SPE

Society of Petroleum Engineer'S

SPE 14163
Gravel-Pack Logging Experiments
by S.S. Sollee, Chevron Oil Field Research Co.
SPE Member

Copyright 1985, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 60th Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition of the Society of Petroleum Engineers held in Las
Vegas, NV September 22-25, 1985.
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 ?f the paper, as presented, have no~ been reviewed ~~the Society ~f Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the
author(s). The matenal, ~s presented.' does not ~ec~ssanly. reflect any p~s1t1on of ~he Soc1ety of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers
pres?nted at SPE meetmgs are subject to publication rev1?w by Ed1tonal Committees of the Society of Petroleum Engineers. Permission to copy is
restncted to an abstract ~f not more than 3.00 wor~s. l~lustratlons may not be copied. The abstract should contain conspicuous acknowledgment of where
and by whom the paper IS presented. Wnte Publications Manager, SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836. Telex, 730989 SPEDAL.

ABSTRACT
Gravel pack logging experiments were conducted in a
full-scale test well to define the factors that
affect tool response and to determine if quantitative log interpretation is practical. Gamma-gamma
and compensated neutron gravel pack logging tools
from five major service companies were used in the
study, Results show that these logging tools are
sensitive to varying conditions in the gravel pack
environment.
Quantitative interpretation of the
amount of gravel in the pack is possible as long as
borehole conditions such as casing size, liner
configuration and wellbore fluid density are known,
INTRODUCTION
A gravel pack log provides information about the
quality of a gravel pack. The log is typically run
immediately upon completion of pack placement to
determine if there is sufficient coverage of the
liner with gravel.
The log is also used to a
lesser extent to identify the source of subsequent
sand control problems in gravel packed wells.
The interpreter of a gravel pack log must ultimately decide if the pack is competent and producible or if an attempt at repair should be made,
This is not always a simple task. Experience with
these logs indicates that the gravel top is usually
easy to locate but that other more subtle changes
in pack condition such as small voids or pack
porosity variations are more difficult to analyze
quantitatively. Accurate interpretation of subtle
pack quality changes requires that tool response
can be identified as coming from the gravel pack
itself as opposed to a change in borehole conditions (liner type, hole size, etc). Also required
is knowledge of the quantitative response characteristics of the various gravel pack logg:i.ng tools
about which little has been published,l-4
References and illustrations at end of paper.

This study was conducted to more clearly define

the factors that affect gravel pack logging tool
response and to determine if quantitative interpretation is practical.
A full-scale model of a
gravel packed completion was used to study tool
sensitivity to the following conditions:
1.

Percent gravel pack around the liner,

2.

Small pack porosity variations (due to change

in grain size distribution).

3.

Small voids.

4.

Casing size.

5.

Liner type.

6.

Wellbore fluid density.

Logging in the test ell was performed by five

major service companies using commercially available gravel pack logging tools.
GRAVEL PACK LOGGING TOOLS
The commercial logging tools used to evaluate
gravel packs are the gamma-gamma and compensated
neutron. Current industry usage of the tools is
evenly divided.
Of the five service companies
that participated in the study, two offer the
gamma-gamma tool only, one offers the compensated
neutron tool only, and two offer both tools for
gravel pack evaluation.
The gamma-gamma and compensated neutron tools
arrive at pack quality in much different ways.
The gamma-gamma tool is affected by the bulk
density of the material in the gravel pack region.
The tool uses a. gamma ray source and single
detector. The count rate of returning gamma rays
at the detector is a function of the bulk density

GRAVEL PACK LOGGING EXPERIMENTS

of the material through which the gamma rays have

passed.
Count rat~ should be high in areas of
lower density/poor, pack and low in areas of higher
density/good pack.
The compensated neutron tool uses a neutron source
and two detectors. The tool is mainly affected by
the presence of hydrogen in the investigated
environment as neutrons will lose much more energy
in collisions with hydrogen than with other elements.
Since the pore space in a gravel pack is
filled with hydrogen rich fluids, the compensated
neutron tool is sensitive to changes in fluid
filled porosity.
Near and far detectors are used
on the compensated neutron tool to partly eliminate
the effect of hole conditions.
For gravel pack
evaluation, the curves from the two detectors are
scaled to overlay in areas of low porosity/good
pack with areas of high porosity/poor pack indicated by a shift of the curves, especially the near
detector curve, towards decreasing count rate.
It is important to remember that both types of
gravel pack logging tools respond to the entire,
gravel pack environment which includes the wellbore
fluid, liner, pack gravel and. casing.
The compensated neutron tool is additionally affected by
reservoir lithology due to the tool's depth of
investigation.
Significant variations in any part
of the investigated environment should be reflected
on the log.
TEST WELL DESCRIPTION
The goal in constructing the test well for the
logging experiments was to closely simulate conditions in an actual gravel packed completion.
The
size of the test well had to be full-scale so that
commercial logging tools could be run.
Figure 1 is a diagram of the full-scale test well
used in the study.
Sixty feet of 5 in. liner was
gravel packed inside of a combination string of
11 in. I.D. (lower 40 ft) and 12.4 in . I.D. (upper
20 ft) casing.
Surrounding the casing was sand
saturated
with
fresh
water
to
simulate
an
unconsolidated sandstone formation.
Two different gravel pack configurations were used
in the test well, each configuration simulating a
different set of gravel pack and borehole conditions.
In Configuration I shown in Figure 2, tool
response to a combination string of blank and
screen liner was investigated in the lower 40 ft of
the well. In the upper 20 ft, plexiglass fins were
attached to slotted liner which divided the wellbore into quadrants. The quadrants could be filled
with gravel to simulate 0, 25, 50, 75 and 100% pack
around the liner.
Logging was done with fresh
water, 8.5 lb/gal KCl and 9.0 lb/gal NaCl in the
wellbore.
In Configuration II shown in Figure 3, gravel and
sand with different grain size distributions (and
porosity) were layered in the bottom 40 ft of the
well. In the top 20 ft of the well, two thin voids
were placed within the pack using tire inner tubes
inflated with fresh water. The wellbore was filled
with fresh water during logging of Configuration II.
The gravel pack configurations were logged with the
liner assembly in place both before and after

SPE 14163

gravel packing. The service companies logged each

pack configuration in succession so that the test
well conditions would be the same for all companies.
Most of the logging passes in the test
well were run at 15 to 30 ft/min cable speed.
Tools were
calibrated according
to
standard
logging practice.

TEST RESULTS
Each of the two types of logging tools run in the
test well had very similar response characteristics even though individual service company tool
designs
differ.
Test
results
are
therefore
discussed in terms of gamma-gamma and compensated
neutron tool response to the particular gravel
pack environment.

Percent Pack
The plexiglass finned section of Configuration I
was filled with 0, 25, 50, 7 5 and 100% pack to
determine if tool response to the amount of gravel
around
the
liner
is
quantitative.
Figure 4
presents successive logging passes through the 0
to 100% gravel filled quadrants using a centralized gamma-gamma tool.
As the amount of pack
around the liner was increased, the count rate at
the detector decreased.
The relationship between
count rate and percent pack for centralized tools
was observed to be linear as shown in Figure 5.
Note that there is very little scatter of the
experimental data.
Gamma-gamma tool response was erratic when run
uncentralized as illustrated in Figures 6 and 7.
The count rates for the 50% and 7 5% packed sections are very similar in the example log shown.
Due to the shallow depth of investigation of the
gamma-gamma tool, it may be overly influenced by
the near side of the borehole when run uncentralized.
This effect may be especially severe when
the logging tool diameter is much smaller than the
inside diameter of the liner.
Gamma-gamma tools
should always be run centralized so that all sides
of the gravel pack contribute equally to tool
response.
Figure 8
illustrates
typical
response
for
a
compensated neutron tool to change in percent
pack.
The curves are overlaid in the 100% pack
section with greater curve separation and decreasing count rate indicating less pack. The observed
response of near minus far detector count rate
versus percent pack best fit a straight line for
compensated
neutron
tools
as
indicated
in
Figure 9.
The data from the compensated neutron
tools was more scattered about a straight line
than data from the gamma-gamma tools.
The predicted percent pack at a given count rate deviated
by as much as 10 percent pack from the known
condition in the test well.
Tool centralization had no discernible effect on
compensated neutron tool response in the study.
It should not have been a major factor since the
tool diameters were not much smaller than the
inside diameter of the liner (2.75-3.675 in. O.D.
tools inside 4. 28 in. ID liner).
Centralization
of compensated neutron tools may be desirable in

SPE 14163

S. S. SOLLEE

larger diameter liners sq that borehole effects do

not adversely alter tool response.
It should be noted that for conventional open hole
application of gamma-gamma and compensated neutron
tools in uniformly packed formation sands that the
count rate versus bulk density /porosity relationships are exponential functions.
In our experiments, the count rate versus percent packing data
was approximately linear.
The difference in
characteristic response is attributed to the fact
that the packing in the test well was nonuniform
rather than uniform (since the gravel was not
evenly distributed throughout the annulus).
Boyce
and Carroll 4 indicated that for the gamma-gamma
tool, count rate in partial pack is higher for
nonuniform packing arrangements than for uniform
packing arrangements due to "streaming" of photons
from the source to detector through the path of
least attenuation.
The "streaming" phenomenon
appears to have occurred for both the gamma-gamma
and compensated neutron tools in the test well as
count rates were higher than would be predicted for
uniform packing arrangements.
The linear relationships observed in the study
should be valid for gravel pack logging since the
partial pack that occurs in actual gravel packs is
most apt to be nonuniform voids or channels. This
is especially true for highly deviated gravel packs
in which channels may form along the high side of
the hole. 5
Pack Porosity Variation
Three sands with different grain size distribution
were layered in Configuration II to simulate pack
porosity changes similar in magnitude to that of
tight versus loose pack arrangements.
Laboratory
measurements indicated a 4 to 10% difference in
porosity over the range of pack sands selected.
Figure 10 illustrates gamma-gamma tool response to
the different sand layers. No significant change
in response is seen on the log since the pack sands
used in the experiment all had approximately equal
bulk densities.
The gamma-gamma tool does not
respond to changes in pack porosity unless there is
an accompanying change in bulk density.
Figure 11 shows compensated neutron tool response
through the same section.
Since the compensated
neutron tool mainly responds to hydrogen in the
pore space, it is sensitive to porosity changes in
the pack even if the bulk density has not changed
significantly. In the example log, the curves are
overlaid through the low porosity 20-30 gravel
section
(30-34% ~
in
laboratory
conditions).
Higher porosity is indicated by curve separation
toward decreasing count rate opposite the 4-8
gravel section (36-40% ~ lab) and the formation
sand (38-40% ~ lab). The relative curve shift and
separation on the log between the 4-8 gravel and
the formation sand indicates that the formation
sand was of higher porosity in the test well.
Voids
Thin voids were placed within an otherwise complete
pack section of Configuration II to determine tool
sensitivity to small voids. Figure 12 illustrates

gamma-gamma tool response to the voids. The thin

voids appear on the log as sharp spikes towards
the 0% pack base line.
Although the voids are
actually areas of 0% pack, the tool does not
record them as such since it averages count rates
according to the time constant and logging speed
selected. A void will not appear on the log as
its true count rate unless it is thicker than the
length over which the tool averages.
Figure 13 plots the apparent percent pack recorded
for the voids versus the known void thickness,
Based on the response trend, it appears that voids
thicker than about three feet will show full
response on a gamma-gamma gravel pack log.
Compensated neutron tool response to thin voids is
shown in Figure 14.
Curve separation towards
decreasing count rate occurs sharply opposite the
void areas.
The void response trend for the
compensated neutron tool is similar to the gammagamma tool as full curve deflection is not
expected unless the void is thicker than about
three feet (Figure 13).
Casing Size
The outer casing of the gravel pack model was made
up of 11 in. ID casing and 12.4 in. ID casing to
investigate the effect of casing size on tool
response. The log response to casing size can be
seen in Figure 12 for the gamma-gamma tool and
Figure 14 for the compensated neutron tool which
were previously referenced for thin void response.
For the gamma-gamma tool, a minor response change
can be seen on the before-gravel pack log when
changing casing size. Higher count rate is seen
in the larger casing since the casing contributes
less to overall response when it is farther away
from the logging tool, On the after-pack log, no
change in response for casing size is indicated.
With gravel in the annulus the depth of investigation of the gamma-gamma tool is greatly reduced
such that the outer casing contributes very
little, if any, to log response.
For the compensated neutron tool, the beforegravel pack log (not shown) indicated decreasing
count rate in the larger casing size due to the
greater thickness of hydrogen rich fluid to absorb
the neutrons.
However, on the after-pack log,
count rate increased going to the larger casing
size.
In the larger gravel packed annulus, the
response due to the increased fluid thickness
(decreasing counts) is dominated by the response
due to the increased distance to the outer casing
(increasing counts).
Liner Type
Screen and liner surrounded by complete pack were
placed in the lower portion of Configuration I to
investigate tool response to changing liner type.
Gamma-gamma tool response to the combination liner
is presented in Figure 15. Note that the count
rate changed through the different liner types
even though the amount of gravel remained constant.
Count rate was observed to decrease
linearly as liner density increased over the range

GRAVEL PACK LOGGING EXPERIMENTS

SPE 14163

of solid pipe densities investigated as shown in

Figure 16. Count rate for the rod base screen was
anomalously high considering its overall density
(13#/ft) due to the absence of solid iron to slow
the gamma rays.

neutron tool count rate due to changing lithology.

Accurate quantitative interpretation of this log
would be difficult since the 0 and 100% pack count
rates are slightly different for each reservoir
stratum.

Figure 17 illustrates compensated neutron response

to the combination liner. The compensated neutron
tool responds to changing liner type mainly due to
the absorption of neutrons by iron. For the blank
liner sections, near minus far detector count rate
was higher in the 15 lb/ft section than in the 18
lb/ft section due to the difference in pipe thickness. Count rate was higher still in the rod base
screen due to the absence of any solid pipe.
In
the pipe base wirewrapped screen, count rate was
much lower than in the blank liner sections even
though the pipe thicknesses are similar.
Screen
geometry influences response for the pipe base
screen as there is a small fluid filled annulus
between the pipe and screen in which neutrons are
absorbed by hydrogen.

For either type of tool, quantitative interpretation would be most reliable if a log is run before
gravel packing.
The before-gravel pack log
establishes the 0% pack count rate for all portions of the completion interval and indicates any
unanticipated wellbore environment effects.
The
after-pack log is then run and scaled linearly
between count rate for tightest or 100% pack
(usually in the lower portion of well) and count
rate for 0% pack to determine the percent pack at
any point in the completion.

Wellbore Fluid
Logging runs were made in three completion fluids
in Configuration I to investigate wellbore fluid
effect on tool response. Wellbore fluid effect may
be especially important when comparing separate
logging passes made at different times in the life
of a well. Figure 18 compares count rates observed
for a gamma-gamma tool in fresh water, 8.5 lb/gal
KCl and 9.0 lb/gal NaCl. Count rate at the detector decreased with increasing fluid density as did
the count rate span between 0 and 100% pack.
Figure 19 shows count rates for a compensated
neutron tool in the three fluids. The compensated
neutron tool responds to saline wellbore fluids as
the combined effect of hydrogen displacement by
salt (increasing counts) and absorption of neutrons
by chlorine (decreasing counts). The response was
dominated by the effect of chlorine as indicated by
the decreasing count rate with increasing fluid
salinity.

A before-gravel pack log may not always be possible due to restriction in the liner top by the
gravel packing tool or due to other considerations
such as economics. Quantitative interpretation is
still feasible if there is sufficient liner above
the gravel top (in the same casing or open hole
size) in which to get a 0% pack count rate or if
the 0% pack count rate for the particular set of
borehole conditions is known or can be estimated
for the specific logging tool being used.
The service companies that provide gravel pack
logs are encouraged to do more research on individual tool response to changing borehole conditions.
The effect on count rate across a wide array of
borehole conditions should be defined for each
service company's gravel pack logging tool.
CONCLUSIONS
1.

Gamma-gamma and compensated neutron tool

count rate response to percent pack around
the liner is approximately linear.
Count
rate versus percent pack data from the
gamma-gamma tools in the test well precisely
defined a straight line. Compensated neutron
tool response data was much more scattered
about a straight line, with known versus
predicted percent pack values differing by as
much as 10 percent pack.

2.

Gamma-gamma logging tools must be run centralized so that all sides of the gravel pack
contribute equally to tool response.

3.

The compensated neutron tool is sensitive to

small changes in gravel pack porosity. The
gamma-gamma tool does not indicate minor pack
porosity variations unless there is an
accompanying change in bulk density.

4.

Both types of gravel pack logging tools

respond to small voids. However, full count
rate response is not expected unless the void
is thicker than about 3 feet.

5.

Borehole environment conditions such as

casing size, liner configuration and wellbore
fluid influence tool response significantly
and must be considered when interpreting a
gravel pack log. A before-gravel pack log is
recommended
when
possible
to
quantify
response due to the borehole environment.

DISCUSSION
The results of the study indicate that gravel pack
logging tools respond appropriately to varying
conditions in the gravel pack.
Quantitative
interpretation of the logs appears to be possible
as long as borehole environment conditions such as
liner I casing configuration and well bore fluid
density are known.
The gamma-gamma tool more reliably predicted
percentage pack around the liner than the compensated neutron tool in the test well.
The count
rate versus percent pack data from the gamma-gamma
tools precisely defined a straight line.
The
compensated neutron tool response data was much
more scattered about a straight line, with known
versus predicted pack values differing by as much
as 10 percent pack.
Under field conditions,
quantitative interpretation of compensated neutron
tool response may be even more approximate due to
the influence of reservoir lithology. An example
field log in an inside casing gravel pack shown in
Figure 20 illustrates the shift of compensated

SPE 14163

S. S. SOLLEE

ACKNO~~EDGEMENTS

4.

I acknowledge the contributions of T. D. Elson in

the design of the test program and T. D. Ervin in
the design, construction, and operation of the test
well.
I also thank Chevron Oil Field Research
Company for permission to publish this paper.

Boyce, James R. and Carroll, J. F.: "Mathematical Modeling of a Gravel-Pack Logging

Tool," SPE 13138 presented at 59th Annual SPE
Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston,
Texas, September 16-19, 1984.

5.

Elson, T. D., et. al.:

"High Angle GravelPack Completion Studies," Journal of Pet.
Tech., January 1984, p. 69-78.

REFERENCES
1.

2.

3.

Neill, B. E., et al.: "The Use of Photon Logs

to Evaluate Gravel Packing," SPE 6532 presented at 47th SPE California Regional Meeting, Bakersfield, California, April 13-15,
1977.

SI METRIC CONVERSION FACTORS

ft

2.048

E-01

"Gravel Pack Evaluation,"

Neal, Marvin R.:
Journal of Pet. Tech., September 1983, p.
1611-1616.

ft/min x 5.08

E-03

m/s

in x 2.54

E-01

Neal, Marvin R. and Carroll, J. F. :

"A
Quantitative Approach to Gravel Pack Evaluation," SPE 12477 presented at 6th SPE Formation
Damage
Symposium,
Bakersfield,
California, February 13-14, 1984.

lbm/ft x 1. 488. E+OO

lbm/gas 1.198

E+02

kg/m
kg/m 3

l - - - 3 . 0 ft.

---I
Top View of Fins

20ft.

- - - - 5 in. Screen or Liner

- - - - 11 in. ID and 12.4 in. ID
Casing

Ground Level

Simulated Formation

60Ft.
Fin Centralizers

ft.

Gravel
Gravel Dump
5 in. O.D. Screen and Liner

7ft.

Figure 1
Gravel Pack Logging Test Well

Figure 2
Gravel Pack Configuration I

Run 1

Count Rate
0

3200
Centralizer

18 in. Void

0% Pack
9 in. Void

20-30 u.s.
Gravel

60ft.

E2?

~~

Count Rate

3200

~=illllllllllll!
Run2

50% Pack

Formation
Sand

@
Run 3

4-8

u.s.

Gravel

CountRate

ti=ll11111111111111rl

100% Pack

Figure 4
Centralized Gamma-gamma Tool Response to
Change in Percent Pack (5 in.= 100ft. log format}
Figure 3
Gravel Pack Configuration II

SPE

1 416 3

Run 1

Count Rate

Ia
1

10,000

ll!l!llllllliim~

2000
0% Pack

Run 2

@
~-

Count Rate

10,000

25% Pack

c:

::>

50% Pack

a
Run 3

Count Rate

..

75% Pack

25

50

75

100

10,000

100% Pack

Percent Pack
Figure 6

Figure 5
Centralized Gamma-gamma Tool Count Rate vs.
Percent Pack

Uncentralized Gammagamma Tool Response

to Change in Percent Pack

10,000

Run 1

1000 - - - - - - - - -Near Count Rate - - - - - - - - 3000

Far Count Rate

8,000
0% Pack

6,000
Run 2

a:
"'
c:

::>
0

4,000

2,000

Run 3
25

50

75

Percent Pack
Figure 7
Uncentralized Gammagamma Tool Count Rate vs.
Percent Pack

100

v
75%Pack:==---~:;
~.. .

1000- - - - - - - -100

Near Count Rate Far Count Rate

- - - - - 3000
600

100% Pack
Figure 8
Compensated Neutron Tool Response to Change
in Percent Pack

SPE

1.

416

2400
2200

} :!:.

a:

10% Pack

1600

::l

8
LL

1400

1200

Count Rate

20-30 Gravel
(q, = 30-34%)

1000
Formation
Sand
(q, = 3840%)

800

4-8 Gravel
(Ql = 3640%)
Percent Pack

!i r-~r:!il l l lJIJ-f1 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
,_,::::,>.

~4.- Centralizer

-;::.:'.::

t'

;.!.:

-~<

i~\':
._
; ~ ;_
1-; :.-

..

5 in. 18 lb./ft. Slotted Liner

11 in. LD. Outer Casing.

Figure 9

Figure 10

Compensated Neutron Tool Count Rate vs.

Percent Pack

Gamma-gamma Tool Response to Change in

Pack Porosity

15,000 -----------
-140
20-30 Gravel
(</> = 30-34%)
Formation
Sand
(Qj= 3840%)

4-8 Gravel
(4J=36-40%)

2500

Near Count Rate

Count Rate

------- 35,000

Far Count Rate

260

1'.'.::,
:.''

Centralizers

):.;

:;

..;zj't::::;:. .
""-'~

~-

Figure 12

:-..: ~ .,

irst Reading

Gamma-gamma Tool Response to Thin Voids

5 in, 18 lb/ft. Slotted Liner

11 in. LD. Outer Casing

Figure 11
Compensated Neutron Tool Response to Change
in Pack Porosity

40
15,000 - - - -140----

,,
,,

......

30

18

' ...............

..............

..

....... .......
..............
....... .......

.r::

20

.......

'0

c;

lillil

::.~:";.,/IJ'-'
.~ ~ ~- -!f~ \r];,!llf?l\'1'.' 11in.lvloidllll~l~l""l"l

......

......

Near Count Rate

Far Count Rate

9 '"

'

"""''''"

5 in, 181b./ft.
Slotted Liner

Gamma-gamma Tool

>

vo;,

- - - 35,000
-----260

Figure 14
Compensated Neutron Tool Response to
Thin Voids

10

20

40

60

80

100

Apparent Perent Pack

Figure 13
Gravel Pack Logging Tool Response to Thin Voids

SPE

4 16 3

10,000

Count Rate

10-16 u.s.
Gra vel-

CD

11 in. I.D . csg.

10,000

G) 5 in., 13 lb./ft. Pipe Base Wirewrapped Screen

@
@
@)

BOOO

5 in., 1B lb./ft. Blank Liner

5 in. Rod Base Screen
5 in., 15 lb./ft. BJank Liner

Figure 15
Gamma-gamma Tool Response to Combination
Liner

6000
0% Pack

4000

10-16 u.s._
Gravel

"'

ci

160

Near Count Rate

-BO

Far Count Rate

<D

410
-----170

100% Pack (Figure 15)

2000

o~--~----~----~--~----~----L---~----~----L-----

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

1B

19

Liner Density (lb./ft. - 5 in. Liner)

11 in. I.D.
Figure 16
Count Rate vs. Liner Density for a
Gamma-gamma Tool

G) 5 in., 13 lb/ft. Pipe Base Wirewrapped Screen

@ 5 in., 1Bib/ft. Blank Liner

@
@

5 in. Rod Base Screen

5 in., 15 lb./ft. Blank Liner

Figure 17
Compensated Neutron Tool Response to
Combination Liner

10,000

BOOO

B.5 lb./gal. KCI at 0% Pack Only

1600

6000
1200
a:
<::

:J
0

4000

"'

lL

:J

BOO

<::

ill

2000
400

25

50

75

100

Percent Pack
Percent Pack

Figure 18
Effect of Well bore Fluid on Gamma-gamma
Tool Response

Figure 19
Effect of Wellbore Fluid on Compensated
Neutron Tool Response

SPE

J 4 16 3

20

?:-

o;

. t2

j :

:!!

-,.

: ! l
: : :
: l l

i i
: I

Ii .; ::
! ' '

.:~

!J~!

I:

'

!jj] i p:
~~:::--I
I!' !_..-1-<J
;'l,t ! ..
j

!'

]...--'

i'

'

:i i

lf!:h..;_ '

::

It ! .-.-.!

::

I~

.;..,~:

:~~i:

1../! I

' ' t! '

., '

1 i ~l 1'=,:,:. .:+-:~-+1

!
1

Casing ::-!
Collars
I . ~ . -~ !

! ! ?~.

j '

11!.1 i da r-nnia'
iiT'Ray

!1

!
!JdNeutron
! : 1:f:~ i Porosity

: i cSJ~-- . :

::

'

'

'

'

1 :

1--.;
..:
;$~)

ett_

!~1!.1
.

-- --- a:o

NPHI

.7~ooo--

cc
I. 0000

-19.00
GR

O_Jl

w~~o--------~~~~~-L
rcN

<GAP I>

<CPS

_______ Iv~~

>

30,00

Figure 20
Compensated Neutron Log from an Inside
Casing Gravel Pack

SPE

14163