2 Number 19, 1997 Middle East Well Evaluation Review 3

Successful production strategies require detailed

information about the fluid types and flow rates
encountered in reservoir zones. Modern tools provide
a wide range of measurement methods and the
enhanced production logging interpretations they supply
help engineers to make informed decisions. Replacing
traditional flowmeter data has helped to boost confidence in
interpretation in difficult conditions encountered in horizontal
and highly deviated wells. In this article Cosan Ayan, Arash
Boustani and Keith Boyle explain how the new technology works
and what difference it can make to reservoir predictions
P
roduction logging (PL) is an import-
ant aspect of oilfield management.
It provides information about the
type and rates of fluid flow in reservoirs
and wells – information which is crucial
when attempting to optimize production
and avoid potential problems. In the Oil flow
past, analysis of production logging
measurements focused on spinner (flow-
meter) and density readings, and the
quality of the results depended to a large
extent on well conditions: in vertical
wells with high flow rates traditional PL
results are accurate and reliable.
Unfortunately, oil and gas is often pro- Fig. 4.1: In highly deviated wells and
duced from deviated and horizontal at low velocities borehole fluids are
wells with low–medium fluid flow rates segregated. The light phase flows
along the top of the pipe and
where conventional tools may not be the heavy fluid at the base.
adequate (Figure 4.1). Modern analysis Some of the heavy phase
techniques provide the engineer with a (water in this example)
range of measurements, including tem- may be moving down
peratures and pressures, which can be the well. If the
incorporated into the interpretation. This flowmeter is poorly
is proving particularly useful in highly- Water flow positioned (i.e. resting on
deviated wells and those with low pro- the base of the borehole) it
duction rates. will respond only to this
downward flow
The main aim for production logging
is to measure the performance of pro-
ducing and injecting wells. This is
achieved by providing diagnostic ure data were normally used in a quali- detects mechanical problems, break-
information, pinpointing where fluids tative way to compute in-situ flow prop- through and coning; it monitors flow pro-
are entering a well and indicating the erties and to locate zones where fluids file, production and injection, detects
efficiency of perforations. were entering (or flowing out of) the well thief zones and channelled cement and
There are four basic production log- (Figure 4.2). performs single- and multilayer well test
ging measurements: flow, density, tem- Production logging provides zone-by- evaluations.
perature and pressure. In traditional zone measurement of fluid parameters to Many new tools have been developed
production logging only the flow and yield information on the type of fluid to characterize flow into the borehole.
density readings were used for quanti- movement within and near the wellbore. For accurate measurement of multiphase
tative analysis. Temperature and press- The PLT* Production Logging Tool downhole flow, especially in wells where
the flow is insufficient to carry water to
Fig. 4.2: Temperature
the surface, the production logging tool
profiles normally string may include an ADF* Automatic
show an anomalous Diverter Flowmeter tool. The positive
cooling effect near a sealing of the ADF tool to the borehole
zone of gas entry wall means that no fluids bypass the
(green line). The red spinner. By measuring flows at various
line indicates the levels within the borehole the tool can
Flow temperature profile identify the oil, gas and water contribu-
(no gas entry) which would be tions from each layer within a reservoir
expected if no gas
leak had occurred.
zone (Figure 4.3).
This temperature Interpretation of PL data and deter-
Depth

Geothermal Flow
logging technique mination of downhole flow profile in
gradient (+ gas entry)
has been superseded single-phase flow conditions is, usually, a
by new straightforward task. Flow profiles in
measurements and multiphase conditions are much more
monitoring complex. A range of factors including
techniques holdup, slippage velocity and phase
segregation complicate flow behaviour.
Gas entry Holdup is defined as the ratio of a
given pipe cross section occupied by a
particular fluid phase. Under multiphase
Perforations conditions, light phases move faster than
heavier phases by a magnitude known
as the ‘slippage velocity’. For the inter-
pretation of production logs conducted
under multiphase flow conditions, deter-
Increasing temperature
mination of downhole holdup is
extremely important.

38 Middle East Well Evaluation Review

 Gradiomanometer* systems, which
are used to measure downhole fluid den-
sity, are commonly used for holdup cal-
culations. However, the complex
behaviour of wells flowing under multi-
phase conditions poses major difficulties
for flow profile interpretation using con-
Layer 1 ventional sensors. These complications
become more severe in deviated wells,
as increasing deviation affects the flow
regime, phase segregation and velocity
distribution.
For example, a spinner flowmeter in
segregated flow may exhibit a response
resembling downflow. This is due to the
light phase moving up the upper side of
Layer 2 the pipe as the heavy phase falls out and
flows down the lower side of the pipe
(see Figure 4.1). This process can take
place even if no water is produced at the
surface. In Figure 4.4 the holdup and vel-
ADF tool ocity profile of the light and heavy
phases are shown as a function of well
deviation. The plots show that both
holdup and velocity change significantly
Fluid flow as a function of pipe deviation.
When the holdup of one phase is
Fig. 4.3: Flow from small, ‘Gradiomanometer-type’ tools can-
individual layers within not usually provide a reasonable phase
a reservoir zone can be Layer 3 split. This is because the magnitude of
evaluated using the the density change due to the second
ADF tool. Fluids cannot phase is small and remains within the
pass the spinner, so the accuracy of the tool. In addition, most
flow characteristic of
Gradiomanometer tools use differential
each layer can be
assessed quickly and pressure transducers to define fluid den-
accurately sity. These can be severely affected by
high turbulence – a phenomenon known
as the ‘jet effect’. At high flow rates fric-
tion can affect density and this must be
corrected before holdup computations
are made.

Top Fig. 4.4: Holdup and

Top Well deviation velocity variation in
65 deg deviated wells. Both
45 deg holdup and velocity
25 deg change significantly as
5 deg a function of well
deviation

Holdup 0 Velocity 0 1
1
of denser of denser
phase phase
Well deviation
65 deg
45 deg
25 deg
Bottom Bottom 5 deg

Number 19, 1997 39

Making sense with a new sensor Fig. 4.5: If the FloView
tool’s probe is located
With the exception of carbon–oxygen in a conductive fluid
tools and oxygen activation methods, (water), current is
most production logging sensor technol- returned through the
ogy is more than 20 years old. Despite earth connection. If
improvements in the sensors themselves, the probe is Probe
surrounded by a non-
their measurement systems are still conductive fluid (oil or
based on the same physical principles. gas), the returned
The introduction of a new sensor, current drops. The tool
which provides four independent, local can thus discriminate
water holdup measurements and calcu- hydrocarbon and 1
lates an average value, is the most fun- water phases 0
damental change to production logging
for many years. When combined with a Probe signal
conventional PL string, the new
FloView* holdup measurement tool
offers a dramatic improvement in down-
hole flow diagnosis in vertical and devi-
ated wells. Fluid images from four Bubble count Friction effects
symmetrically positioned probes pro-
vide detailed information on flow
regimes and phase segregation and the
tool has specific applications for water
holdup determination in the segregated
flow conditions typical of horizontal wells. 3rd oil entry Jetting,
The FloView tool is designed for inte- venturi
effects
gration with conventional production
logging tools. This helps the analyst to
determine downhole phase split and
water holdup, and eliminates the uncer- 2nd oil entry
tainties associated with traditional fluid
entry interpretation.
The FloView tool’s four probes are
symmetrically located below a central- 1st oil entry
izer arm, capable of providing four inde-
pendent holdup measurements on a Water entry
given cross-sectional area of the pipe.
Other measurements of the tool include
relative bearing and one–axis calliper. Stagnant water
The relative bearing measurement gives
the position of each probe with respect Mud
to the cross-sectional area of the pipe –
allowing an oriented map of fluid segre- Holdup
gation to be produced. FlowView image Gradiomanometer log
A signal is continuously applied to the
probe tip. If the probe is located in a con-
ductive fluid (water), the current is • the measurement (holdup) is not Fig. 4.6: The FloView tool provides
returned through the earth connection. If affected by complications due to jet a detailed image of water and oil
the probe is surrounded by a non-con- effect, friction and very high or low holdup in the well, indicating
ductive fluid (oil or gas), the returned clearly where water and
water-cut values. This improves the ver-
hydrocarbons are entering the
current drops. Therefore, the high and tical resolution of the tool dramatically well. The Gradiomanometer
low signals measured across a threshold • individual fluid entry locations can be results are difficult to interpret; the
band by the probe allow the tool to dis- determined quite accurately ‘steps’ indicate where fluids are
criminate hydrocarbon and water • the four independent probe holdup entering the borehole but give no
phases (Figure 4.5). Water holdup is cal- measurements can be used quanti- indication of their composition
culated from the ratio of the time domain tatively in the interpretation
where the voltage is above a particular • a fluid image across the cross section
threshold. Bubble count is calculated of the pipe is also generated from the
from the number of voltage oscillations measured probe data
across the threshold. • density measurements can be difficult
This means that water holdup and to interpret in wells with a standing
bubble count can be performed for each water column; digital holdup measure-
probe independently, and the results ment removes any ambiguity.
averaged over each sampling interval In deviated and horizontal wells, inde-
(Figure 4.6). The measurement does not pendent holdup values for each probe
require a prior calibration. The advan- identify differences in water holdup at
tages of this are: the top and base of the pipe.

40 Middle East Well Evaluation Review

Field examples from Qatar Fig. 4.7: PL data
obtained from six
Recent surveys conducted in five wells combined PLT
within a Middle East reservoir were tool–FloView tool passes
aimed at identifying the main water and in the well. Bubble
gas entry zones, and determining the counts from the FloView
quantitative downhole flow profile. All tool are shown in the
five wells were surveyed with a PLT tool third track. The
Gradiomanometer log
and FloView tool combination. indicates a minor
For Well 1, the survey was conducted density reduction at
across a section with an average devi- XX58 ft and a major
ation of 37°. The relative bearing drop at XX30 ft; spinner
measurement showed that the string had and temperature
not rotated during the survey. readings confirm fluid
PL data were obtained from six differ- entry at these points
ent passes (Figure 4.7). The measured
bubble counts (DFBM1) from the
FloView tool are also shown in the third
track. The Gradiomanometer tool indi-
cates a minor density reduction at
XX58 ft and a major drop at XX30 ft. Note
that spinner and temperature readings
also confirm fluid entry into the wellbore
at these points. As the well was produc-
ing below the bubble point, the minor
temperature drop at XX58 ft may be
associated with gas entry.
Classical interpretation techniques
under such circumstances would assume
hydrocarbon entry into the wellbore at
both points, mainly due to density reduc-
tion. However, FloView bubble counts to
XX30 ft read zero, indicating that the fluid
entering the wellbore at XX58 ft is
actually water. The water entering the
wellbore at this point has a lower density Fig. 4.8: The first
than the stationary water column below – hydrocarbon entry in
a conclusion that was also supported by this well is at XX30 ft,
results from the shut-in passes. not XX58 ft where there
is a minor density
To ascertain the performance of the
reduction. The
FloView tool as an input into the inter- GLOBAL water holdup
pretation model, all PL sensors and (Track 3) is in perfect
FloView holdup data were tested on the agreement with the
GLOBAL* comprehensive formation FloView results
evaluation answer product. The sum-
mary of interpreted flow profile is shown
in Figure 4.8.
The fluid images are displayed in the
right-most track, generated from the
holdup measurements from three probes
because one probe was damaged during
the survey. All passes and all probes
clearly indicate the first hydrocarbon
entry into the wellbore at XX30 ft. Note
that the reconstructed water holdup, as
shown in Track 3, is in perfect agreement
with the value measured by the FloView
tool. This increases the confidence in the
interpretation and on the overall hydro-
carbon holdup (gas and oil). Without the
new digital holdup measurement, the
minor density reduction at XX58 ft could

K Boyle, C Ayan and A Bustani (1996).

Applications of a new production logging tool to
locate fluid entries and borehole flow imaging.
Presented at the 7th Abu Dhabi International
Petroleum Exhibition and Conference, Abu Dhabi,
UAE, 13–16 October 1996. SPE 36221

Number 19, 1997 41

have been misinterpreted as hydrocar-
bon entry into the wellbore, and the
overall flow profile would have been
changed. As currently designed, the
probes differentiate only water and hydro-
carbons. However, the hydrocarbon
phase was further split into oil and gas,
based on the oil and gas holdup values
computed from the GLOBAL flow model.
To further compare the coherence
between the two measurements, the
overall density values from the
Gradiomanometer tool were converted
to the equivalent water holdup, and
plotted with the FloView-derived mean
holdup values over an identical scale.
Individual holdup values must add up
to 1, so in three-phase conditions the gas
holdup was obtained from GLOBAL
results. The results are favourable, with
some minor variation immediately
above the perforation for some passes.
Case study 2
Fig. 4.9: PLT and
In the second case study the PLT tool and FloView data from six
FloView tool survey was conducted while passes showing two-
flowing the well through the smallest phase flow in a vertical
choke that would provide stable con- well. The relative
ditions. The flow comprised two phases bearing measurement
indicated that the string
and the well was vertical. The relative
was not rotating during
bearing measurement showed that the the survey. Note that
string was not rotating during the survey. the first pass did not
PLT and FloView data were available cover the entire test
from six passes but the first pass did not interval
completely cover the interval (Figure 4.9).
The final flow profile interpretation,
together with fluid images derived from entry is seen at XX48 ft, where the crepancy, the holdup values from this
Pass 5, are shown in Figure 4.10. A minor FloView tool starts detecting oil bubbles probe were also used in the interpre-
reduction in density at around XX74 ft in the wellbore. This is confirmed by a tation, because it might be responding to
indicates that less dense fluid is entering density reduction at this point. The inter- water slugs within the fluid column. The
the wellbore. However, the FloView tool pretation model assumes a stationary mean FloView water holdup values from
does not show any hydrocarbon bubbles column of water across this interval with Passes 2–6 were used in the interpre-
at this section. Thus, the fluid entering oil bubbling through it. Although the tation model. Due to noise in the spinner
the wellbore at this point is water of observed water holdup is high, the data, there is a minor incoherence
lower salinity than the standing water at actual flowing water volume is much between the spinner-derived velocity
the bottom of the well. Possibly due to smaller. The major fluid entry is between and the values calculated by the model.
downhole segregation and/or water re- XX90 and XX06 ft, where there is a clear Note that all other sensors reconstruct
circulation, the spinner is subject to increase in the spinner. Further reduc- the model outputs quite well. From this
noise. This noise is more significant tion of density at this interval could be survey, oil entry points were clearly
below XX00 ft where the total velocity is attributed to increased hydrocarbon detected and water entry with lighter
possibly below the spinner threshold holdup. density at the bottom of the well was
and not high enough to lift the water col- A sudden reduction of water holdup identified. The FloView data were invalu-
umn completely. Thus, identification of is clearly identifiable at XX92–XX06 ft. able in defining the fluid entry points
the minor water entry with the spinner Below this depth, all probes in all six below XX00 ft because the spinner was
was not possible and the combined passes indicate similar behaviour. Above below its threshold.
information from the Gradiomanometer XX00 ft, probe 3 water holdup values
and FloView tools was useful for the from Passes 1–3 show some fluctuation
interpretation. The first hydrocarbon with higher readings. Even with this dis-

42 Middle East Well Evaluation Review

 Fig. 4.10: The final flow
profile interpretation,
together with fluid
images derived from
Pass 5. A minor density
reduction around
XX74 ft indicates lighter
fluid entering the
wellbore. The FloView
tool does not show any
hydrocarbon bubbles
at this section, so the
fluid entering at this
point is water of lower
salinity than the
stagnant water at the
bottom of the well

Fig. 4.11: A FloView

tool holdup image in a
horizontal well. Note
the eight probe
positions from two
FloView tools in
combination

The field examples show that the Horizontal wells

principle of local frequency measure-
ment can enhance production logging Interpretations made using the FloView
interpretation and present a more accu- Plus* holdup measurement tool for high-
rate picture of complex flow regimes. ly deviated and horizontal wells do not
Water and oil entry points were clearly use the bubble count data. In effect, the
determined in difficult cases and fluid FloView Plus tool is identifying the height
segregation in deviated wells identified. of the oil–water interface and holdup can
The quantitative holdup measurement be computed from these data.
was used directly in the interpretation Figure 4.11 shows a holdup image in a
without jetting/venturi or friction effects. horizontal well, measured with two tan-
This measurement technique can also be dem FloView tools. The eight probes
used in horizontal wells to determine cover more of the wellbore and the image
water holdup in segregated flow con- reflects the segregated nature of the flow.
ditions. The major applications are: This allows quantitative oil and water
• in deviated wells, where determining holdup values to be determined directly.
production profiles are difficult due to
phase segregation
• in wells with high or low water cut
where identifying minor fluid entry
points is critical.
• increasing confidence and reducing
ambiguities in all PLT survey interpre-
tation.

Number 19, 1997 43