Production Logging Techniques and Interpretation of Resulted Figure: A Case Study of A Gas Field Iran
Production Logging Techniques and Interpretation of Resulted Figure: A Case Study of A Gas Field Iran
Production Logging Techniques and Interpretation of Resulted Figure: A Case Study of A Gas Field Iran
net/publication/303517968
CITATIONS READS
4 13,087
3 authors, including:
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
INTEGRATED GEOMECHANICAL MODELING OF CASING FAILURE; From Lab to Simulation View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Mahmood Parhizgar on 25 May 2016.
Abstract:
Traditionally, logging tools have been used to characterize formation and wellbore prior to
the completion. However, studying and characterizing the reservoir during production can
play a vital role in improving reservoir performance and production optimization.
Production logging techniques are developed to assist with allocation of production to
different zones as well as and diagnosing the production problems such as leaks or cross
flow. This paper provides a review of such technology and tools used to conduct the
production logging aiming at providing readers with a comprehensive understanding of
production logging tools and sensors. In addition, in order to provide a better understanding
of interpretation techniques and applications analysis of different cases of production logs
is provided. Specifically, production log data from a gas field in Iran has been reviewed,
analyzed and interpreted. The result of the study shows the importance of proper analysis
and interpretation of such logs.
Key words: PLT, Spinner, GHOST, Flowview probes, Jetting effect, Cross flow
Introduction:
Reservoir management and production optimization strongly relies on gathering
accurate reservoir and fluid data. Such characterization can be done by means of
different tools or techniques. An example of such methods is the production logging
technique. Production logs are simply a wide range of sensors, measurement tools
that in combination with proper methods of analyzing can be used reservoir
management team including drilling engineers, production engineers and reservoir
engineers. [5]
Production logs were first used in 1930's for measuring the temperature of wells but
over the decades other measurements such as pressure, fluid density and hold up
were developed.[5]
Production Log’s Application:
In general, production log’s application can be divided into the following two major
categories: [5]
a)Performance evaluation: Evaluation of the well performance according to the
dynamics of the reservoir.
b)Diagnostic applications: Analyzing the mechanical problems of the well such as
casing leak and etc.
In addition, other more recent application of such logging tool consists of the
following: Evaluating the integrity of well completions
Locating the the zones that produce water
Calibration of the simulation models of reservoir
Stating the Flow regime at the downhole
1. Production logging may be used in new wells in order to evaluate the initia l
production and to survey the integrity of completion method applied to the well.
For instance it shows whether there is a flow behind a casing or not.
2. A well with sudden or drastic reduction of production or increase in GOR or water
cut is a good candidate for the production log.
3. PL should be run periodically to determine problems such as gas or water coning
or fingering before serious reduction in production occurs.
4. In injectors, knowledge and control of injected fluids entry points to the formatio n,
plays a critical role in whether the injection project will be successful or not. Such
information can be used in order to prevent flooding of undesired layers or locations
that may lead to serious problems such as casing annulus cross flow, creation of
3
unswept and trapped hydro carbonites and water-wet damaged formatio ns.
Therefore, production logging technique can be applied to the injection wells in
order to achive a better understanding of the injection process and its potential
issues.
(Fig. 1) usually fullbore spinners don't sweep more than 40% of cross section of
casing and also don't have a progressive pitch. [1]
Flow scanner mini spinner is used in Horizontal Wells. This spinner records the velocity
on vertical axis of pipe (Fig. 3).[1]
2. Gradiomanometer Measurement:
This tool determines the fluid density inside tubing and casing pipes which is
currently is used by Schlumberger Company based on Bellows Method that
measures the density of fluid in the pipe by upper bellows but with low
accuracy(Fig.4). [1]
5
4. Dielectric Hold-up:
This tool is used for determining the ratio of various fluids in cross section of tubing
and casing pipes. This tool has been in use by Schlumberger Company recently but
is known as a hold up meter. Figure .12 shows the pass in the system. More
advanced tools use single or multiple tools which have an oscillator that with
change in electrical Capacity, create frequency.(Fig.12). [6]
Inordinate gas output: inordinate gas production delimitates oil flow movement
and therefore reduction in oil production which makes the whole process
uneconomical. So Production logging is run to determine the location in the well
where gas is leaked so the production engineer can determine a new location for
detouring the perforations or gas-free oil production. [6]
These curves heavily show us that we expect a two phase oil-water current. Change
in scales of sensor curves of Density, Pressure, Temperature and Capacitance has
expanded and is shown diminished. Density scale is between 1-1.4 g/cc which is
not of a high quality and it's hard to determine the small changes. Temperature
sensor shows us the point of inflow and gamma ray curve sensor shows us the
location with high radio activity associated with water output. Spinner curve shows
the fluid velocity in well which can determine the layers with high permeability. In
this case in depth of 11860 feet that we have high permeability,there is jetting effect.
As you can see the location of jetting effect is shown on the spinner curve. [6]
Commentary:
Two figures below are for production logs of one of the well in gas field Iran, one in
Shut-in condition and the other in flowing condition. This well is perforated in 5
intervals; 2700-2709, 2720-2748, 2815-3004, 3035-3083 and 3101.5-3111 meters
which are visible in the chart. Also noted that positive flow rate is flow from reservoir
to the well and negative flow rate is flow from well to the reservoir.
Figure 17 is for Shut-in condition with and as for figure it’s understood that we have
significant cross flow happening in the two lower intervals and injected to the three
upper intervals. Most of flow is injected to interval of 2700-2709m.
Figure 18 is for flowing condition. As for the figure it's understood that most of the
gas output is from Interval of 3016-3083 meters. Water is observed in the system
in interval of 2905-2995m. (This case can be detected by increase in water hold up
and therefore increase in density). Also there is cross flow in flowing. condition but
its amount is insignificant compared to the output. (In intervals of 2720-2748 and
2815-3004 meters.)
15
Conclusion:
In this paper Some PL techniques, measurement tools and also interpretation of log
that had been run. Moreover, data of one of the gas well of gas field Iran have been
run and interpretated it.
Some of the results of different parts of paper have been discussed below:
It is common that we run three passes in PL program with speeds of 30, 60 and
90ft/min. If the interval of well logging is so long, speeds(downwad and upward
speeds) will be increased. In addition, one of the passes can be negligible in order
to reduce logging costs.( two passes with speeds of 60 and 120 ft/min)
Cause of running passes for several times in an upward and downward way is
spinner calibration. Only one downward passes adequate to calculate pressure,
temperature, density, probe holdup, GR and so forth.
It is probable that one of the reason of logging in shut-in condition is cross flow
detection. We can conclude it by considering significant cross flow in comparing
of figures 17 and 18.
According to figures 17 and 18, it is possible to conclude that none of interval
perforations don’t need to be closed. It is distinguished from no observation of
significant water cut.
References:
1. Colin WH(2013).Fundamentals of Production Logging,Schlumberger,Houston,Texas.
2. Production Logging Data(2008),Gas field of Iran.
3. Whittaker,A.C.,Lenn,C.P,and Hammond ,P.:”Improving M ultiphase Production Logging answers with the
M ass-Fraction Spinner Response M odel for gas-liquid flows,” petrophysics (Aprill 2006) 47 ,No.2,120-
128;originally presented at the SPWLA 46 th annual logging Symposium, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA (June
26-29,2005), paper NN.
4. Jackson,R.R,Ayan,C.,and Wakefield,J.;’Flow Diagnosis and Production Evaluation in High
Flowrate Oil-Watr Procedures Using optical –Fibre Holdup Sensors,” paper SPE 71727
presented at the SPE annual technical conference and exhibition , New Orleans , Louisiana, USA
(September 30 –October 3, 2001).
5. M akerji PA. (2013) . principles of production logging,Schlumberger.
6. Standard length and short compact production logging tool string user guide, Sondex (2006)
7. Bamforth ST, Besson CH, Stephenson, Whittaker Co., Brown GE. (1996), Revitalizing Production logging.
Cambridge, England