (1981).
presented at the 1993 Oilfield Chemicals International
Murphey, J., Young, W., and Oberpriller, F.: “Treatment
Symposium, New Orleans, March 2-5.
of Lost Circulation and Water Production Problems
Lange, K.R. and Weldes, H.H.: “Properties of Soluble with a Powdered Silicate,” CIM 82-33-46 presented at
Silicates,” Ind Eng Chem (April 1969) 61, 29-44. the 1982 33rd Annual Meeting, Calgary, Alberta,
June 6-9.
Maughmer, R.E. et al.: “Cement System Reduces Water
Production,” The American Oil and Gas Reporter Quarnstrom, T.F. and Cavender, T.W.: “Fluid Loss to
(May, 1992) 114. Formation Stopped Before Gravel Packing,” Technol-
ogy, Oil & Gas J (1989) Sept. 25, 101.
McKown, K. et al.: “Strategies for Obtaining Effective
Injectivity Patterns,” presented at the 1987 University Ramos, Joe, and Hower, Wayne F.: “Selective Plugging of
of Kansas Tertiary Oil Recovery Project, Lawrence, Underground Well Strata,” U. S. Patent 2,837,163
KS, March. (June 3, 1958).
McLaughlin, Homer C., Jewell, Robert L., and Colomb, Rensvold, R.F., Ayres, H.J., and Carlile, W.C.:
Glenn R.: “A Low Viscosity Solution For Injectivity “Recompletion of Well to Improve Water-Oil Ratio,”
Profile Change,” Paper No. 851-41-1 American paper SPE 5379 presented at the 45th Annual
Petroleum Institute Division of Production. California Regional Meeting, Ventura, CA,
April 2-4, 1975.
Meek, J.W. and Harris, K.L.: “Repairing Casing Leaks
Using Small-Particle-Size Cement,” paper SPE/IADC Smith, C.W., Pugh, T.D., and Bharat, M.: “A Special
21972, presented at the 1991 SPE/IADC Drilling Sealant Process for Subsurface Water,” presented at
Conference, Amsterdam, March 11-14. the 1978 Southwestern Petroleum Short Course,
Lubbock, TX, April 20-21.
Messenger, J.U.: “Lost Circulation Techniques Can Solve
Drilling Problems, Part 3,” Oil and Gas Journal Wood, F. et al.: “Converting a Producing Well to an
(1968) 66, No. 22, 94-98. Injection Well in the State of Kansas,” presented in
1987 at the University of Kansas Tertiary Oil
Messenger, J.U.: “Lost Circulation,” PennWell Publishing,
Recovery Project, Lawrence, KS, March.
16-18, 21-22, 33, 35, 56, 58, 60-63, 70-77.
1.0
ax
gal K-M
90 lb/M
ax
gal K-M
60 lb/M
0.1
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Flow Rate (gal/min)
Transient Placement
Radioactive
Compatible Fluid Wireline
When the injectivity profile and shut-in crossflow on
many wells are analyzed, it may become apparent that the
well could produce fluid during static conditions from
Oil Zone
one interval into another. The analysis may also indicate
that the well may be crossflowing at a particular rate from
Gamma Ray other intervals while injection is being performed at a
Logging Tool particular rate. Once a sufficiently high rate is estab-
Sealant lished, these wells may not show a crossflow.
Sealant
Bottomwater Production
Figure 6.5—Isoflow placement technique.
Bulk
Bulk Cement Cement
Control Valve
Bulk Cement
Inlet
Mixing
Water
H2 O
R/A
Densometer Recirculating
Fluid
Turbine Vent
Agitator Rubber
Splash
Sheath
Screen
Recirculating
Slurry to Centrifugal Pump Diffuser
Displacement Pumps
Based on the constant pD assumption, Eq. 7.1 can be reflects conditions after the conformance treatment. This
derived: slope should be greater than the slope of the first line,
mH1, which reflects pretreatment conditions.
Eq. 7.1
To evaluate injection performance before and after a
conformance treatment, engineers can estimate the ratio
of the new flow efficiency to the old flow efficiency:
Eq. 7.4
where
ptf = wellhead pressure in the injection well, psi
pe = reservoir pressure, psi
∆ρtw = hydrostatic pressure inside the wellbore, psi where
t = injection time, D Ef1 = old flow efficiency
Bo = formation volume factor, RB/STB Ef2 =new flow efficiency
µ = injected fluid viscosity, cp A successful conformance treatment results in a flow
s = skin factor efficiency ratio less than 1.
k = permeability, md The skin resulting from the treatment, s2, can be calcu-
h = formation height, ft lated from
Wi = the cumulative water injected, STB Eq. 7.5
When (pe - ∆ρtw)t is small compared to the integral, a plot
of this integral, commonly approximated by the summa-
tion, Σptf ∆t, vs. cumulative water injected, Wi, will result
in a straight line, the slope of which is given by
where s1 is the pretreatment skin value.
Eq. 7.2
A wellbore will have a higher skin value after a success-
ful conformance treatment. In addition to reflecting
changes in permeability around the wellbore, this higher
skin value also reflects changes in fluid properties and
For a radial flow pattern, Equation 7.2 changes to offset production, and the accumulation of skin damage
on the wellbore face.
Eq. 7.3
The value of k/µ used in Eqs. 7.1 through 7.3 and
Equation 7.5 is determined from conventional well tests,
such as a pressure buildup test.
where:
s1 = initial skin factor, where:
mH1 = slope of the best fit line, psi-D/bbl,
frr = residual resistance factor. (Note: Determine frr in
k = formation permeability, md, the laboratory using formation samples and the
h = height of open interval, ft, treatment polymer.)
Bo = formation volume factor of produced or
injected fluid, RB/STB, e. Determine the ratio of mH2 for the current point to
m = fluid viscosity, md, the initial value of mH2 for the treatment. If this
re = drainage radius, ft, and value equals or exceeds the slope ratio deter-
rw = wellbore radius, ft. mined for the step-rate test of Step 2 before the
required penetration radius is reached, go to the
2. Perform a step-rate test on the well, and plot the data flush/overdisplacement stage of the treatment.
as ptf (y axis) versus injection rate (x axis). Fluid Such a slope ratio change indicates fluid entry
entry into the lower permeability zones is indicated into the lower-permeability portion of the interval.
by changes in the slope of the plotted data. Calculate
the ratio of the slope of first straight line portion to Pressure-Transient Testing to Determine
the slope of the second.
Treatment Volume
The step-rate test can be performed during the
preflush stage of the treatment. Given any two of (1) treatment volume, (2) degree of
mobility reduction, or (3) resulting skin damage, the
3. During placement of the polymer, create a Hall plot
third factor can be calculated, if formation porosity and
for the treatment. For each data point taken,
height are known. This is seen through the following
a. Plot Σptfdt in psi-D (on the y axis) versus relationships.
cumulative injection volume in bbl (on the x
axis) on the graph. Assuming uniform invasion of the treatment polymer and
a penetration radius much greater than the wellbore
b. Determine the slope of the plot at the data point.
radius, the volume of polymer treatment injected, Vp, can
c. Using the slope determined in Step 3b and the be volumetrically related to penetration radius, rp, from:
slope and skin factor determined in Step 1,
calculate the current skin factor from: Eq. 7.9
Eq. 7.7
or, equivalently,
Eq. 7.10
where:
s2 = skin factor at current data point,
mH2 = slope at current data point, psi-D/bbl,
where φ is the formation porosity, and h is the height of
B = formation volume factor of polymer fluid, the treated formation. Skin factor, s, is related to the
RB/STB, and penetration radius and the mobility of the treated zone,
µ = viscosity of treating solution, cp. (k/µ)p by:
Coning and Cresting Calculations where the well completion is optimally placed so the
bottom of the completion is at:
This section presents several relatively simple methods
Eq. 7.16
for estimating oil and gas coning and cresting behavior
in vertical and horizontal wells. These methods cannot
replace a detailed numerical simulation of a specific
well in a specific reservoir but are much simpler to use
and provide some reasonable estimates of coning
behavior in several situations. The section includes Chaperon4 Method
methods for calculating (1) critical rate, i.e., the maxi-
This method, based on an approximate analytical solu-
mum rate a well can produce without water or gas
tion, assumes the perforated interval is negligibly small
breakthrough, (2) breakthrough time, i.e., the time the
compared to the reservoir height.
cone or crest breaks through to the well at a particular
production rate, and (3) water cut, i.e., the fraction of Eq. 7.17
production that is water at a particular point after
breakthrough occurs.
This section also includes methods for determining the
optimal vertical position of a horizontal well, i.e., the depth
water and gas break through simultaneously. For more The quantity qc* is given by1:
specific information on the methods, refer to the original
Eq. 7.18
works from which the correlations were taken. Joshi also
discusses many of the methods with example calculations.
Vertical Well Coning Calculations where the dimensionless drainage radius, reD, is given by:
Critical Rate Calculations Eq. 7.19
oped for one particular set of fluid and rock characteris- If the perforated interval extends to the top of the oil
tics, corrections must be applied to generalize them to zone, Eq. 7.24 simplifies to:
other conditions. The resulting correlation is:
Eq. 7.25
Eq. 7.20
Eq. 7.24
2. Determine dimensionless critical rates, q ocD
, for
several fractional well penetrations using Fig. 7.1.
3. Plot dimensionless critical rate as a function of well
penetration (Høyland, Papatzacos, and Skjaeveland
use a semilogarithmic scale).
4. Calculate fractional well penetration.
5. Interpolate in the plot produced in Step 3 to deter-
mine dimensionless critical rate.
Eq. 7.36
where the dimensionless critical rate is computed from:
Eq. 7.31
and:
Eq. 7.37
Comparisons or:
Muskat and Wycoff’s analytical solution17 is generally Eq. 7.40: Bournazel and Jeanson
agreed to give too high critical rates, 6,10,15 a conclusion
extended to the Chaney et al. method.5 In contrast, Meyer
and Garder’s method2 was found to underestimate critical
rates,1,7,10 a conclusion extended to Pirson’s method.3
Schols’ method7 also underestimates critical rate when 3. Use the dimensionless breakthrough time and the
compared to the Høyland et al. or Wheatley methods,1,10,15 following equation to calculate, tbt, the time of
but not by as much. Høyland et al. found their method breakthrough in days:
agrees very closely with the analytical solution of Eq. 7.41
Wheatley for well penetrations in the rD interval from 2 to
50. Wheatley’s theory gives slightly higher values at the
upper end of the interval and lower values at the lower
end. The trade-off between these two methods is using a
graph or performing iterative calculations. The Guo and where:
Lee method12 differs from the others in that critical rates
approach zero as the fractional well penetration goes to Eq. 7.42a: Sobocinski and Cornelius
zero, which suggests an optimal penetration depth exists.
The Chappelear and Hirasaki8,9 and Yang and Watten-
barger11 methods were developed primarily for use in
large-scale reservoir simulators, but they can make coning Eq. 7.42b: Bournazel and Jeanson
calculations for a single well. No comparisons have been
found in the literature for these particular models.
The breakthrough time and the dimensionless break-
Breakthrough Time Calculations through time are infinite if the denominator of the
relationship between dimensionless breakthrough time
Sobocinski and Cornelius13 and Bournazel and dimensionless cone height is infinite, a condition met
and Jeanson14 Methods for the Sobocinski and Cornelius correlation if z = 3.5
Sobocinski and Cornelius developed a breakthrough time and for the Bournazel and Jeanson correlation if z = 4.3.
correlation based on a combination of experimental work By plugging these values of z into Eq. 7.38, the definition
and a computer finite difference model. Bournazel and of z, and solving that equation for qo, the critical rates
Jeanson’s later work is based solely on laboratory results. predicted by these methods are:
1. Calculate the dimensionless cone height, z, according to: Eq. 7.43: Sobocinski and Cornelius
Eq. 7.38
and:
2. Calculate the dimensionless breakthrough time from Eq. 7.44: Bournazel and Jeanson
either of the following:
Eq. 7.39: Sobocinski and Cornelius
After breakthrough:
Eq. 7.63
3. Calculate the limiting water cut for the reservoir from:
Eq. 7.56
where:
Eq. 7.64
where:
Eq. 7.57
Eq. 7.58
and
Eq. 7.65
and
Eq. 7.59
where1:
Eq. 7.69
where:
Eq. 7.87
The second method considered gravity equilibrium within
the cone, giving the relationship:
Eq. 7.83
5. Calculate the actual breakthrough time from Eq. 7.81
using ∆ρog for ∆ρ.
Yang and Wattenbarger11 Method (no-flow
outer boundary)
P Eq. 7.88
The two methods give very similar results for q D
³ 1.
Comparison with a numerical simulator shows the
analytical solution has reasonable accuracy for all gas
P
viscosities with q D
£ 0.3. For gas viscosities greater than where:
Eq. 7.89
P
0.15, reasonable accuracy is expected with q D
£ 0.6.
H03349.v1 12/02
© 2002 Halliburton
All Rights Reserved
Printed in U.S.A. Produced by Halliburton Communications