SPE 113887

Evaluation of Behind-Pipe Saturation in a Miscible CO

2
Flood
Samuel Amadi, ConocoPhillips and Richard G. Hughes, Louisiana State University
Copyright 2008, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2008 SPE/DOE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium held in Tulsa, Oklahoma, U.S.A., 1923April2008.

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
To evaluate the amount of bypassed oil in a CO
2
flood, it is necessary to obtain some estimate of the remaining oil saturation.
Near wellbore oil saturation determination requires a tool or sequence of tools that is able to distinguish oil from other phases
that may be present in situ especially when those phases are miscible with the oil.
This paper presents the combined use of several neutron tools to evaluate the remaining oil saturation in a miscible
CO
2
flood. These techniques are not time lapse techniques and so are applicable even where there are no base cased-hole logs
to evaluate.
These methods are applicable in areas where CO
2
has been injected for a long period of time without a base pre-CO
2

log. The techniques work best with a full suite of open-hole logs to characterize the petrophysical properties of the well and
where heterogeneity effects control the displacement process. If petrophysical properties are known or reasonably estimated
from other data available, the proposed methods can provide an estimate to the oil saturation that should be adequate to allow
go/no go decisions.

Introduction
With the advent of cased hole logging techniques like cased-hole resistivity logs, carbon-oxygen logs, and pulsed neutron
logs, engineers are now better able to assess the remaining life of a reservoir vis--vis the remaining oil and/or gas saturation.
Cased-hole logging tools are also useful in monitoring and evaluating secondary oil recovery projects. They aid the engineer
in determining when to do remedial work as well as what type of remedial work to do. They are the searchlight that reveals
the reservoir during production. In new wells where conditions dictate that the well should be cased before logging, cased-
hole logging is the only tool to be used to evaluate the formation. As useful as these tools are, they are independently limited
to two phase systems as no single measurement can be used alone to evaluate saturation in a three phase miscible system.
Some neutron tools have long- and short-spaced detectors and have been proposed for use in miscible systems (Svor and
Globe, 1984).
In miscible CO
2
systems, the CO
2
is usually in a supercritical state and has density characteristics that are closer to
those of oil than those of gas. This characteristic makes it difficult for tools that differentiate gas from liquid. Unlike oil-water
systems where carbon is seen as the characteristic element for oil and oxygen is the characteristic element for water, the
introduction of CO
2
in a miscible state with the oil makes it difficult for tools that use this distinguishing characteristic to
measure oil saturation. The oxygen in the CO
2
-oil mixture is interpreted as if it is from water and the carbon as if it is only
from the oil.
To overcome this difficulty, a tool or combination of tools that will be able to differentiate oil from CO
2
is
important. This work will therefore evaluate methods of measuring saturation in a miscible CO
2
flood.

Overview of Behind Pipe Saturation Tools
To evaluate saturation behind pipe using well logs requires special logging tools and techniques. At present most cased-hole
saturation logging tools are either resistivity logging tools or neutron logging tools.
Cased-Hole Resistivity Logging Tool
The cased-hole resistivity tool is an electrode device that measures voltage differences created when an applied current flows
into the rocks around the borehole. Open-hole laterologs are similar devices that use electrodes to focus the applied current
deep into the formation. In cased-hole resistivity tools, the casing itself serves as a giant electrode directing the current away
from the wellbore (Aulia et al, 2001). Because the casing is essentially an equipotential surface, the high resistivity contrast
between the casing steel and the formation dictates current leakage perpendicular into the formation. Cased-hole resistivity
2 SPE 113887
logging, like open-hole resistivity logging is based on the fact that the only conducting medium in the rock is water, and this
conduction is related to water salinity. Oil and gas are non-conductors, and therefore the resistivity of rock partially saturated
with hydrocarbons, R
t
, is higher than the resistivity of the same rock when fully saturated with water, R
o
. Larger amounts of
hydrocarbon leads to an increase in resistivity, however, this increase is not directly proportional to the hydrocarbon
saturation and is governed by Archies Law.
Because supercritical CO
2
is also a non-conductors, cased-hole resistivity tools will be able to measure the water
saturation of a zone, but will not be able to distinguish an oil zone from a zone swept by CO
2
and an additional tool will be
required to provide this differentiation. Because these tools have fairly poor vertical resolution relative to other cased-hole
tools, there would be an additional difficulty to determine the correct averaging technique to have the data from the two tools
on the same resolution.
Carbon-oxygen Logging Tool
The Carbon-oxygen logging tool is another cased-hole tool that can be used to evaluate saturation. The tool emits periodic
bursts of high energy (14 million electron volts) neutrons. These high energy (fast) neutrons bombard the nuclei of the
material and impart some of their energy to the target nuclei, thereby slowing down their speed and exciting the nuclei of the
material to a higher unstable bound-state. The excited state lasts less than a microsecond, and de-excitation returns the
nucleus to its ground state by prompt emission of one or more gamma rays at energies unique to the target nucleus. A
reaction involving carbon
12
C has an excitation half-life of 3.8x10
-14
s, and a gamma ray of energy 4.44 MeV is produced. For
oxygen,
16
O the principal emitted gamma-ray energy is 6.13 MeV and has an excitation half-life of 1.7x10
-11
s. The oxygen
spectrum contains other inelastic peaks, at 6.92 and 7.12 MeV (Serra, 2004). Prompt gamma-ray measurement from inelastic
scattering is indicative of the relative concentration of carbon and oxygen, and these relative concentrations are used to
evaluate oil saturation.
While the carbon-oxygen ratio of formation fluids is needed, the actual carbon-oxygen ratio measured is the ratio of
counts coming from the formation fluid, the formation matrix, and the borehole. Smolen (1996) presented this ratio as:
borehole matrix fluid formation
borehole matrix fluid formation
O O O
C C C
O
C
+ +
+ +
= (1)
North (1987) presented the individual matrix and pore space contributions for immiscible oil-water systems as the product of
their volumes and atomic densities:
( )
( )
o w
c o
B S
B S
A
O
C
+ +
+ +
=


1
1
(2)
where, A is the relative nuclear cross sections of carbon and oxygen, is the atomic density of carbon in the rock, is the
atomic density of oxygen in the rock, is the atomic density of carbon in the formation fluid, is the atomic density of
oxygen in the formation fluid, B
c
is the carbon contribution from the borehole, and B
o
is the oxygen contribution from the
borehole. North (1987) gave the following expression for atomic density:

=
molecule
Atoms
Weight Molecular
Density
density Atomic (3)
Equation 1 may be expanded to accommodate as many matrix and fluid contributions as needed provided that their volumes
and atomic densities can be evaluated. Since the oil-water-CO
2
problem is really a compositional problem where the relative
contributions of carbon and oxygen for the oil, water and CO
2
will change with time, this approach likely requires an
iterative effort to try to evaluate these displacement effects. A simpler approach would be to assume that the oil, water and
CO
2
all track as their own pseudo-components with no mixing. This approach would be similar to black-oil modeling of
solvent flooding where oil, water, gas and solvent are all tracked as being in their own phase. These are really pseudo-
components, but similar to simulation we will use saturation symbols in our notation. In reservoir simulation, a mixing
parameter can be used to simulate the mixing that takes place amongst the fluids. Here we assume that there is no mixing and
similar to North (1987) we write that the carbon-oxygen log response is
( )
( )
o CO w
c CO o
B S S
B S S
A
O
C
+ + +
+ + +
=
2
2
1
1


(4)
with now being the atomic density of carbon in the oil pseudo-component, is the atomic density of oxygen in the water,
is the atomic density of oxygen in the CO
2
pseudo-component and is the atomic density of carbon in the CO
2
pseudo-
component. From (3) above we get that is
CO2
/44 and is
CO2
/22. Solving for the oil saturation and expanding the rock to
include a matrix portion and a shale portion to be consistent with equations for the other tools considered yields
( ) [ ] ( ) ( ) [ ]
( )

O
C
O
C
CO c Sh Sh Sh ma o Sh Sh Sh ma O
C
o
A S AB V A V A B V V
S
+
+ + + +
=
2
1 1
(5)
In sandstone rocks and water filled boreholes, both the matrix carbon and borehole carbon terms drop out (
ma
=0, and B
c
=
0). In addition, most shales have no carbon component so
ma
is also 0. Equation (4) resorts to the solution North (1987)
presented for oil-water systems (S
CO2
=0). Presuming there is an independent evaluation of the porosity and that the atomic
SPE 113887 3
weight terms can be adequetley evaluated, there are still two unknowns in Equation (5). Thus another tool needs to be used to
obtain a solution for this problem.
Note that knowledge of the formation is very important since limestone (CaCO
3
) and dolomite (CaMg(CO
3
)
2
)
contribute both carbon and oxygen while sandstone (SiO
2
) contributes no carbon. Shaley sands with elemental carbon or
oxygen will also cause difficulties. For two-phase systems, fan charts can be generated to evaluate how the ratio of carbon to
oxygen varies with porosity, fluid type and saturation and the makeup of the matrix. A fan chart for a sandstone matrix is
shown in Figure 1. If the formation matrix and pore fluid are 100% sandstone and 100% water respectively, the carbon-
oxygen ratio remains zero irrespective of the porosity. However, if oil is present the carbon-oxygen ratio increases as oil
saturation and porosity increase.
Pulsed neutron logging Tool
The Pulsed neutron tool also can be used to measure saturation behind pipe. The tool emits pulses of high-energy neutrons.
Following each pulse, at about 1000 microseconds or longer, the neutrons are rapidly slowed down in the formation to low
energy thermal neutrons. Upon collision with the nuclei of the formation, the thermal neutrons are captured with
corresponding emission of gamma rays (Youmans, et al, 1964). The rate of thermal neutron capture is characteristic of the
capturing nuclei, and depends on the mean thermal velocity, v, (a constant for a given temperature) and the macroscopic
capture cross-section of the medium. The measure of the probability of the capture is the capture cross section (symbol ) in
capture units (c.u). Chlorine has the highest capture cross-section among common earth elements, and therefore thermal
neutron tools are chlorine sensitive. Fresh water has a capture cross-section of 22 c.u at 75
o
F, while oil, with a GOR less than
10,000 scf/stb, has a capture cross section between 20 and 22 c.u. This closeness in capture cross section between fresh water
and oil makes it difficult to differentiate oil from fresh water. As a rule of thumb, a minimum of 15 percent porosity and
50,000 ppm equivalent NaCl formation water salinity are required for quantitative evaluation (Smolen, 1996). An empirical
criterion which allows some judgment as to whether conditions are suitable for pulsed neutron saturation calculations is
(Schlumberger, 1974)
( )
( )
33 . 1 * 1
% 100 log
% 0 log

=
=
=
w
w
S when
S when
confidence (6)
For confidence values greater than 0.5, the pulsed neutron log is considered to have enough resolution to give reliable
results (Schlumberger, 1974)
Edmundson, and Raymer (1979), expressed the macroscopic thermal neutron cross section of a compound in terms
of its constituent atomic microscopic cross sections as

=
=
m
i
i i j
n
GMW
1
2 . 602

(7)
where, n
i
is the number of atoms type i present per molecule,
i
is the nuclear microscopic capture cross section for element i
in compound j (units are barns per nucleus with 1 barn =10
-24
cm
2
). The GMW is gram molecular weight, is the density of
the compound and m is the total number of elements in the compound. The total thermal neutron cross section of a mixture of
materials is Schlumberger (1972)
i
n
i
i
V =

=1
log
(8)
where, V
i
is the volume fraction of constituent i (mineral or fluid),
i
is the capture cross section of constituent i, and n is the
number of constituent. Again note that this could be utilized in a compositional sense if knowledge of the volume fraction
changes of the constituent materials was available. Conventionally the pulsed neutron log is used in a two-phase system to
determine oil saturation. The macroscopic capture cross section of the bulk formation is presented as
log
such that:
( ) ( )
ma sh sh sh o w w w
V V S S + + + = 1 1
log
(9)
Therefore
( )
( )
w o
w sh sh ma sh
o
V V
S


=

1
log
(10)
where,
log
is the bulk capture cross section of the formation,
o
is the oil capture cross section,
w
is the capture cross section
of water, and
ma
is the capture cross section of the matrix. The volume fraction of the rock matrix includes everything which
is not shale; therefore
ma
represents not only the main rock minerals but also their impurities and cementing material. The

shale
term can be determined in each case by measuring the average value recorded in shales surrounding the formation
under study. The
o
term can be evaluated using equations from Clavier et al, (1971). The
o
term can also be obtained, when
the gas-oil ratio is known from correlations provided by the logging companies. Where water analysis is available,
w
is
obtained using Equation 7 or again using charts. Where water analysis is not available,
w
can be evaluated using a - cross
plot (Schlumberger, 1972).
In a CO
2
environment, Equation (9) becomes
( ) ( )
2
1 1
log CO w o ma sh sh sh o o w w
S S V V S S + + + + = (11)
4 SPE 113887
This can be rearranged to solve for the oil saturation
( ) ( )
( )
w o
CO w CO w sh sh ma sh
o
S V V
S

+
=

2 2
1
log
(12)
In this equation, the
CO2
is calculated from Equation 7 as
2 2
05394 . 0
CO CO
=
(13)
Again, there are two unknowns in Equation (12) presuming that the matrix, shale and fluid responses can be obtained from
correlations or log response in adjacent zones of similar composition.
Epithermal Neutron Logging Tool
The epithermal neutron logging tool was originally designed for use in porosity determination. For this reason, it is also
called the Neutron Porosity Tool. The tool operates at the epithermal neutron energy level. At this energy level, the neutron
interacts with the formation elastically, and the neutrons are rapidly slowed down by elastic collision with nuclei. The energy
lost per encounter is a function of the incident angle of the collision and the mass of the target nucleus. The energy lost by the
incident neutron is transferred to the nucleus in the form of kinetic energy. Therefore the internal energy of the nucleus
remains unchanged and no excitation and no radiation are associated with elastic scattering (Bassiouni, 1994).
Based on the mechanics of elastic collisions, the maximum energy will be lost when the target nucleus has a mass
equal to that of the incident neutron. Therefore hydrogen atoms most strongly affect the neutron slowdown. This is because
the single proton of the nucleus has approximately the same mass as a neutron. The probability of a collision occurring with a
particular element is a function of the atomic concentration of the element per unit volume of the formation, and the elastic
interaction cross section.
Another parameter of importance to evaluate neutron interactions with formations is the slowing down length, L
s
,
which is a measure of the average straight line distance traveled by a neutron between the source and the point where it
reaches the epithermal energy level. Slowing down length depends on the lethargy and the properties of the medium.
Conventionally this tool is used for porosity measurement based on elastic scattering between the neutrons and the nuclei of
atoms. Even though this tool is very sensitive to the presence of hydrogen atoms within the formation, as hydrogen atoms
have the highest slowing down power, one should not underestimate the slowing-down power of other elements even if they
are less effective. The result of neglecting the effect of non hydrogenous elements is the discrepancy in the measured neutron
porosity from true porosity; this discrepancy is called excavation.
Porosity is given in terms of the slowing down length as
3
log
2
1
10 C
C
C
L
N
S
=

(14)
where C
1
, C
2
, and C
3
are coefficients that are respectively equal to 7.08717, -0.34396, and 0.0277 for Schlumbergers CNL

tool. Other tools have different coefficients. Equation 14 is also expressed in terms of the hydrogen index of constituent
materials in the formation, as:
( ) ( ) [ ]
sh sh o w w w ma sh N
H V H S H S H V + + + = 1 1 (15)
where H
ma
, H
w
, H
o
, and H
sh
are the hydrogen indices of the matrix, water, oil, and shale respectively. These indices are the
ratio of the concentration of hydrogen atoms per cm
3
in the material to that of pure water at 75
o
F.
Again, this can be generalized and adapted for the current problem as
( ) ( ) [ ]
sh sh CO o w o o w w ma sh N
H V H S S H S H S H V + + + + =
2
1 1 (16)
To avoid the confusion that may arise when hydrogen index is mentioned for a non-hydrogenous material. The
concept of retardation index can be introduced. The retardation index is solely dependent on the slowing down length of the
material and is given as
0277 . 0 9 . 296
9073 . 2
=

s
L RI (17)
Equation 17 is derived from Equation 14 upon regression of the curve formed at different values of slowing down length. For
hydrogenous materials, the retardation index is the same as the hydrogen index, while for non-hydrogenous materials the
retardation index is different. For example CO
2
with a density 0.7 has a slowing down length of 65cm (McKeon and Scott,
1989). Using an L
s
value of 65 cm in Equation 17 will give RI of -0.02611. The negative value implies that compared with
limestone which is used as the base in Equation 14, a neutron will be slowed more by limestone than CO
2
andthat the log
reading will decrease as CO
2
increases. All elements that have higher slowing down power than limestone are positive, while
those with lower power are negative. This explains why at zero porosity the value of neutron porosity for dolomite is positive
while for sandstone it is negative. Since water is a hydrogenous material, the retardation index, RI
w
, can be obtained from
knowledge of the salinity (Schlumberger, 1972). To find RI
ma
, a log through a 100% water zone can be used and
sh
sh sh w N
ma
V
RI V RI
RI


=

1
(18)
Thus, Equation (16) can be written as
( ) ( ) [ ]
sh sh CO CO o o w o CO ma sh N
RI V RI S RI S RI S S RI V + + + + =
2 2 2
1 1 (19)
SPE 113887 5
Solving for the oil saturation yields
( ) ( )
( )
w o
CO w CO w sh sh ma sh N
o
RI RI
RI RI S RI RI V RI V
S

+
=

2 2
1
(20)

Previous Work Done to Measure Saturation behind Pipe in a Three Phase System
None of the behind pipe logging tools described above are capable of independently measuring saturation in a three phase
(oil-CO
2
-water) miscible system. Researchers in this area therefore, have resorted to time lapse monitoring or a combination
of any two of the tools described above. Prominent methods currently being used to evaluate saturation in a three phase
system are therefore presented in this section. These methods are the triangulation method, the flood method, the Charlson et
al (1978) Time-Lapse Technique and the Simpson et al. (2001) Method (PapuaSat).
Triangulation Technique
The Triangulation Technique uses open-hole digital log analysis and a base run pulsed neutron log to compute triangles
whose vertices represent sigma and ratio (net near to far detector count rate) of 100% oil, water, and CO
2
saturations for the
given porosities. The triangles are computed and stored on a foot-by-foot basis. Subsequent pulsed neutron runs are analyzed
by locating the latest sigma/ratio data point within its previously determined triangle and solving graphically for oil, water
and CO
2
saturations (Svor, and Globe, 1982). The logging device measures thermal neutron capture cross section () and
near-to-far detector count ratio (). The near-to-far count ratio is the ratio of the capture gamma-ray populations from two
detectors that have different spacing distances from the source. This ratio responds primarily to the thermalizing ability, or
hydrogen content of the formation. However, the effects of the capture cross section are much greater on this measurement
than on the Neutron Porosity measurement because the tool measures captured gamma-ray population and not thermal
neutron population. Svor and Globe (1982) expressed the tool response by standard volumetric equations (Equations 21 and
22) and by solving for saturations graphically.
( ) ( )
ma CO CO o o w w
S S S + + + = 1
2 2
log
(21)
( ) ( )
ma CO CO o o w w
S S S + + + = 1
2 2
log
(22)
The
log
value is the same as
s
or
L
depending on whether the short detector or the long detector is used in determining the
near-to-far ratio. The ratio response for CO
2
lacked experimental data at that time and was assumed (Svor, and Globe, 1982).
Solving for the oil saturation yields
( ) ( ) { } [ ]
( )( ) ( )( ) { }
( ) ( ) [ ]
( )( ) ( )( ) { }
2 2 2 2
2 2
2 2 2 2
2 2
1
1
log
log
CO o CO w CO o CO w
CO sh sh sh ma CO w
CO o CO w CO o CO w
CO sh sh sh ma CO w
o
V V
V V
S

=




(23)
The
w
, and
ma
can be evaluated by running the tool on a 100% water zone in the formation and thereafter solving
Equation 22 to get the near to far ratio for both matrix and water. This can also be done by a - cross plot. The intercept of
the crossplot would give
ma
while
w
. is evaluated from
ma w
=
50
2 (24)
where
50
is the value for =50%. The
50
term is used instead of
100
because porosities of oil reservoirs rarely exceed
40%. It may be possible to use the same type of procedure at a CO
2
injection well to get the
CO2
at 100% CO
2
saturation
presuming a zone can be isolated that has been completely swept. The
sh
term is obtained as the near-to-far ratio at a 100%
shale section. The
o
ratio can be obtained by running the tool in an adjacent virgin well where only water and oil are the
fluids present.
Even though the triangulation technique successfully gives a quantitative three-phase solution, it does not appear to
have been used much as no follow-up studies have been published. The technique is also only as accurate as the assumption
made in assigning a value to the ratio response for CO
2
. What is needed is an interpretation technique that remains
quantitative yet flexible enough to be used on injection, observation, or producing wells where base logs have not been run.
Flood Method
The flood method makes use of monitor wells and a combination of logging measurements (Schwantitz, 1988). It uses
neutron logging tools for monitor logs and a simultaneous or least squares solution to quantify the changes in saturation at the
wellbore. The flood technique is a three step process. The first stage is to evaluate petrophysical properties of the formation
using open-hole logs and nearby core and water samples. The second stage is the calibration of the base cased-hole log with
respect to the open-hole log. The base cased-hole log is run after casing and prior to production or injection. Finally the third
stage is the computation of saturation based on Equations 25 to29, using the base parameters with the new monitor data.
Although Equation 28 is given, the technique needs only Equations 25 to 27, provided that the water salinity is high (
w
>40
c.u.).
oil water CO
S S S + + =
2
1 (25)
6 SPE 113887
water oil oil CO CO fluid
S S + + =
2 2
(26)
water water oil oil CO CO fluid
S HI S HI S HI HI + + =
2 2
(27)
( ) ( )
( ) ( )
borehole CO CO water water t i i
borehole CO CO oil oil t i i
O O S O S V V
C C S C S V V
O
C
+ + +
+ + +
=
2 2
2 2

(28)
where HI
fluid
is expressed as
x
base
N
monitor
N
fluid
HI
1
,
,

(29)
where x is a porosity-dependent excavation correction.
This technique like the triangulation method needs a base log before saturation evaluation can be made. In addition,
the porosity dependent excavation correction is not a constant but a saturation dependent function. This means that the only
way to use it in Equation 29 above is by assuming a value for it. An inaccurate value renders the calculated saturation
questionable. The Flood technique treats CO
2
as a gas phase, which is not exactly true in a miscible CO
2
flood. Usually CO
2

is in a supercritical state for miscible floods and may have a density similar to that of the oil. The concept of excavation is
explained later in the following section.
Charlson et al. (1978) technique
The Charlson et al. (1978) technique is also a time-lapse approach. This technique uses a neutron porosity log and a pulsed
neutron log to determine saturation. The two governing equations in the technique are (Charlson et al., 1978)
( ) ( )

=
o CO
w w o w w o
T
LC LC
CO
HI HI
S HI HI S HI HI S
2
2
1
.
1 1 2 2
1 2

(30)
and
( ) ( )

=
o w
w w w CO CO o
T
LC
w
S S S
2
1 1 2
1
2 2

(31)
where
Nex N LC
+ = (32)
( ) ( )
Nex m CO CO o o w w t N
HI HI S HI S HI S + + + = 1
2 2
(33)
The
Nex
term is an excavation effect correction
( )( )
wH T wH T
m
Nex
S S +

= 1 04 . 0 0 . 2
65 . 2
2
2

(34)
where
( )
2 2 2 2
1
CO CO CO CO w w w wH
HI S HI S S HI S S + + = (35)
The Charlson et al (1978) technique like the other time-lapse techniques is based on the assumption that there is no CO
2
at
the time the base log was run and thus, S
CO2
is equal to S
CO2
. Therefore oil saturation is given as
( )
w w CO o
S S S S + =
1
2
1 (36)
The shortcoming of this technique like the other time-lapse techniques is that it is not applicable in a situation where there is
no base log. In addition,
NEX
is not a constant but a function dependent on saturation as shown by Equations 32 to 35, as are

LC1
and
LC2
. Therefore, the only way to solve Equation 30 above is either by iteration or by assuming a value for
NEX
.
Either way, the solution is a trial and error method.
The Simpson et al (2001) method (PaupaSat)
The Simpson et al (2001) method (PaupaSat) uses a carbon-oxygen log and a pulsed neutron log to evaluate saturation behind
pipe in a three phase system. The development of this method was for the oil-hydrocarbon gas-water three phase system, so
extension to the CO
2
system would be necessary.
The technique is a three stage process. First, an initial estimate of oil volume (V
oil
,
0
) is made, assuming a two-phase
saturation, by using (Simpson et, al., 2001)
( )
( )
( )
hc
oil
C
O
C
O
C
V
19 . 0
35 . 0 1 53 . 1
0 ,
+

= (37)
where, C
hc
is the carbon index of the aggregate hydrocarbon, and it is a volumetrically weighted sum of the individual
components given as (Simpson, et, al., 2001)
gas oil
gas gas oil oil
hc
V V
V C V C
C
+
+
= (38)
SPE 113887 7
where, C
oil
and C
gas
, are the carbon index of oil and gas respectively and V
oil
and V
gas
are the fractional volume of oil and gas
respectively. Truax et al. (2001) defined C/O as
A LIRI COIR
O
C
+ + = 263 . 0 07 . 0 15 . 0 (39)
where, LIRI is a functional relationship for the measured calcium to silicon ratio expressed by Truax et al (2001) as
( )( ) 505 . 1 1 30 . 0 32 . 0 + + =
ls
V LIRI (40)
where, V
ls
is the fractional volume of limestone and COIR is a functional relationship for the measured carbon to oxygen ratio
(Truax, et al., 2001), given as
( ) 419 . 0 1 025 . 0 145 . 0
1
1
+ + =
o
c
Y
Y
COIR (41)
Truax, et al. (2001) expressed
o c
Y Y as
( )
( ) ( )

+
+
=

1 1
1
o
o
o
c
S
S
Y
Y
(42)
where, is the fractional porosity, S
o
is the oil saturation, is the atomic density of carbon in hydrocarbon, is the atomic
density of carbon in matrix, is the atomic density of oxygen in water, is the atomic density of oxygen in matrix.
The second step in the process was to use a three-phase response equation to solve for the volume of gas (V
gas
),
incorporating the (imperfect) initial oil volume estimate (Simpson, et al., 2001).
( ) ( ) ( )
w g
o w o o sh sh sh m
gas
V V V V
V


=
1
log
(43)
Finally Simpson et al (2001) applied the Badruzzaman, et al. (1998) correction to obtain the corrected oil volume
(V
oil,AB
)

=
T
gas
oil AB oil
V
V V

1
0 , ,
(44)
As stated previously, the Simpson-Truax-Younse Method is designed for hydrocarbon gas and may apply for
immiscible CO
2
. However, since the introduction of CO
2
in a miscible phase with oil will cause the oxygen in CO
2
to be seen
as though it is from the water, this technique would need to be modified for use in a miscible CO
2
system.

Proposed Technique
The technique that is being proposed is based on the assumption that the petrophysical properties are constant throughout the
life of the reservoir, that there is no hydrocarbon gas present and that the oil, water and solvent can be tracked as separate
constituents. This implies that viscous forces through higher permeability zones are the largest influences on saturation
changes. As previously shown, there are three tools that can be used to solve for the two unknowns in the oil saturation
equations. Any two of the equations developed can be used to solve for the oil saturation. The simultaneous solutions for oil
saturation all have the same form
2 2
1 2 2 1
b a
a b a b
S
o

= (45)
For the epithermal neutron-pulsed neutron combination
( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
w o
CO w
w o
w sh Sh ma Sh
w o
CO w
w o
w Sh Sh ma Sh N
b
V V
b
a
V V
a


=


=

=
2
2
2
log
1
2 1
1
1

(46)
The solution for oil saturation then is
( ) ( ) [ ] ( ) ( ) [ ]
( )( ) ( )( ) [ ]
2 2
2 2
1 1
log log
CO w o w o w CO w
w sh Sh ma Sh CO w w sh Sh ma Sh CO w
o
V V V V
S




= (47)
For the carbon-oxygen and pulsed neutron combination the terms are slightly more complicated due to the possible carbon
and oxygen responses in the rock. The terms are
( ) [ ] ( )
( )
( ) ( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
o w
CO w
o w
w sh Sh ma Sh
O
C
O
C
O
C
c Sh Sh Sh ma o Sh Sh Sh ma O
C
b
V V
b
A
a
AB V A V A B V V
a


=


=
+
+
=
+
+ + +
=
2
2
log
1
2 1
1
1 1

(48)
Solving for oil saturation then yields
8 SPE 113887
( ) ( ) ( ) [ ]
( )( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) [ ]
( ) ( ) [ ] ( ) [ ]
( )( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) [ ]



A A
AB V A V A B V V
A A
V V A
S
O
C
o w O
C
CO w
c Sh Sh Sh ma o Sh Sh Sh ma O
C
CO w
O
C
o w O
C
CO w
w sh Sh ma Sh O
C
o
+ +
+ + +
+
+ +
+
=
2
2
2
1 1
1
log
(49)
These simultaneous solutions are useful for computerized manipulation of the logs, but can likely best be understood
by a simple crossplot of two of the curves. Figure 2 shows a C/O response-Pulsed neutron response crossplot with lines of
constant oil and water saturation values shown. If a Pulsed neutron response was 15 c.u. and the C/O response was 0.03, the
oil saturation value would be 20%, the water saturation value would be 30% and the CO
2
saturation would be the remaining
50%. The crossplot shown is for a particular set of parameters (, V
Sh
, and fluid properties) that must be known or estimated
for the depth of interest. Woodhouse and Kerr (1992) presented a very nice evaluation of the uncertainties involved in
carbon-oxygen logging in a two-phase system. Our continuing work will be to parallel that effort to provide an error
estimation of the multi-tool technique. For this work, we assume that the values are reasonably estimated from open-hole
logs, log response from adjacent zones or through correlations.
A synthetic example of the ideal log response through several formations is shown in Figure 3. The depth, porosity
and V
sh
values were obtained from an example log in southern Mississippi. We then imposed constant oil and water
saturations on the different zones. Figure 4 shows the synthetic log response to the displacement of the formation fluids by
CO
2
. In this figure the CO
2
replaces the oil in the top two zones (oil saturation drops from 0.40 to 0.10 and 0.60 to 0.25 in the
two zones). The CO
2
bypasses the middle zone and reduces the oil saturation from 0.85 to 0.35 in the third. It also displaces
water in the lower zone and reduces the water saturation from 1.0 to 0.2.
We imposed these changes as fairly drastic changes to show that the signal can be a strong one under idealized
circumstances. Woodhouse and Kerr (1992) showed that errors associated with carbon-oxygen log evaluation can impose
uncertainties in saturation measurements in two-phase systems of between 0.15 and 0.47 saturation units depending on the
porosity value. For a 20% porosity value the combined uncertainty was 0.23 saturation units. Thus, the fairly extreme
changes shown in Figure 4 should be detectable even if the original cassed-hole logs from Figure 3 were not available as
baseline logs. Uncertainty in the saturation values of 23% is a concern and a reasonable amount of care in evaluating the
rock and fluid properties would need to be taken. This would be especially true for cases where the oil saturations are low to
begin with either due to a low initial value or where waterflooding has taken place before the initiation of the CO
2
flood.
However, changes of the magnitudes seen in Figure 4 should be observable and provide insight into the near wellbore
displacement process.
A comparison of the tool responses shown in Figure 3 and in Figure 4, the carbon-oxygen response shows the
largest changes when the CO
2
replaces the oil while the pulsed neutron response shows the largest response to the
replacement of water by the CO
2
. Given the description of the tool sensitivities presented previously, the responses make
sense.
To somewhat show the subtleties of the tool responses, we generated Figure 5 by assuming that the CO
2
displaced
oil and water both in zones 1 and 2, we left the third zone and the bottom zone as undisplaced and we assumed that CO
2

would displace only oil in the fourth zone. For both zone 1 and zone 4 we displaced fluids in proportion to the porosity as a
simulation of heterogeneity. In the top zone we left the oil and water saturations unchanged if porosity was less than 15%, we
changed the oil saturation from 0.40 to 0.2 and the water saturation from 0.6 to 0.5 for porosities between 15 and 20% and we
changed saturations from 0.4 to 0.1 and 0.6 to 0.3 for porosity values greater than 20%. Similarly, in the fourth zone we left
the oil undisplaced for porosities less than 10% and displaced the oil from 0.85 to 0.5 for porosities between 15 and 20% and
from 0.85 to 0.25 for porosities greater than 20%. Figure 5 shows that the C/O and neutron porosity responses have a bit
more strength in zones where oil is being displaced while all three zones respond to the displacement of water with the pulsed
neutron response being slightly stronger.

Discussion
Since the epithermal neutron tool is most strongly influenced by hydrogen interactions and since CO
2
is effectively displacing
hydrogenated fluids, it was felt that this tool would be a key to finding where the CO
2
has swept. Several different methods
for using the data from these tools were evaluated during the early stages of this work (the retardation index presented, one
based on the hydrogen index and one based on an extension of the near-to-far pulsed neutron tool). Note that the C/O log
response effects nearly all parts of the C/O-pulsed neutron saturation equation seen in Equation 49. Since this is the case, we
believe that the epithermal neutron-pulsed neutron combination may be a superior combination to try as it possibly has less
uncertainty (to be evaluated).
The problem with the epithermal neutron-pulsed neutron combination is that most, if not all of the logging
companies have epithermal tools that are too large to be run inside tubing and thus require a workover to be performed in
order to run such an evaluation. The most common combination of tools run then is the pulsed neutron and carbon-oxygen
combination. With perfect information, it appears that the C/O tool response has a similar affect as the epithermal tool and,
since this combination can often be run through tubing it is the suggested method as we move forward with testing of the
proposed techniques. The C/O and pulsed neutron logs being run also measure much more than the primary parameters
SPE 113887 9
developed for the technique presented in this paper. There is likely considerable ongoing research at the logging company
research centers as to how to make these tools highly accurate for flood monitoring especially for the time-lapse techniques.
For all of these synthetic responses the relative changes that take place in the tool responses would indicate that they are
highly capable of monitoring changes in saturation values if a base log run has been made.
Our purpose is in this paper has been slightly different in that our efforts are focused on those cases where an
operator has been flooding for an extended period of time but did not run a base log prior to initiating the flood. They may
run another log in the future, but would like to have an idea as to whether there is oil being bypassed near their injectors or
producers. Under these circumstances about the best you can hope for as far as data availability are open-hole logs, core
analyses and fluid samples.
We are currently working with a company whose primary interest is in CO
2
floods in sandstone environments and
have received this type of data on wells in four distinct but similar fields. These wells are being evaluated to develop an
appropriate test of the procedures outlined here. We are also trying to develop a method to check whether the values obtained
in a field test are reasonable. We anticipated that this work would be complete and available for this publication, but it is not.
We anticipate providing a revised version of the paper during the conference that will encompass an error analysis evaluation
similar to that of Woodhouse and Keer (1992) as well as a field test, provided we can work the test into the operators
schedule.
Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully acknowledge the fruitful discussions on this work with Charlie Gibson and Steve Pennell with
Denbury Resources, Inc. They also appreciate the financial support of the US Department of Energy under grant No. DE-
FC26-04NT15536 and specifically DOE Program Manager, Chandra Nautiyal for his support and encouragement.
Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty,
express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any
information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights.
Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or
otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States
Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect
those of the United States Government or any agency thereof.
References
1. Aulia, K., Beguin, P., Boyd, A., Farag, S., Ferraris, P., McDougall, A., and Rosa, M., Resistivity Behind Casing,
Oilfield Review, Spring 2001
2. Badruzzaman, A., Skillin, R.H., Zalan, R.A., Badruzzaman, T., Nguyen, P.T.: Accurate Oil Saturation Determination
from Carbon/Oxygen Logs in Three-phase Reservoirs, Paper CC in Trans. 19
th
Annual SPWLA Logging Symposium,
May, 1998
3. Bassiouni Zaki: Theory, Measurement, and Interpretation of Well Logs, SPE Textbook Series Volume 4, 1994
4. Charlson, G. S., Bilhartz, H. L., and Stalkup, F. I. : Use of Time-Lapse Logging Techniques in Evaluating the Willard
Unit CO
2
Flood Mini-Test Paper SPE 7049, presented at the Fifth Symposium on Improved Methods for Oil
Recovery, Tulsa, Oklahoma, 1978
5. Clavier, C.; Hoyle, W., and Meunier D.: Quantitative Interpretation of Thermal Neutron Decay Time Logs: Part 1.
J ournal of Petroleum Technology, J une, 1971
6. Edmundson, H., and Raymer, L.: Radioactive Logging Parameters for Common Minerals, SPWLA, 20
th
Annual
Logging Symposium, 1979
7. McKeon D., and Scott H.: SNUPAR- A Nuclear Parameter Code for Nuclear Geophysics Applications, IEEE
Transactions on Nuclear Science vol 36 no. 1, February 1989
8. North, R. J . : Through-Casing Reservoir Evaluation Using Gamma Ray Spectroscopy, Paper SPE 16356, presented
at the SPE California Regional Meeting, Ventura, California, April, 1987
9. Schlumberger: Log Interpretation, Volume 2 Applications, 1974
10. Schlumberger: Log Interpretation; Volume 1 Principles, 1972
11. Schwanitz, B. J . : A Combination of Logging Measurements For Quantitative Monitoring of CO
2
Floods Paper SPE
17276, presented at the SPE Permian Basil Oil and Gas recovery Conference, Midland, Texas, 1988
12. Serra, O.: Well Logging Data Acquisition and Applications, Elsevier, 2004
13. Simpson, G. A., Truax, J . A., and Younse, G. A. : Field Experience with a New carbon/Oxygen Logging System in
Complex Wellbore and Formation Conditions, Paper SPE 71718 presented at the 2001 SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, Louisiana, October, 2001
14. Smolen J .: Cased Hole and Production Log Evaluation, Pennwell Publishing Company, Tulsa, Oklahoma, 1996
15. Svor, T. R., and Globe, M. P., : A Three-Phase Quantitative Monitoring for CO
2
Flood, Paper SPE/DOE 10684
presented at the Third SPE/DOE J oint Symposium on Enhanced Oil Recovery, Tulsa, OK, April, 1982
16. Truax, J . A., J acobson, G. A., Durbin, D. P., and Vasquez, Q. : Field Experience and Results Obtained With An
Improved Carbon/Oxygen Logging System For Reservoir Optimization, Paper WW presented at 2001 Annual
SPWLA Logging Symposium, Houston, Texas, June, 2001
10 SPE 113887
17. Woodhouse, R. and Kerr, S.A.: The Evaluation of Oil Saturation through Casing Using Carbon/Oxygen Logs, The
Log Analyst, J anuary-February, 1992.
18. Youmans, A. H., Hopkinson, E. C., Bergan, R. A., and Oshry, H. H.: Neutron Lifetime. A New Nuclear Log,
J ournal of Petroleum Technology, March, 1964, pg 319 328

Figures

Figure 1: Fan chart for a sandstone carbon-oxygen response in a two-phase system (after Woodhouse and Kerr,
1992). The individual lines are water saturation values.


Figure 2: C/O-pulsed neutron crossplot for a 23% porosity sandstone that has 8.7% chlorite shale and is filled with
some combination of a 100,000 ppm brine, a 39 API oil and CO
2
at 250 F and 5000 psia. For example, a 15 c.u. response
and a 0.03 C/O response yields a 20% oil saturation and a 30% water saturation for this case.
SPE 113887 11


Figure 3: Pulsed neutron, carbon-oxygen, true porosity and neutron porosity logs along with the computed oil saturation for
a synthetic example. The oil and water saturations are imposed on a well with the porosity and shale volume obtained from
open-hole logs. The neutron porosity shows slightly higher porosity than the true porosity.


Figure 4: Pulsed neutron, carbon-oxygen, true and neutron porosity and oil saturation responses when CO
2
replaces oil in the
top two zones and in the fourth zone, does not enter the third zone and replaces water in the lower zone. All logs respond to
the replacement with the replacement of water being the stronger signal.
Si gma
9800
9810
9820
9830
9840
9850
9860
9870
9880
9890
9900
0 10 20 30 40
CU
D
e
p
t
h
and NPHI
9800
9810
9820
9830
9840
9850
9860
9870
9880
9890
9900
0 0.2 0.4
PHI_Ret
D
e
p
t
h
Carbon - Oxygen
9800
9810
9820
9830
9840
9850
9860
9870
9880
9890
9900
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
C/O
D
e
p
t
h
So
9800
9810
9820
9830
9840
9850
9860
9870
9880
9890
9900
0 0.2 0.4 0.6
Oi l Saturati on
D
e
p
t
h
Si gma
9800
9810
9820
9830
9840
9850
9860
9870
9880
9890
9900
0 10 20 30 40
CU
D
e
p
t
h
NPHI
9800
9810
9820
9830
9840
9850
9860
9870
9880
9890
9900
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
PHI_Ret
D
e
p
t
h
Carbon - Oxygen
9800
9810
9820
9830
9840
9850
9860
9870
9880
9890
9900
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
C/O
D
e
p
t
h
So
9800
9810
9820
9830
9840
9850
9860
9870
9880
9890
9900
0 0.5 1
Oi l Saturati on
D
e
p
t
h
12 SPE 113887


Figure 5: Pulsed neutron, carbon-oxygen, true and neutron porosity and oil saturation responses for a case where we
assumed that the CO
2
displaced oil and water both in zones 1 and 2, we left the third zone and the bottom zone as undisplaced
and we assumed that CO
2
would displace only oil in the fourth zone. For both zone 1 and zone 4 we displaced fluids in
proportion to the porosity as a simulation of heterogeneity. In the top zone we left the oil and water saturations unchanged if
porosity was less than 15%, we changed the oil saturation from 0.40 to 0.2 and the water saturation from 0.6 to 0.5 for
porosities between 15 and 20% and we changed saturations from 0.4 to 0.1 and 0.6 to 0.3 for porosity values greater than
20%. Similarly, in the fourth zone we left the oil undisplaced for porosities less than 10% and displaced the oil from 0.85 to
0.5 for porosities between 15 and 20% and from 0.85 to 0.25 for porosities greater than 20%. Compared with Figure 3, the
effects are fairly subtle in the Sigma response, but stronger in the C/O and neutron porosity responses.
Si gma
9800
9810
9820
9830
9840
9850
9860
9870
9880
9890
9900
0 10 20 30 40
CU
D
e
p
t
h
and NPHI
9800
9810
9820
9830
9840
9850
9860
9870
9880
9890
9900
0 0.2 0.4
PHI_Ret
D
e
p
t
h
Carbon - Oxygen
9800
9810
9820
9830
9840
9850
9860
9870
9880
9890
9900
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
C/O
D
e
p
t
h
So
9800
9810
9820
9830
9840
9850
9860
9870
9880
9890
9900
0 0.5 1
Oi l Saturati on
D
e
p
t
h