SPE163346

Unconventional Use of Production Logging Technology

S. Chaudhary, M.S. Murty, S. Bora, Y. Chandra, P.P. Singh, R.K. Pandey, U.C. Bhatt ONGC Limited, V. Verma,
K. Ogra, A. Pandey, S. Gupta, R. Sinha Schlumberger

Copyright 2012, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE International Petroleum Conference and Exhibition held in Kuwait City, Kuwait, 1012 December 2012.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have not been
reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to
reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
Production logging has been traditionally used for zonal quantification of layers for identification of most obvious workover
for water shut off, acid wash or reperforation candidate identification. The basic sensors help in making some of the critical
decisions for immediate gain in oil production or reduction in water cut. However, this technology can be used in a non
standard format for various purposes including multilayer testing to obtain layer wise permeability and skin factor using
pressure and flow rate transient data acquired with production logging tools. This is very crucial and complements the present
wellbore flow phenomenon to better understand relative zonal performance of well at any stage of its production. In addition,
production logging along with the pulsed neutron technique is very crucial to evaluate the complete wellbore phenomenon,
understand some of the behind the production string fluid flow behaviors. Another major concern in low flow rate wells is
recirculation, causing fall back of heavier water phase while lighter phase like oil and gas move upwards. This well bore
phenomenon renders the quantification from production logging string, and this in extension also prevents any
comprehensive workover decisions on the well because of the risk involved. Oil rate computation from hydrocarbon bubble
rates becomes very critical in such scenarios to bring out the most optimal results and enhance confidence in workover
decisions. Another key concern in any reservoir is to evaluate the productivity Index; this is even more critical once the field
is on production. It is essential to determine the performance of various commingled layers and reform the Injector producer
strategy for pressure support or immediate workover. Selective Inflow performance is a technique used to identify the
Productivity index of various layers in a commingled situation. This paper elaborates on various non conventional uses of
production logging from the western offshore India.
Introduction
Brown field management has been a key focus in the western offshore region. Over the last decade cased hole production
logging for evaluation of reservoir phenomenon has been the backbone of workover operation in western offshore India.
Besides the usual operations production logging has been pivotal in determining various important parameters for field
development. Various unconventional uses require understanding of the tool physics and limitation. Advanced generation of
production logging tools not only provide additional information in terms of wellbore flow fractions, slippage velocities and
complex flow regimes but their basic outputs can also be utilized in variety of applications for reservoir evaluation and
wellbore flow monitoring. Following sections describe several case studies describing unconventional usage of production
logging outcomes.
Unconventional Applications of Production Logging
Case Study 1: Selective Inflow Performance
Field wise production logging has always been an excellent source to evaluate the open hole results and suggest some
immediate workover to optimise the production. Selective Inflow performance is new variation in the already existing
technique used to identify the Productivity index of various layers in a commingled situation. This operation can provide us
with the openhole flow potential of the well and thus help in mapping the flow profile in the reservoir. A multichoke
production logging survey usually covering two to three choke sizes is performed and flow profiling for each survey is done.

SPE163346

Based on the inputs from pressure gague and flow profile, a plot of wellbore flowing pressure vs flow rate for each individual
layer can be created which is known as Selective Inflow Performace (SIP) plot. Based on the extrapolation similar to usual IP
plots for only liquid flow (very low gas), one can calculate formation pressure and absolute openhole flow potential for every
layer. This also incorporates the effects of cross flow where calculated reservoir pressures indicate differential depletion and
clearly mark the reason for same. As shown in the Figure-1, two choke production logging where flow profiling across
various payzones was done. Changing choke size had a clear effect on individual zone flow rate and cumulatively on the total
production.

Figure 1: Multiple production logging surveys carried out at 48/64 and 40/64 choke size.

As shown in SIP plots created for Pay-IIA, Pay-IIB and Pay-IV, layer pressures are derived by utilizing flow pressures
against payzones (preferably middle of the perforations) and total flow rate against production.

Figure 2: Selective Inflow Performance Curves for various layers using multiple choke logging.

Table 1: Evaluation of productivity index, AOFP and reservoir pressure

63(

Certain limitations and process constraints are associated with this method as follows:
1.

SIP provides valid estimates for reservoir pressure and AOFP in very low GOR wells, single phase fluid flow.

2.

Accurate determination of flow rate is a key governing factor for reservoir pressure estimation. Hence, spinner
accuracy has to be kept in mind while coverting spinner rps into velocity.

3.

The accuracy of SIP is directly proportional to the potential of producing layer. Higher is the production, better will
be accuracy. SIP cannot be created for an inactive layer.

4.

Wellbore issues like scale deposition and blocked perforations cause reduction in the overall performance from the
layer. This may result to incorrect estimation of formation pressure and AOFP.

An intergrated reservoir model was developed based on production profiling and reservoir pressure estimates. As shown in
the Figure-3, a field wide representation of fluid movements within the reservoir is shown which was utilized further to
analyze layer performance of producer/injector wells.

Figure 3: Field wise Production logging analysis helps optimize the reservoir deliverability; Injection Vs production behaviours of
wells

Some of the key aspects discovered were identifying the flow dynamics for different subunits in the reservoir, understanding
of the current water injection profile in the field and improve on the current injection system.
Case Study 2: Bubble flow rate
Various advanced sensors for fluid hold-up estimation have been developed in the past decades in order to accurately
differentiate hydrocarbon from water and further gas from liquid. These sensors provide not only accurate wellbore fluid
holdups under flowing and shut-in condition but also scan the wellbore to provide type of flow regime present. This can be
done by measuring the bubble count of hydrocarbon flow. Apart from conventional use of bubble count for qualitative
interpretation, a novice method has been developed to quantify oil flow rate from bubble count measurement.The bubble
flow rate model is valid as long as the bubble diameter is not a function of mixture velocity. All bubbles are assumed to be

63(

moving parallel to the pipe axis and towards the surface. The inputs are provided by the electrical probe measurement except
for the bubble diameter which is determined empirically by matching the observed surface oil rate to the downhole rates.

Figure 4: Electrical holdup probe helps distinguish between

hydrocarbon and water

Figure 5: Equation Involving of hydrocarbon rate

As shown in the Figure-4, electrical probes detect hydrocarbon bubbles at their electrodes which in turn are used in the
equation to quantify total flow rate. A certain nominal bubble size has to be assumed in order to do the computation. The
following example illustrates a real field example where this method was utilized for oil flow rate computation.
Production logging was performed in the well- ABC. Due to recirculation effects the quantification of zonal rates couldnt be
performed. However, with the availability of electrical holdup probes, hydrocarbon entry (oil in this case) could be
determined (formation gas was assumed to be negligible); this information can be pivotal for the workover decision in a
typical brown field environment.

BOPD

Figure 6: Concept of bubble rate used for oil rate quantification

Case Study 3: Multi Layered Testing (MLT)

Layered formations are the norm rather than exception among oil and gas reservoirs. However when several reservoir layers
in a well are produced together, the normal pressure transient testing methods are unable to determine the key reservoir
properties like permeability and skin of individual layers. Accurate determination of the reservoir dynamic properties is very
important to understand the reservoir performance. This information becomes important in both phase of a field development,
i.e. exploration and development. During exploration phase accurate reservoir characterization is very important for optimum
reservoir management while during development phase this information is needed for reservoir model calibration, well

63(

productivity prediction, low productivity diagnosis and remedial action selection.

Method of MLT
There are two main testing techniques for layered reservoirs: Selective Inflow Performance (SIP) tests which are performed
under stabilized conditions, and multilayered testing (MLT) which is carried out under transient conditions. MLT differs
from SIP tests, in that in addition to acquiring flow profiles downhole pressures and flow rates are simultaneously recorded
versus time during each flow period (between surface rate changes- See Fig 7). The production logging tools (PLT) on
wireline or any other conveyance method can be used to acquire downhole flow rates and pressure data, which is one of the
key unconventional uses of PLT.

Figure 7: Multi layer testing

Figure 8: Workflow used for interpretation

During a MLT the well is flowed at a series of different (wellhead) rates with the pressure and flow transient data measured
at the top of a different layer unit in each period. By simultaneously measuring the downhole flow and pressure changes, we
are effectively isolating any effects of the upper reservoir layers. Although the surface flow rates may be changing and cross
flow between layers could be taking place, they do not interfere with the fundamental relationship between pressure and
sandface flow rates.
Interpretation Method
Various methods of interpretation of MLT data has been developed over the years, namely
1. Sequential Interpretation
2. Simultaneous Interpretation
3. Numerical Simulation with Automated History Matching
Each of the methods can be suitable for a particular situation and in the conditions in which dataset is acquired. In MLT, we
adopt a more flexible way of interpretation and combine each of the methods as required.
Offshore gas reservoirs in XY field are high permeability, unconsolidated, multilayered sands separated by shale. Wells are
completed as commingled frac-pack gravel.
The well, XY-Z was underperforming and it was required to investigate into the reasons behind the particular behavior.
Common PL can quantify zonal contribution and multi-choke PL can estimate initial reservoir pressure and inflow
performance of the zones. But all these techniques are unable to exactly determine the reservoir properties namely
permeability and skin.
The well, XY-Z was completed as commingled producer from three zones, all frac-packed. In this scenario, the skin caused
because of gravel packing is also an added uncertainty. Pulsed Neutron technology was used for gravel pack evaluation, but it
could not evaluate the lower zone because of operational constraints.
MLT was selected as the best suited method for evaluating two different zones. Proper job planning was done to integrate
MLT with usual PLT operations. Flow profiling at 3 chokes was done and pressure transient data was acquired at two depth
stations. Because the data was acquired using fixed chokes and the well has to be shut for changing chokes, initial estimate
from SIP, followed by conventional well test analysis and numerical methods of history matching was used to evaluate
reservoir properties (Refer to Fig 8).

63(

Results and Discussions

The MLT in XY-Z revealed sub optimal performance of lower zone in the well. This information went into the reservoir
model and was also useful in decision about future completion practices in the field.
Intervals
m MD

Analytical
Permeabilty,
Skin
mD

XX68.5-XX77.5
3068.5-3077.5
XX15.5-XX34.0
3115.5-3134.0
XX95.0-XX04.2
3195.0-3204.2

727

31

100

100

Numerical
AOFP, Permeabilty,
Skin
MMm3/d
mD
2.5

950

30

50

120

AOFP,
MMm3/d
1.6

Table 2: Results from MLT analysis

Case Study 3: GWC Estimation for future exploration well planning

Determination of layer wise fluid contribution in a multilayered reservoir does not only provide usual answers like amount
and type of fluids flowing into the well, but also opens the pathways for understanding the behaviour of whole reservoir,
supported by holistic multiwell correlation. Based on production logging analysis done in three development wells X, Y and
Z located in a prolific gas field in Mumbai offshore, a crude estimate of gas water contact was done. As shown in Fig.-9,
three wells were completed in two distinct formations P and Q. Production logging results indicated gas production mostly
from P formation while water breakthrough was observed at top of Q formation. Presence of crossflow also suggested a
pressure decline in the field over years of production. TVDs of zones with water production clearly located current depth of
GWC and also suggested that a uniform upward movement of GWC by 50-67m had taken place over the years as compared
to initial GWC estimates (Refer to Fig.-9).
In the view of observations made with deteriorating pressure trend study and production logging analysis, the exploratory
locations in the same field were decided and released for further drilling. Also, based on production logging results, reprocessing of all exploratory wells was done in order to eliminate any anomaly in assesed openhole logs. Detailed production
testing analysis was recommended, along with usual stimulation jobs.

Well-1
Well-2
Well-3
P

GWC

Q Top
Q Top

GWC

GWC

Figure-9: Multiwell correlation based on production logging analysis for identification of GWC

Q Top

63(

Conclusion
Production Logging as described has ability to perform beyond the usual outputs of zonal quantification. It with the presence
of key technology and robust job planning can bring information inevitable for reservoir management and workover.
In conclusion production logging can be useful in determining hydrocarbon entry and effectively compute the rates, selective
inflow performance of individual layers in a commingled system; it also allows an estimate of permeability and skin in the
multi-layer zones at any stage of the wellbore. Multi well correlation of production logging results helps in understanding
reservoir behaviour and future well placement strategies. Physical signatures of various formation fluids shown by production
logging analysis also allows fine tuning of uncertain log response to provide real picture of reservoir.
Acknowledement
The authors wish to thank Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. for permission to publish this work.
References
Halford F.R, Mackay.S, Bernett.S, Schlumberger, (1996), A production logging measurement of distributed local phase
holdup, Paper SPE 35556 presented at European Production Operations and Exhibition held in Stavanger, Norway, 16-17
April 1996.
Hill A.D, Production logging Theoretical and Interpretative Elements 1990, SPE Monograph series Vol .14
Brian Wood and Ray Campbell, Gas Well Performance Evaluation and Stimulation Planning using the Production
Combination Tool, Transactions of the 3rd European Formation Evaluation Symposium, London, October 1974, paper K.
Schlumberger Well Evaluation Conference WEC Algerie, Chapter 9: 2-l 0 (Paris: Services Techniques Schlumberger,
December 1979). S. P. Noik, SIP (Selective Inflow Performance): Informations sur chaque intervalle et sur Iensemble dun
puits producteur, Actes du Quatribme Colloque Annuel de Diagraphies, Seventh European Logging Symposium
Transactions, SAID, Paris, October 21-23, 1981, paper 31.
Andrew Colin Whittaker, Christopher Lenn, Schlumberger, Improving Multiphase Production Logging Answers: A New
Multiphase Spinner Response Model for Gas-Liquid Flows SPWLA 46th Annual Logging Symposium, 2005