&iltiB

SPE 37147 Three-Phase Source

Bradley A. Roscoe,

Holdup Determination

in Horizontal Wells Using a Pulsed-Neutron

SPE, Schlumberger-Doll

Research

Co!Mght

16S6, %wiefy of Petroleum Engineers, Inc.

Introduction

This paper was prepared for presentation al the 1996 SPE lntemafional Conference on Horizonta Well Technology hefd in Calgwy, Canade, l&20 Nmmks 19%. Ths pepr was selected for pnssenfaticn by an SPE Program Commiftse following review of information Qnfained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Cmtents of the paper, as pfesenled. have not been reviewed by the Sockty of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the autho!fs). The material, as presented, does not necessarily raflect any position of the .%Mefy of Petroleum Engineers, its ofticers, or members Papers presented at SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Socieiy of Petroleum Engmoers. Permission to wpy is restriiled to an abstract of not more than 300 words. Illustrations may not be copied. The abstract should contain conspicuous achnoMedgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, PO. Box 633636, Richardson, TX 7S0S3.3636, U. S.A., fax 01-214.952-9435.

Abstract

In horizontal wells, it can be very difficult to interpret conventional production logging tools due to the fluid segregation in the borehole. This is a even more of a problem when there are more than two phases present in the borehole, i.e., oil, water, and gas, A pulsed-neutron tool measures many parameters which are differentially sensitive to all three possible borehole phases. Therefore, it is possible to combine the information available from a pulsed-neutron tool to determine the 3-phase holdup in horizontal wells. One of the major difficulties in evaluating the response of a tool to 3-phase holdup is obtaining good data under realistic downhole conditions, i.e., realistic gas densities. Laboratory measurements cannot readily be made under these conditions; therefore, modeling techniques must be used to evaluate and characterize tool response. To validate a computer model, laboratory data are needed for benchmarking; therefore, for this study, over 400 laboratory formation measurements were performed using air to simulate gas. These formation conditions were also modeled using Monte Carlo techniques. The agreement between measured and modeled data proved to be good enough that modeling can be used to confidently predict the tool response with air or realistic gas. Once the ability to predict tool response under realistic downhole conditions exists, it is possible to combine information from a pulsed-neutron tool to quantitatively determine the holdup of all three phases. This is accomplished by combining the inelastic near/far ratio with the near and far carbon/oxygen (C/0) ratio. This approach to the holdup measurement has been demonstrated using a combination of laboratory data, Monte Carlo modeling, and field data. The results of this study have demonstrated that the RMS accuracy on each of the three phases. of this measurement is about 60/0

As horizontal wells have become more prevaient, the ability to reliably evaluate the production performance of these wells has become increasingly important. Existing production logging techniques, such as spinners, that have been successfidly used in vertical wells cannot always be applied to horizontal wells with full confidence because of segregated flow in the borehole. For this reason, new techniques-must be developed to evaluate oil and water flow rates in horizontal wells. To determine the flow rates of the oil and water phases in a horizontal well, one must either 1) measure the individual oil and water flow rates directly, or 2) measure the individual oil and water velocities in addition to their hoidups, (It should be noted, that for most production logging applications in horizontal wells, measuring only the holdup or only the velocitv of the rsroduction fluids is usuallv insufficient to determ~ne the so&ce of production problems.~ This paper will address part of the second approach, the measurement of individual oil, water, and gas holdups. Once determined, these holdups can be combined with velocity information, obtained from several possible approachesz to obtain oil and water flow rates.
Background

Pulsed-neutron tools have previously been used to qualitatively determine the 3-phase holdup in horizontal welis. This approach uses the borehole sigma and the inelastic near/far ratio for this determination. The method is considered qualitative since tool calibration information is not available ~or the ratio measurement or the sigma of the gas. Recent work reported by Peeters et. al. has attempted to quantify the pulsed-neutron measurement for holdup in horizontal wells. Their approach utilizes three measurements from a single pulsed-neutron tool centered in the borehoie: C/O windows ratio, borehoie sigma, and capture near/far ratio. The measurements are combined through a iinear response matrix to produce the desired holdup measurements. The coefficients for the matrix are determined by regression of modeled or measured tool responses to known conditions. A more quantitative approach has been employed with the RST* Reservoir Saturation TO01.45 This tool was primarily * Mark of Schlumberger

895

B.A. ROSCM

SPE 37147

designed to measure the oil saturation of the formation without depending on formation water salinity. This was accomplished by using a carbon/oxygen measurement. A large part of the problem of converting a C/O measurement into oil saturation is the effect of the borehole on the measurement. To properly determine the formation oil saturation, the borehole composition must be known reasonably well. In general, a 5% error on the borehole composition can cause a 15 S.U. error on the formation oil saturation. For this reason, the RST tool was designed with two detectors to compensate for the borehole effect. However, from previous statements, it is obvious that the RST tool can also measure the 2-phase borehole holdup in a well. In addition to the obvious 2-phase holdup measurement, other data (in several forms), already available from the RST tool, are sensitive to the presence of gas in the borehole. Quantifying this information and combining it with the already available C/O measurement provides sufficient information to quantitatively determine the 3-phase holdup in the borehole. To ensure the best quantitative answer, it is advantageous for the parameters measured by the tool to have approximately the same depth of investigation. In addition, these parameters need to be easily quantifiable. For this reason, the following tool measurements were chosen for this measurement: near carbordoxygen ratio, far carbonloxygen ratio, and the inelastic near/far ratio. Since all these measurements are inelastic measurements, their depth of investigations are about equal and do not vary with formation and borehole sigma. Other parameters sensitive to borehole holdup, such as borehole sigma and capture ratios, can be used, but their varying depth of investigation can complicate their quantitative use for this In addition, their use adds additional measurement. requirements in the form of assumptions about the borehole salinity. One of the biggest problems in characterizing the tool response for a 3-phase holdup measurement is the acquisition of realistic data due to the difficulty and hazards of performing laboratory measurements with gas under realistic downhole conditions. Air is usually used to simulate the effects of gas for these measurements; however, real downhole gas has appreciable density and elemental constituents that cannot be ignored. Therefore, tool characterization depends heavily on tool response modeling. For this reason, this study uses a multistep process to develop the quantitative analysis required. These steps include: 1. Performing benchmarked laboratory measurements simulating 3-phase holdup conditions in horizontal wells using air to simulate gas. 2. Modeling the tool response using Monte Carlo techniques under the conditions measured in the laboratory to benchmark the model, 3. Develop interpretation procedures that quantitatively predict tool response using air to simulate gas. 4. Model the tool response to 3-phase holdup using realistic downhole gas characteristics. 5. Apply interpretation procedure to modeled data. 6. Apply interpretation procedure to acquired field data. Finally, the issue of running the tool centralized or

eccentralized in the borehole must be addressed. In a horizontal well, it can be difficult to centralize the tool in the borehole. An argument can be made that it is better to eccenter the tool and really be sure of its location in the borehole. However, eccentering the tool can introduce some problems such as a nonlinearity of the borehole tool response. Therefore, this study has also tried to quantify the effects of tool position in the borehole.
Laboratory Measurements

Measurements to characterize the RST-A response under conditions simulating a horizontal well with 3-phase holdup were performed at the Schlumberger Environmental Effects Calibration Facility (EECF) in Houston, Texas. Since these formations are usually used to simulate vertical conditions, borehole liners were fabricated to divide the borehole fluid into three equal volumes. This simulated the effect of segregated fluids in the borehole. Different liners were designed for the centered and eccentered measurements to allow for the fluid displacement by the tool and the requirement of a rathole for the tool (Fig. 1). Dividing the borehole into three equal volumes allows 10 possible borehole fluid combinations that simulate holdup in a horizontal well. These are shown in Table 1. Since it is not possible to have a realistic downhole gas present in the borehole for these laboratory measurements, air was used to simulate gas. A series of measurements was performed using various formations at the EECF. The formations were selected to provide variations in lithology, porosity, borehole diameter, and formation oil saturation (see Table 2). Most of these formations were run with the tool both eccentered and centered in the borehole. All of the measurements used a 7inch, 23-lb/ft casing. Fresh water was used in the formation and borehole for all measurements. Some additional measurements were performed with 100 kppm brine in the borehole. Over 400 laboratory measurements were performed for this study.
Monte Carlo Model of RST-A Response

Since laboratory measurements with realistic gas conditions are not possible in the laboratory formations, characterization of the tool response depends heavily on tool response modeling. For this reason, a large part of the effort in this study has been to develop and test Monte Carlo models to predict tool response. To this end, a RST-A model for the inelastic measurement has been developed using the Monte Carlo modeling code MCBEND, which was developed by AEA Technology in Winfrith, UK. This model requires about 18 hours to mn on a SUN Spare 20 for each set of formation and borehole conditions. The outputs from the model are tallied such that the following tool responses are available: near and far carbon and oxygen yields, near and far carbon/oxygen ratio, near and far carbon/oxygen window ratio, and near/far inelastic countrate ratio. To benchmark the RST-A model (as applied to 3-phase holdup problems), the laboratory measurements described above were modeled with MCBEND. The results from the modeling were then compared with the results obtained with

898

SPE 37947

Three-Phase Holdup Determination in Horizontal Wells Using a Pulsed-Neutron Source

the measurements as shown in Fig. 2. These figures show that the modeling can be used to predict tool response. Each figure has a line fit to the data that can be used as a calibration to convert from modeled results to measured results. Both centered and eccentered data are shown on the plot.
Borehole Gas Holdup

Cn = N, +N2cDS0 +N3Y0 .....!........................................(l)

0n=N4+N,0(l -So)+ N,(l-Yo) ...........................(2)

The inelastic near/far countrate ratio can be used to detect and quantify gas in the borehole. This is demonstrated in Fig. 3 for centered and eccentered tool positions with measured data in which air was used to simulate the presence of gas. In this figure, the lines on the plot show the data trends for various fractions of air in the borehole. The effect of porosity on the inelastic near/far ratio is small by comparison with its response to air in the borehole. The data points along each air fraction line lie high or low around the line depending on the total hydrogen index of the fluids in the borehole. For example, the 660/0 air line has a lower near/far ratio for oil in the borehole than it does for water in the borehole. As far as sensitivity to 100% air in the borehole, the inelastic near/far ratio changes by about the same amount whether the tool is centered or eccentered. However, for air the centered tool has holdups ranging from O to qs~., substantially more sensitivity to the air because of its proximity to the air region. For similar reasons, the eccentered tool has more sensitivity than the centered tool when the air holdup is between 66 and 100%. Modeling was used to predict the RST-A inelastic near/far ratio under the same measurement conditions as those in Fig. 3. This was used to benchmark the modeling, and a correlation was developed so that modeled results could be transformed into equivalent measured results (see Fig. 2). This means that the calibrated modeled response gives the same results as the measurements. After the benchmarking of data of Fig. 3 via Fig. 2, the formations were remodeled substituting realistic downhole gas into the model. The gas was modeled as 0.3 g/ml methane (CH4). The modeled inelastic near/far ratio under these conditions is shown in Fig. 4 for the tool centered and eccentered, For this realistic gas, the dynamic range of the inelastic near/far ratio is reduced by about 30 to AOO/o relative to the air data for both tool positions. Like the air data, the gas holdup lines drawn on the figure show the same general trend in that the centered tool has its maximum sensitivity between O and qq~. holdup while the eccentered tool has its maximum sensitivity between 67 and 100/0gas.
Two-Phase (Oil/VVater) Holdup From C/O

where the Ns are the near detector sensitivity factors of carbon and oxygen to the matrix, pore space, and borehole. (Similar equations can be written for the far detector where the far detector sensitivity factors are designated by Fs.) To determine the sensitivity factors, four laboratory measurements (or calculations) are performed where only the formation or borehole fluids are changed (i.e., formation porosity, lithology, borehole size, and casing size are fixed). These measurements are usually referred to as the endpoint measurements since they correspond to the endpoints of the tool response. From these data, the near and far sensitivity factors are determined using the four eIemental yields from the measurements with the above equations. This results in four equations and three unknowns for both the carbon and oxygen expressions, allowing the determination of the three sensitivity factors for each elemental yield. To characterize the complete tool response, this process is repeated varying porosity, lithology, etc. Once the tool response is known from the above calibration, for every depth, the sensitivity factors are calculated based on known borehole size, lithology, porosity, etc. and the near and far C/O ratios are measured. Combining these data results in the following two equations:
c

N, +N2cPS0 +N3Y0
N, +N,4(1-SO)+N,(IF1+ FIOSO + F3Y0 r F4+F,cD(1-SO)+ F,(l-YO) YO) -(3)

n ~=

R,=:=

,....(4) ................

As in the gas phase measurement discussed above, the positioning of the tool in a segregated borehole impacts the linearity and sensitivity of the holdup measurement. This section will address this issue with respect to the 2-phase, oil/water, situation with a near/far C/O interpretation approach. For this section, the interpretation approach utilized will be the standard RST approach in which carbon and oxygen elemental yields can be expressed as sums of the contributions due to the matrix, pore space, and borehole as:

which have two unknowns. The solution to these equations yields the borehole holdup and the volume of formation oil. The above analysis assumes that the borehole fluid is a homogeneous mixture of oil and water as is the case with vertical wells. However, in horizontal wells, the segregated borehole fluid can introduce nonlinearities into the analysis. The purpose of the following analysis is to characterize the effect of this nonlinearity on the determination of holdup in a horizontal well. The data used for this analysis will include eight points per formation porosity, i.e., oil and water in the formation with four different oil/water combinations in the borehole depicting several holdups with segregated flow (see Table 3). The data points shown will be from modeling (the measured data show the same result.) For this analysis, the coefficients for the interpretation model are calculated from the four endpoint measurements of the formation being considered as described above. These coefficients are then applied to the other four data points of the data set to look at the linearity effects with segregated borehole fluid. (This approach solves for both the oil saturation and holdup simultaneously). The results of this analysis can be seen in Fig. 5 for a centered and eccentered tool . The top plot of Fig. 5 shows the reconstructed oil holdup for data modeled in a 7-inch casing (8.5- and 10-inch

897

B.A. ROSIXX3

SPE 37147

borehole). The reconstructed holdup is extremely nonlinear if the tool is eccentered. In this case, it appears that the tool does not see the top third of the borehole due to the nonlinearity. If the tool is centered, then the tool response is fairly linear. Since the effect being observed is a nonlinearity caused by the tools limited depth of investigation, the effect should be reduced in a smaller casing size. The bottom plot of Fig. 5 shows modeled results for a 5.5-inch casing in a 8.5-inch borehole. As can be seen, the effect is reduced, but still a significant issue. Table 4 summarizes the results of this 2-phase holdup analysis using C/O ratios, This table includes RMS accuracy estimates and 18-second precision for this measurement. From these data, it is obvious that a centered tool always gives better accuracy and precision than an eccentered tool. However, if the tool must be run eccentered, accuracy can be improved by making corrections based on calibrations of tool response as shown in the plots of Fig. 5. The effect of this approach is reduced sensitivity to low oil holdups. Another interesting result of this analysis is that for measurements using the RST-A tool, where the borehole fluid is unknown, a centralized tool will give better precision on formation oil saturation than an eccentered tool (see Table 5). This is because centralizing the tool makes the near and far carbonloxygen response more orthogonal with respect to For some conditions, this can mean borehole compensation. reducing station times by a factor of 4. For measurements in which the borehole fluid is known, station time requirements show no improvement.
3-Phase Holdup Determination

these equations, the numerator and denominator have been modified from the original RST interpretation (Eqs. 3 and 4) to allow for the contribution of gas in the borehole. In the denominator, this results in a reduction of the amount of oxygen present in the borehole. In the numerator, it is assumed that gas will increase the carbon response by a factor approximated by the relative densities of gas and oil. As with the normal C/O processing, the sensitivity factors are obtained from laboratory calibrations which use the borehole size, casing size and weight, lithology, and porosity as inputs. Once the C/O ratios are measured and the gas holdup is calculated horn Eq. 5, Eqs. 6 and 7 reduce to two equations and two unknowns that can then be solved for the holdup and oil saturation. In this formulation of the problem, it is assumed that the tool is equally sensitive to all sections of the borehole. As has been shown, this is a reasonable assumption if the tool is centered; however, if the tool is eccentered, this formulation will introduce some bias. Under many conditions, this bias can be reduced by providing a correction based on data similar to those in Fig. 5.
3-Phase Holdup Results - Centered Tool

To determine the holdup of all three phases using the near and far C/O ratios and the inelastic near/far ratio, a two-step interpretation is currently used (these could be combined into a single step). The interpretation is based on the assumption that the three borehole holdups sum to unity and that formation gas is zero, i.e., YO+YW+Y =1 and SO+SW=l. The first step is to obtain the gas k oldup from the inelastic near/far (N/F) ratio. This is obtained from calibration data similar in form to those shown in Figs. 3 or 4 and can be expressed as: Yg = f(y~) ........................................................................ (5) Once the gas holdup is determined, the water and oil holdups can be determined using a modified version of the normal RST C/O interpretation, The modifications made are to allow for the inclusion of gas holdup into the formulation as shown below: ~

N1 +N20S0

+N3(Y0 +Y,~yo) (6)

-Y,)

N, +N,O(l-SO)+N,(l-YO

R,=

F, +F,OSO +F3(Y0 + Y,(p~m)) F4+F,@(l_so)+Ff(l_yo _y,)

. . .. . . . . . ..- (7)

where ps and PO are the downhole gas and oil densities.

In

The interpretation procedure outlined above has been applied to the measured and modeled 3-phase data obtained in this study to evaluate the expected performance of this measurement. This includes the measured data (with air) and the modeled data (with air and 0.3 g/ml gas). An example of the measurement parameters for a 16-p.u. oil-saturated limestone formation with an 8.5-inch borehole and 7-inch, 23-lb/ft casing is shown in Fig. 6 in a threedimensional plot. In this plot, the comers of the plots represent the conditions when only a single phase is present in the borehole, i.e., YW=1 is all water, YO=1 is all oil, and Ys=l is all gas (0.3 g/ml in this example). From one comer to another, the fraction of each phase changes linearly along that line. The point in the center of the plot has water, oil, and gas present in equal fractions. The z axis of the plot shows the magnitude of the various parameters being displayed. The data from Fig. 6 are obtained from modeling since a realistic gas was used (0.3 g/ml). As can be observed, the modeled data are dominated by the physics of the measurement, while the statistics of the Monte Carlo calculations are small by comparison. This makes identifying the tool response trends fairly straightforward. Also note that the inelastic near/far ratio response is quite orthogonal from the other responses, giving a clean gas signal. The near and far C/O ratios show a similar response; however, they are orthogonal enough to differentiate the borehole and formation signals. When the holdup data of this study are analyzed through the above interpretation model, one can compare the predicted holdups to the known holdups to give an estimate of the accuracy of the approach. An example of these errors in reconstruction is shown in Fig. 7 for the input data of Fig. 6. These data show that the reconstruction is fairly good. The overall accuracy of this approach can be estimated by taking RMS errors of the data. This was calculated using data for several formations with different borehole size, porosity, and

898

SPE 37147

Three-Phase Holdup Determination in Horizontal Wells Using a Pulsed-Neutron Source

saturation. This resulted in RMS errors of 6.3, 6.1, and 4.8/0 for the gas, oil, and water holdups, respectively. While the holdup calculations are performed, it is possible to estimate the precision of the holdup measurement by propagating the measurement errors through the analysis. This was done assuming 18 seconds of data accumulation for the measurement, which is equivalent to logging at 500 ft/hr using a 5-level depth average. For these conditions, the I-a precision were estimated to be 1, 15, and 15% for gas, oil, and water holdup, respectively. These precision will vary depending on the formation porosity, borehole size, and casing size. For an unambiguous interpretation, it is recommended that holdup measurements in horizontal wells be performed in conjunction with velocity measurements. Since the velocity measurements are stationary measurements, a holdup measurement could be performed at the same time as the velocity measurement, giving more than adequate precision to the measurement.
Centralization Error Effects on 3-Phase Holdup

As stated previously, one of the advantages of eccentralizing the tool is that its position is well known, while attempting to centralize the tool can introduce tool positioning uncertainty. To evaluate the effect of errors in tool centralization, a series of Monte Carlo calculations were performed in which tool position was varied from fully centralized to fully eccentralized. These calculations were performed for formations with an 8.5-inch borehole in both 16 and 33 p.u. sandstone formations. The calculations were performed with two different casing sizes: a 7-inch, 23-lb/ft and a 5.5-inch, 17-lb/ft casing. The data were analyzed to show what would happen to the calculated borehole holdups if the tool was assumed to be centralized, even when it was not. This was accomplished by calculating the near and far detector sensitivity coefficients based on data with the tool centralized. In addition, the tool gas response (Eq. 5) was based solely on the centralized tool data. These coefficients were then used with the modeled tool data for all tool positions to predict the holdups one would calculate with this centralization error. Figure 8 shows the RMS error on the borehole holdups as a function of centralization error for the two casing sizes modeled. The RMS error calculation includes data at both porosities and with both water and oil in the formation. In the figure, the RMS error at zero centralization error is a background error level due to the nonlinearity of the response and statistics of the modeling. For both casing sizes, it appears that there is no significant increase in the RMS error up to about 0.5 inches. Based on this analysis, as long as the tool is within 0.5 inches of being centered, there is negligible effect on holdup accuracy.
Field Example Commissioned in 1993 as the first well in the offshore section

well inclination across the reservoir section varies from 75 to 88.5 degrees. It penetrates the original OWC, enabling movement of the OWC to be monitored. The objectives of the production logging program were to 1) determine the flowing production profile, 2) determine the source of the water production, and 3) determine any movement of the OWC. Both velocity measurements and holdup measurements were performed with the RST tool in this well. Unfortunately for this study, the well did not have any gas in the borehole (as verified by the inelastic data). However, it is an excellent example of 2-phase oil/water production in a horizontal well and is still a good example of what can be accomplished in a horizontal well. The RST tool was run eccentered in the borehole for this well. As mentioned earlier, if not corrected, this results in some bias in the final holdup estimates. For this example, the biases were removed by a calibration similar to that shown in Fig. 5 (derived from modeling). The RST holdup interpretation was based solely on modeling results. The logging results are shown in Fig. 9. The top graph in the figure shows the comparison of PVL* Phase Velocity Log and WFL* Water Flow Log water velocities. The agreement between the two techniques is excellent. The next graph down shows the oil velocity measured with the PVL. The following graph shows a comparison of water holdup measurements from the RST-A tool and the LIFT Local Impedance Flowmeter Tool. (The LIFT tool measures the water holdup in a wellbore by scanning across the wellbore with six separate impedance probes which individually measure the local water holdup.g In both conventional and horizontal wells, the data from these six probes can be processed to give a global water holdup measurement.) The agreement between the LIFT and RST-A holdups is excellent except where known problems occurred with the LIFT measurement. (Note that the uncalibrated LIFT points were due to operational problems and the over-ranged point was past the maximum LIFT sensitivity). The bottom graph in the figure shows the oil and water flow rates calculated from the velocities and holdup. These data indicate that most of the water production is from below 900 ft while the oil production is fairly uniform over the interval. This log shows an example of when the holdup answer, by itself, in a horizontal well, does not completely diagnose the production problem and why additional velocity information is Looking at usually required for an accurate interpretation. only the holdup data from this well, a rather uniformly decreasing water holdup going up the well is observed. This, in itself, does not readily identify that most of the water production is coming from the lower part of the well.
Summary and Conclusions

of this reservoir (18 p.u. sandstone), the well has been on continuous production with interruptions only for workovers. The horizontal section was drilled with a 8.5-inch bit and completed with a 5,5-inch, 17-lb/ft casing and cement. The

The ability of the RST-A tool to measure 3-phase holdup in horizontal wells has been quantified in terms of accuracy and precision of the measurement. This has been accomplished by merging experimental (using air to simulate gas) with modeled data (using 0.3 g/ml CH4 for gas) into a database with over 400 borehole/formation conditions. This approach has allowed for the benchmarking of the Monte Carlo model (for the inelastic measurement) and predictions of the tool

899

B.A. ROSCOS

SPE 37747

response with gas under realistic downhole conditions. The inelastic neadfar ratio was shown to be an excellent stand-alone indicator of gas holdup. This measurement is more accurate with the tool centralized in the borehole than when it is eccentralized due to nonlinearities caused by tool positioning. The 2-phase holdup (oil/water) measurement was evaluated using the near and far carbon/oxygen ratios for the effects of tool positioning. This analysis was the normal dual detector C/O analysis but used to evaluate the nonlinearities in the measurement due to segregated flow. These results indicated that the tool response could be nonlinear if the tool was run eccentered with segregated flow, but that it could also be corrected over a large part of the dynamic range with proper calibration. It was also shown that running the tool centralized in segregated flow does not exhibit this nonlinear behavior. A filly integrated 3-phase holdup analysis was evaluated using the inelastic near/far countrate ratio and the near and far carbou/oxygen ratios. This analysis was performed using a RST analysis modified to take into account the gas contribution. The analysis used both measured and modeled data in combination for a centralized tool. For this analysis, the estimated accuracies are approximately 6 p.u. for each of the three phases, The estimated precision (18 seconds of data) for this measurement are approximately 1, 15, and 154 for the gas, water, and oil holdups, respectively. A field example indicated the accuracy and precision of the 3-phase holdup measurement are in line with the predictions from the modeling. Comparison of the holdups obtained with the RST tool compared quite favorably with holdup measurements performed by another totally independent technique, establishing the validity of both measurements. In addition, this field test example demonstrated that modeling results could be used to interpret log data accurately. Finally, this field example reaffirmed the notion that velocity or holdup measurements by themselves will not always give a correct interpretation of production problems; but that holdup and velocity measurements together can.
Acknowledgments

on= Near Oxygen Yield of= Far Oxygen Yield owc Oil Water Contact
R = Near C/O Value R~= Far C/O Value RMs = Root-Mean-Square so= Formation Oil Saturation Sw= Formation Water Saturation Y.= Air Holdup Yg = Gas Holdup Y.= Oil Holdup Y.= Water Holdup
S1 Metric Conversion Factors

BPD
fiX

X 1.589873

E-O] = m/d
E-01 =m E-05 = lllk

3.048

R/h x 8.466667 ft./rein x 5.08

in x 2.54 lb/ft X 1.488164 References

E-03 = 111/S
E+OO = cm

E+OO = kg/m

The author would like to thank British Petroleum for permission to publish their data and Steve Bamforth for his assistance in obtaining this permission. The author would also like to thank Norman Winkelmann of Schlumberger Houston Product Center for his assistance in acquiring the 3-phase holdup measurements under laboratory conditions.
Nomenclature @= Porosity

BOPD = BPD = BWPD = C = Cr = C/O = F,= N,= N/F =

Barrels Oil Per Day Barrels Per Day Barrels Water Per Day Near Carbon Yield Far Carbon Yield Ratio of Carbon to Oxygen Far Detector Sensitivity Factors Near Detector Sensitivity Factors Inelastic Near to Far Ratio

1. McKeon, D.C., Scott, H. D., and Patton, G.L.: Interpretation of Oxygen Activation Logs for Detecting Water Flow in Production and Injection Wells, Trans. SPWLA 32nd Annuaf Logging Symposium, Midland, Texas, (June 16-19, 1991), paper BB. 2. Roscoe, B. A., Lenn, C., Jones, T. G. J., and Whittaker, C.: Measurement of the Oil and Water Flow Rates in a Horizontal Well using Chemical Markers and a Pulsed-Neutron Tool, Paper SPE 36563 presented at the 1996 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver, Colorado, (October 6-9). 3. Peeters, M., Oliver, D., and Wright, G.: Pulsed Neutron Tools Applied to Three-Phase Production-Logging in Horizontal Wells, Trans. SPWLA 35th Annual Logging Symposium, Tulsa, Oklahoma, (June 19-22, 1994) Paper L. 4. Scott, H. D., Stoner, C., Roscoe, B. A., Plasek, R. E., and Adolph: , R.A. : A New Compensated Through-Tubing Carbon/Oxygen Tool For Use In Flowing Wells, Trans. SPWLA 32nd Annual Logging Symposium, Midland, Texas, (June 16-19, 1991), Paper MM. 5. Stoner, C., Scott, H.D., Plasek, R. E., Lucas, A. J., and Adolph, R.A.: Field Tests of a Slim Carbon/Oxygen Tool for Reservoir Saturation Monitoring, Paper SPE 25375 presented at the SPE Asia Pacific Oil & Gas Conference & Exhibition, Singapore, (Feb. 8-10, 1993). 6. MCBEND: A Monte Cario Program For General Radiation Transport Soiuiions - Users Guide, AEA Technology, Wirrfrith, U.K., 1995. 7. Roscoe, B. A., Stoner, C., Adolph, R.E., Boutemy, Y., Cheeseborough, J., Hall, J., McKeon, D., Pittmsn, D., Seeman, B., and Thomas, S.: A New Through-Tubing Oil-Saturation Measurement System, Paper SPE 21413 presented at the Middle East Oil Show & Conference, Bahrain, (Nov. 16-19, 1991). 8. Halford, F. R., MacKay, S., Bamett, S., and Petler, J. S.: A Production Logging Measurement of Distributed Local Phase Holdup, Paper SPE 35556 presented at the European Production Operations Conference and Exhibition, Stavanger, Norway, (April 16-17, 1996).

900

SPE 37147

Three-Phase Holdup Determination in Horizontal Wells Using a Pulsed-Neutron Source

Tablal: Borehole fluldconfigurations used in3-phase measurement to simulate a horizontal well. Yw % 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 100 66 33 66 33 33 0 0 0 0 Y. % 0 33 66 0 0 33 100 66 33 0 YA % 0 0 0 33 66 33 0 33 66 100 Bottom Section Water Water Water Water Water Water oil Oil : oil oil Air Air Water Middle Section Water Water

holdup

ToP SectIon Water

Table4: Accuracy and precision (18 second) of the RST.Aoll holdup meaaurementj Yo, for the tool eccentered and centered In the borehole with sevaml casings and aegregatad borehole fluids. This analysis solves for +SO and Y. at the same time.

~ oil Air Air Air

Oil
Air

Table 2: Formations used for >phaae Tool Poeition Eccent. & Cent. Eccent. & Cent. Eccent. & Cent. Eccent. & Cent. Eccent. Borehole Diameter 8.5 8.5 10 10 10

holdup chamcterkatlon. (:) 17 43 o 47 33 Water &Od Water & Oil Formation Fluid Water & Oil Water & Oil

Llth. Lime Lime Lime Lime Sand

Table 5: Accuracy and preclalon (18 eecond) of the RST-A volume of formation oil measurement, $S., for the tool eccentered and centered In the borehola with several casings and aegmgated borehole flulda. This analyala solves for $430 and Y. at the came time.

Table 3: Fluid combhratlons used with the data for 2-phaae holdup calculatlona from C/O. The holdup combinations used simulated segregated borehole holdup In a horizontal well. Those combinations used for calculation of interpretation coefficients are labeled as andnolnte.
r

I
1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8

s. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Y.
0.00 0.33 0.67 1.00 0.00 0.33 0.67 1.00

I ,

Y. 1.00 0.67 0.33 0.00 1.00 0.67 0.33 0.00

Endpoint yes

yes yes

yes

Fig. 1: Tool positioning In borehole with different Ilners allowing for cantered and eccedered 3-phaae holdup measurements.

901

B.A.

ROSC06

SPE 37147

; 0.8 m w

o 0

0.4 -

L ~ (),2 z 0.0 0.0 0.2 04 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2

-k-~- 2s:
a 2.0 .. .
z

s:2~...:.::1..::l z : :* \ .*.
..;.................i ................j...*. .. .....
--1

Y . O.(M
.

Near

C/O

(Modeled

with

MCBEND)

l,o~

1.2

*I* d
.0

Fknsl
Far C/O Ratio .......-.. ~..-.. -.....-..6..~.00--.*...0.0

* v=lnn k------*-----;-~m--a -r, I l.glo 10 0

I 20

I 30

I 40

50

porosity
2.4 ; 2 2.2 4 . .,.., ......................................... .. ,

(%)

Far

0.2 C/O

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

: %1.8 : 1.6 0 .Z =1,4 g ...... ... + ~ ...... .. . .......... .......... .......... . G..; ...... j Yi=0,67i : ~ ..........t?. #....._ ~ ......... . .

(Modeled

with

MCBEND)

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

o .=

z
au ~:
&

1,2 ................ ... +

! . Y. = 1.00: ....................... ...

--?.0
1.8 .........7 .. ..... .................... ..............

}Illlil
%0 o

lllillj

10

lilllli(lllilllli
Poroa& (A)

30

40

50

:s
awl o= .= w ~ al
c

1.4

Fig. 3: RST-A Inelestic nedfer countrate mtio es e funotion of porosity measurad In IC logging mode. The tool was run eccentered and centered Irr a 7-inch, 23-lb/ft casing in both 8.5borehoies. Air was used to simuiste gaa for thase and 10-inch meaauramenta. Tha iinee ara drawn to show tha trenda In the data for various air hoidups In the borehoie.

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1,6

1.8

2.0

2.2

Inelastic

Near/Far

Ratio

(Modeled)

Fig. 2: Near C/O ratio, far C/O ratio, and Inelastic nearlfar MO from maasuramenta versus the MCBEND modelad reaulta. The line showe a Ilnear flt to both the eccentered and centerad tooi data.

902

SPE 37147

Three-Phaae Holdup Determination in Horizontal Wells Using a Pulsed-Neutron Source

2.2-

, ,

;2.0 E
-1.8 : 2 ~1.6 :

Cantered Tool NIF Ratio - Ineleatlc 0.3 glml ges .

-

I I I [j; .......................{................................... ;

120 T b

R
z x .= 0

100

Open Points - Eccantbrsd 100 I :

....i ...,.. .. .............. . . ..... . xsx ;Yg=o.od ; x~ = m =- ! # . ........ ..;...,.., .... .....:. == : Y, = 0.33 {--j= i---~

60 ---

- .;............-..-i.............. . ...........,.

z z ~
1,0 0.8 .......... .......... .......... ..............
...!

20 - - -..-+ .............. Modeied Data :

: I
-lo 0

I
10

I Poros~t~ (Y.)

I
30

I
40

50

-20

20

40

60

60

100

12C

Acutai

Oii

Hoidup

(%)

2.2
L

, I , I
..

, 1
J

g
100 n a x .. ................ .. . ..........

. ..-. - .. . .. . .. . .. . . .. . .. . .. . ..

..+Y.-

o.oo.:....~ ...........j... i.....-.

~~

If

:-:

*:

Y=

~1.6 s u z

--,... : -.--...;-.---..~...:: ......................... .. ............ * .......... ..........

0,67: .

~ ............

:=

z .......... E

E 0

60 ...... .... . . .... .. .. . .

1,4

...... .... yY9=l. ... .......

......... . oc!

~1,2

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

~ -1.0

Eccentered Tool Inelastic NIF Retio 0.3 g/ml Gas

I I

\ .,: ......................................... , .,., : ;

I 1 I

z z ~ 00 0 : 50

20 .++

na -lo
,

10

30

40

1, -2020

20

40

60

80

100

120

Poros~/y

(%)

Fig. 4: RST-A Inelaatic nearlfar countrate ratios aa a function of porosity modeled in IC logging mode. The tooi was modeied eccentered and centered in a 7-inch, 23-iblft casing in both 8.5and Ill-inch boraholes. Gaa was modeiad with a dansity of 0.3 g/mi. Tha Iinss are drawn to show the trands in tha data for varioua eir holdups in the borehoia.

Actual Oli Hoidup (%) Fig. 5: Reconstructed hoidup from modelad dsta in which tha interpretation coefficianta ware calculated from the endpoint measursmente in 7- and 5. L&inch casing. Thasa dsta include only oii and water in tha borahola and formation. Tha interpratstion solved for both Y. and $SO simultansousiy. The line is drawn to indicata perfect reconstruction.

903

10

B.A.

ROSCOf?

SPE 37747

Near C/O Ratio

,,+-----

Far CIO Ratio

,/T-.

Inelastk N/F Ratio,+

-----

Fig. 6: Modeled response of the RST-A tool to changes In segregated borehole fluld compoaltion for a 16-P.u. Ilmeatone formation with a 8.5-inch borehole and a 7-inch, 23-lb/ft casing. The date were modeled ueing gaa with e density of 0.3 g/ml.

Fig. 7: Error in the reconstruction of borahole holdups using the modeled data of the RST-A tool. The formation used for this anaiysia waa a 16-p.u. iimestone formation with a 8.5-inch borehole and a 7-inch, 23-lb/ft casing. The data were modeled using gas with a density of 0.3 g/ml.

904

SPE 37147

Three-Phase Holdup Determination in Horizontal Wells Using a Pulsed-Neutron Source

11

600

0 I

-0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2,0

2.5

100

Centralization
50

Error

(inches) lr ~ ~:; l) l.-

g40

:....

IIr l l l 8.5-inch Borehole 5.5-inch, 17-lb/ft Casing

s t w 30
a ? u 320 z (n ~lo

1b o

~n~; ~o~l=
=y .............................. ..... .. ....... ........... ~ w Y. n 4000 ..:.7.:. !............ ....... .,. -..-. U...:.....:..+..~ oil ~Y ., ,. ..... . .......... ---;- ................... , ......... ( .......... .... !

{ :[le~
OF I
600
I I 1

.::!::t: .. ..$..:::+++ ~

700

600

900

1000

tloo

I 0.0 0,2

I 0.4

1,,11 0.6

I 0.8 1,0

I 1.2

11! 1.4

l,1.6

Centralization

Error

(inchee)

Fig. 8: Error on the 3-phase holdup estimate for atool that is assumed to becantralized when It Isreally off-center. The RMS error calculation Includes date for both 16 and 33p.u. sandstone formations with both water and oil Intheformatlon. In addition, the data include boreholea with 3.phase segregated fluids. For both casing sizes, it appeere that there Is no significant Increaae Irr the RMS error up to about 0.5 Inches. Baeed on this analysla, as long ss the tool is within 0.5 inches of being centered, then there is negligible effect on the holdup accuracy.

Relative Depth (ft) Fig. 9: Example of production logging meaaurementa performed in a horizontal well drilled with an 8.5-inch bit and completad with a 5.54nch, 17-lb/ft cemented casing. The meaaurernante include PVL and WFL water velocity maasurementa, PVL oil veloclty measurements, and RST and Ll~ holdup measurements. The Iinas on the plot connecting the data hava been added to halp indicate the trenda.

905