SPE-192600-MS

Use of Multi Detector Pulsed Neutron Technologies to Address the

Challenges with Saturation Surveillance in Rumaila, Iraq

Oliver Grimston, Xiaogang Han, and Adrian Zett, BP; Andrea Caudullo and Mohammed Naji Al-taee, ROO

Copyright 2018, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition & Conference held in Abu Dhabi, UAE, 12-15 November 2018.

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
Rumaila, Iraq, is one of the biggest oil fields in the world, producing through multiple stacked clastic and
carbonate reservoirs and relying on several recovery mechanisms such as natural aquifer drive and water
flooding which have changed the initial fluid distribution. To evaluate the change of fluids distribution,
multi-detector pulsed neutron (MDPN) instruments are run within the field. MDPN measurements require
careful interpretation accounting for logging conditions and formation environments to provide an accurate
result of multicomponent fluid saturations so well work activity can be optimised, and production and
recovery can be maximized. Compatibility with legacy data is also critical for use in time lapse evaluations.
Recently, the MDPN technology diversified with more instruments being developed. Field trials are
required to understand backwards compatibility for some of the common nuclear attributes as well as
benchmarking and calibrating the nuclear models with the in-situ measurements. While all share the same
physics principle, the responses can vary owing to instrumentation design, characterization and nuclear
attributes extraction in the field. We will present the data integration approach taken by the production
team using historical and latest generation MDPN data, some acquired for the first time in the clastic and
carbonate formations of Rumaila field.
The paper will describe BP’s in-house workflow customised for MDPN derived saturation in Rumaila.
This will address the nuclear attribute screening and selection process for the two types of reservoirs
(clastic and carbonate) and the associated displacement mechanisms. Data from multiple MDPN instruments
are used to illustrate the robustness of our workflow that accounts for borehole configuration, formation
properties, reservoir fluids properties and detailed nuclear models for each tool.
The nuclear model driven interpretation showed that logging conditions and reservoir properties can
significantly impact the accuracy of fluid saturation. The uncertainty in MDPN derived saturation can be
reduced if the deviations from notional values are known. Because of similar sand-clay properties, the
carbon oxygen response in the clastic reservoir showed a unique pattern challenging the conventional
understanding of such data. Additional to reservoir complexity, new challenges will be faced in relation
to wellbore access because more wells are completed with electric submersible pumps (ESP). In ESP
completed wells, the access to reservoir section will be thru Y-tools using slim MDPN instrumentation. Our
2 SPE-192600-MS

study identified the optimal procedures and best nuclear attributes that can be logged in these conditions
without increasing the saturation uncertainty.

Introduction
Rumaila is a mature onshore field and is the one of largest conventional fields in world. It initially
contained tens of billion barrels of stock tank barrels in place (STOIIP) and now has over one thousand
well penetrations.
Production started in 1955, two years after the first discovery in 1953, and has a peaky 60 year production
history; largely reflecting regional geopolitics (Figure 1) (Jude, Wells, Brown, & Camplin, 2017). The last
eight years of relatively steady production was from the successful formation of the Rumaila Operating
Organisation (ROO) in 2010; a joint venture between BP, Basra Oil Company (BOC and previously known
as the Southern Oil Company- SOC) and China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC).

Figure 1—Production profile of Rumaila field after starting up in 1955 (Jude, Wells, Brown, & Camplin, 2017)

The field is composed of multiple reservoir intervals where the Zubair and Mishrif are the main source
of production and development (Figure 2).
The Zubair Formation is the principal clastic reservoir, approximately 200m thick sub divided into
three reservoirs unit: Upper Shale, Main Pay and Fourth Pay. The reservoir formed in paralic reservoir
environment being heavily influenced by fluvial and tidal processes with relatively little evidence of wave
influence observed ( (Wells, Morton, & Frei, 2017)). It is comprised of siliclastic sandstones and has
kaolinite as the dominant clay type with variable, vertical distribution of illite / smectite and chlorite qualities
between each sub reservoirs (Wells, Morton, & Frei, 2017)). Reservoir quality is mainly controlled by grain
size and detrital clay content and has a relatively strong correlation to the depositional environment.
The Mishrif formation is the principal carbonate reservoir, approximately 200m thick and sub divided into
two reservoir units: Mishrif A and B. The reservoir was deposited by shallow marine epeiric carbonate ramps
where the Mishrif A is a bio-constructed reef ramp system and Mishrif B is a grainstone shoal/lagoonal
dominated ramp system (Lehman, 2013). The reservoir shows a homogeneous sweep in the platform interior
grainstone that is well sorted however more heterogeneous sweep is observed in a prograding platform
margin grainstone. The platform margin can be built up from a variety of different facies (including more
rudist-rich facies) and is typically much more heterogeneous. Except for the flood Khasab shales, the
SPE-192600-MS 3

Mishrif contains limited clay and diagenesis is not a major reservoir component to reservoir quality (Holden,
Lehmann, Ryder, Scott, & Almond, 2014)

Figure 2—Primary and Secondary reservoirs show in the stratigraphic column

Structurally, Rumaila is a simple low-relief north-south trending double domal anticline, with a length
of ~75km and breath of ~15km across the original oil water contact (OOWC) footprint (Holden, Lehmann,
Ryder, Scott, & Almond, 2014). The two domes are separated by a saddle, which divides the field into
two areas called North Rumaila and South Rumaila (Figure 3). At present, no evidence exists of faulting
or fracturing play from 3D seismic date acquired in 2012, image logs or dynamic data. The field therefore
shows no or limited reservoir compartmentalisation hence is currently treated as unfaulted for reservoir
management purposes.
Iraq’s governmental laws require reservoir pressures to be maintained above bubble point so the field’s
primarily reservoirs are to be pressured through water injection. Fortunately, the Zubair’s strong, saline
aquifer can be relied in the south but it is far weaker in the north, partly caused by the poorer nature of
the sands as well as the presence of a heavy oil/tar mat, around the oil water contact. (Farmer, Kitching,
Sayed, Anibaldi, & Abuzaid, 2014). This drove the implementation of fresh water injection and is managed
peripherally, by zone in the north dome. The Mishrif was initially brought on by natural depletion however
the large pressure decline plus the absence of water production suggested the absence of an active aquifer.
This caused the implementation of a spot pattern fresh water flood to maintain pressure (Holden, Lehmann,
Ryder, Scott, & Almond, 2014).
4 SPE-192600-MS

Figure 3—Zubair’s top structure map of North (left) and South (right) Rumaila with current well stock.

Saturation Modelling in Rumaila

Very few nuclear logging technologies had been applied prior 2010 and it was not until after the ROO was
formed that field wide quantification of fluid saturations was implemented. Earlier in the life of the field
and before fresh water flood, basic open hole logging- gamma ray, resistivity (laterolog and induction) were
sufficient to detect the original and moved oil-water contact and provided the initial set of perforations in the
highest quality rock type. Later in the field life, two detector pulsed neutron tools were introduced, mainly
for use of traditional nuclear attributes such as sigma. Recently multi-detector pulsed neutron (MDPN)
technology was introduced because of injection of fresh water sourced from the Qayamat Ali water treatment
plant. Examples are shown in (Farmer, Kitching, Sayed, Anibaldi, & Abuzaid, 2014). Developing a robust
workflow has become even more critical with the developing complexity in the reservoir and quicker
turnaround need for wellwork decisions.
The sustained success in the reservoir saturation monitoring and wellwork activity has relied on the
employment of new tools, data processing and interpretation techniques. Although there has been limited
change in MDPN tools physics, the measurements from vendors tools can be significantly different because
the tools have variable design, logged in different well conditions (flowing/shut-in) and most important
have different processing algorithms.
These variables could result in poor interpretations and incorrect wellwork decisions; with a negative
impact on production. To reduce variability between contractors, in-house nuclear modelling capabilities
have been developed to produce standardisation. These are documented in (Zett, Webster, Spain, Surles, &
Colbert, 2012) (Raeesi, Cedillo, Han, & Zett, 2017) (Cedillo, Raeesi, Itter, Han, & Zett, 2017), and have
SPE-192600-MS 5

been instrumental in tool selection and retrofitting when required by challenging reservoir environment and
well conditions.
The benefits of a robust in-house saturation model that has field consistency regardless of the vendor used
to acquire the MDPN data (Han, et al., 2016) enables faster recovery of resources compared to previous
technologies. Figure 4 shows the associated incremental oil rate from wellwork (relative scale of oil rate
vs months of production for a typical year).

Figure 4—Incremental oil wellwork gained from water shut-offs (WSO- left)) and add perforations (right)
gained from surveillance in the field. This will result in over 20 million barrels of oil produced over the year.

Nuclear Modelling
The nuclear modelling responses of MDPN instruments are well documented in (Inanc, Gilchrist, Ansari,
& Chace, 2009) and (Han, et al., 2016) and internal nuclear models were developed and methodology
successfully applied for this study. Figure 1 Figure 5 summarizes the overall process comprising three main
stages: the nuclear simulation (dark green section), the nuclear attribute extraction (light green section) and
the petrophysical interpretation (yellow section).

Figure 5—The three stages of in-house workflow for creating a saturation interpretation

The nuclear simulation stage generates the MDPN tool responses accounting for specific well conditions,
logging conditions, formation properties, wellbore configuration, borehole fluids properties and any
formation properties generated by the petrophysical models (e.g. total porosity) (Han, et al., 2016). X-ray
6 SPE-192600-MS

diffraction data are used to build the rock composition of the sand and shales and PVT analysis used for
the fluid composition. Shales can be more difficult to model because it is a composite of components in
varying proportions; its’ importance will be explained later in the paper. The MDPN nuclear model is built
in-house and then benchmarked against other vendor’s models.
Tool response are then simulated by applying Monte Carlo N-Particle transport code (Han, et al., 2016).
Nuclear attributes are then extracted from the modelled spectrum. Each vendor’s tool is different with
distinct acquisition modes, so the modelling algorithm must be customized with appropriate QC/QA checks.
Once complete, the modelled response and tool measurements are input into the petrophysical interpretation
stage to calculate two (or three) phase fluid saturation.
This workflow provides standardization across different tool design, processing algorithms and wellbore
conditions, and makes the saturation comparable from vendor to vendor. To avoid bias, the data is processed
separately but the final saturation results can be directly compared knowing that the same processing has
been applied. This results in a rapid analysis for wellwork decisions and can highlight any issues with the
acquisition. Also, for large mature oilfields, where there is a history of changing contractors, the approached
described above offers a more robust methodology for consistent results.

Field trial
Six wells in Rumaila were selected for a trial to test a range of different scenarios, wellbore conditions
and formation characteristics. Not every well had back to back logging with existing/alternative tool
technologies because of operational constraints. This paper will present two wells which were logged off,
but all six wells were benchmarked against our saturation modelling.
The scope was to investigate the overall saturation response of fluids in the formation for similar nuclear
attributes recorded with different MDPN instruments and assess the saturation uncertainty and sensitivity
related to such measurements.
Each vendor’s tool wells were logged at similar speeds; however, one instrument was tested in a multi
data acquisition mode (time decay and energy spectroscopy) while the other was run in a separate mode.
Both tools were run on wireline with surface read out measurements.
To ensure a fair comparison, we intentionally avoid reference to vendors’ name, tools specifications,
curves mnemonics and scale.

Well YY
Well YY is in the North Rumaila and near the fourth degassing station (Figure 6). It is a carbonate
observation well with no flowline and is not perforated. When the well was drilled in 2012, it was logged
with the full suite of open hole logs including advanced logs such as nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR)
and was cored.
This well is used to monitor offset injection sweep of the pattern flood. The surveillance objective was
to identify the lateral movement of injection from offset injection to understand conformance and residual
oil in the pattern.
Logs were acquired in 7" casing, water filled annulus, shut-in and with no tubing. Several PNLs were
logged throughout the life of the well as well as a cement evaluation log in the zone of interest. For this
field trial, vendor’s tools A and B were logged back to back in February 2018. Both instruments were run
in Sigma/Carbon Oxygen (CO) mode and logging speeds were in the range of 2.5-3ft/min for CO passes
and 10ft/min for capture passes (Sigma).
SPE-192600-MS 7

Figure 6—Spatial location of the Well XX and Well YY- all offset wells have been removed

Well XX
Well XX is in the North Rumaila and near the third degassing station (Figure 6). It is a producing well in
the LN zone of the Zubair formation with a mixture oil and water flowing from the perforations. This well
was completed in 2014 with a 7in casing and 3.5in tubing and logged with a standard quad combination-
Gamma ray, Resistivity, Neutron, Density and Sonic. Several CNLs and PNCs were logged throughout the
production time of the well. For this field trial vendor’s tools, A and B, were logged back to back in January
2018. Both instruments were run in Sigma/CO mode and logging speeds were in the range of 2.5-3ft/min
for the CO passes and 10ft/min for capture (sigma). All passes were performed with the well in flowing
condition
The surveillance objective was to identify the movement of the oil water contact movement in the LN
sands and to understand future wellwork opportunities in the shallower uncompleted zones- AB, D and F
sand intervals.

Comparison of Tool Sensitivities

Pre-job models were built to understand tool sensitivity in both carbonate and clastic formation. The
simulated tool responses of vendor’s tools A and B of carbonate and clastic formation are shown in Figure 7-
left and Figure 7- right respectively. Tool response was normalized at origin point for comparison purpose.
The green line represents tool response of oil saturated formation and blue line represents tool response
of water saturated formation. The solid line is response of instrument A and dash line is simulated tool
response of instrument B. It is clear from the models that the sensitivity of instrument A is about 1/3 higher
than the sensitivity of instrument B. The final uncertainty of saturation is determined by tool sensitivity and
uncertainty of measurements. Uncertainty of saturation is estimated and shown in table XX. Only CO data
over good quality reservoir rock is used in uncertainty calculation.
8 SPE-192600-MS

Figure 7—Simulated tool response of well XX (left) and Well YY (right); Figure 7-a is simulated
absolute tool response and Figure 7-b is simulated relative tool response (Normalised)

CO Data
The models are built for windows extracted CO data which makes an easy comparison and use in our
saturation models. Table 1 and Table 2 above show the uncertainty of saturation is still relatively high even
for more than 20% porosity in formation. The CO measurements of both tools are statistical, and this can
be seen visually from the variations on the logs (Figure 8). The sensitivity study demonstrates that stable
slow logging speed and multiple passes are still the key to successful CO measurement for both tools.

Table 1—Well XX mean, standard deviaition and uncertainity for PHIT>0.19 and the averaged porosity (PHIT) is 0.22

Table 2—Well YY mean, standard deviaition and uncertainity for PHIT>0.20 and the averaged porosity (PHIT) is 0.224
SPE-192600-MS 9

Figure 8—CO ratios for vendor A and B throughout the Zubair (left) and Mishrif (right)

Understanding the saturation results in Rumaila

Well XX
The Zubair is interpreted in three section the Upper Sand AB sands, D/F/H sands and L/MN sands. The
L/MN sands (Figure 9) have had limited or no injection of fresh water so the sigma saturation follows the
similar trend as the CO response. This is also confirmed by an increase in the chlorine yields showing high
salinity water entering in the wellbore. The only depth range of a poor match between the sigma and CO
saturations is at the base of the largest perforation (Figure 9-(1)). This occurs for both vendor A and B, so
it is likely wellbore dependent. There is a slight uptick in the CO response and decrease over base of the
perforation. This is probably caused by the high velocity and heterogeneous fluid mixing while the well is
flowing therefore affecting the CO measurement as it is a shallow reading. This agrees with the large spike
in the oxygen activation curve (Figure 9- (2)).
10 SPE-192600-MS

Figure 9—Well XX Sigma and CO saturation data from vendor A and B in the LMN sands.

The AB and D/F/H sands have had large amount of injection over the years, so the sigma appears
artificially high and CO saturation indicates a fresh water response. The F2-F4 amalgamated channel sands
appear swept with injection water (Figure 10- 1). This agrees with the offset injector wells where most
injection is occurring. One interesting result is observed when comparing the 2016 (run by vendor A) log
against the two 2018 logs run by vendor A and B (Figure 11); there appears to be a slight resaturation and
increase in the Chlorine over the F3 and F4 intervals. This may be caused by the weak aquifer breaking
through the tar around the flanks of the field and the slight resaturation could be from the oil above the
tar mat which is mobile at reservoir conditions and is has been pulled up dip. The advantage of nuclear
modelling is that different cases of salinity can be tested to investigate its impact on the saturation (two
models were run- 40kppm and 210kppm). The result showed a limited difference in the final saturation as
the CO log is less salinity dependent than the Sigma saturation.
The CO saturation showed the D sands to be oil bearing (Figure 10- 2) and will be a future wellwork
opportunity providing the sand unit has offset injection for pressure support. The AB sand (Figure 10- 3)
contains injection water as shown by the low oil saturation.
SPE-192600-MS 11

Figure 10—Open hole Archie saturation with 300kppm equivalent for Rw, the Sigma
saturation and CO saturation data from vendor A and B in the AB, D/F/H sands.

Figure 11—Logs showing the slight resaturation over the F sands and increase in salinity (chlorine).
12 SPE-192600-MS

A uniqueness of Rumaila is the similarity of the CO response between the sands and shales. This can
be understood by observing the CO fan chart used to normalise the saturation response displays the fan
chart- the green line corresponds to the oil and blue line to the water, and the points are coloured by the
shale percentage (Figure 12). When comparing the CO average from the clean, oil bearing sands and shale
intervals, there is limited separation in the response. This uniqueness can be explained by looking at the rock
composition. The Zubair’s sand matrix measured from core is over 90% quartz however the shale matrix is
dominated by the kaolinite clay mineral (Wells, Morton, & Frei, 2017). Kaolinite is a clay mineral with the
chemical composition Al2Si2O5(OH)4 therefore contains a large percentage of aluminium. When the inelastic
cross section is observed at 14MeV both the aluminium (Al) and Carbon (C) are very similar at 0.43305
and 0.42067 barns, respectively. Additionally, gamma ray’s energy from neutron and aluminium interaction
are high enough to extend to the carbon energy window. The similar cross sections and high energy gamma
ray from aluminium may give rise to a comparable spectrum; making it difficult to distinguish between
similar CO measurements in sands and shales. Model predicted tool response of "clean" reservoir rock and
clay rich rock is shown in Figure 13. At origin point, CO response of clay rich rock is 0.05 higher than
CO response of "clean" formation rock which is high enough confused with CO response of oil saturated
sand. Clay effects are addressed with open hole shale volume and model predicted tool response. Again,
this highlights the importance of nuclear modelling because an uncorrected CO response for the shales will
impact the final saturation. To conclude the measurements between the two vendors, produce consistent
results once processed with the in-house toolkit, validating the tools use in the field and emphasising the
importance of nuclear modelling and CO shale corrections for this field.

Figure 12—Fan Chart over the formation in the Zubair shaded by the volume of shale
SPE-192600-MS 13

Figure 13—Model predicted tool response of Rumaila "clean" sand formation and clay rich formation.

Solid line – modelled tool response of "clean" sand formation. Dash line – modelled tool response
of clay rich formation

Well YY
The Mishrif is interpreted in three sections the Mhf1- Mhf3 and is displayed in Figure 14. The Mhf1 has
the highest porosity and the biggest pore system as indicated by the purple in the NMR binned porosity
track. This grainstone interval has taken most of the injection water in the offset wells due to the highest
permeability and connectivity. This is shown by the CO saturation track where the reduction in oil saturation
correlates with the increase in the sigma saturation (1) in both vendor A and B tools. The chlorine yields
also shows a marked decrease over the intervals (2). This is the result of the fresh river water injection at
2kppm and because it contains significantly less chlorine, the sigma saturation appears higher than the open
hole saturation. This sigma result and chlorine yields provide a useful, qualitative method in monitoring
reservoir change from injection in addition to the CO saturation.
The Mhf1 also contains two distinct dolomite layers (3) and dispersed chert interval (4). The dolomite
layers and chert interval can be clearly seen on silicon and magnesium yield log respectively. A lower oil
saturation is also observed on both vendors instruments CO measurement which is consistent with increase
on chlorine yield logs (5). When interpreting solely on the saturations, it would suggest the layer is swept by
aquifer water however when integrating the NMR binned pore size distribution there a distinct increase in
micro porosity. This microporous rock type has a poor connectivity so is unlikely to be swept but more likely
to have contained a higher initial water saturation. This could mean the current open hole saturation model
does not account for this rock type so cased hole logging is advantageous as it provides an independent
measured of saturation so the petrophysical models can be verified. Transitioning from Mhf1 to Mhf2,
there is a marked decrease in porosity and pore size (rock quality) as indicated by the porosity and pore
size distribution respectively. This is followed by a decrease in the saturation and any saturation below
~15% porosity becomes highly uncertain. The Mhf3 zone is significantly poorer in terms of porosity (6)
and the saturation shows the disadvantages of the statistical nature of the CO measurement. At the low end
of porosity, CO ratio tends to higher statistic uncertainty and dynamic range of tool response between water
and oil saturated formation tends to be lower. It is very challenging to get a robust oil salutation from both
MDPN tools when the porosity drops below 15% and the uncertainty can be greater than 30%
14 SPE-192600-MS

Figure 14—Open hole logs- Gamma ray, neutron-density, photoelectric factor, NMR binned
porosity distribution. Calculated porosity and Archie saturation with 210 kppm equivalent for
Rw. Sigma and CO saturation data from vendor A and B in the Mishrif - Mhf1, Mhf2 and Mhf3

Overall, CO derived saturation from vendor A and B are in close agreement, vendor A having a slightly
lower saturation uncertainty. The Sigma saturation response is good for a broad range of porosities for both
vendors, however the CO saturation struggles below 15% porosity which is the result of its statistic nature.

Conclusion
Rumaila is a supersized oilfield with multiple logging vendors in the field. Comparing saturation data
(Sigma/CO) of various vintage is challenging due to specifics of instrumentation responses. Additionally,
uniqueness of Rumaila kaolinite rich clay mineral further introduce complexity of CO interpretation.
To standardize, modelling MDPN nuclear attributes provided a transparent way of screening results and
opportunity to compare like for like responses of the saturation measurement. Modelled the tool response for
specific MDPN instruments over given logging conditions and lithology are the critical factors in delivering
a robust saturation interpretation of Rumaila carbonate and complex clastic sand formation. To generate the
correct nuclear model, an understanding of the lithology and fluid composition, logging conditions, service
providers’ logging tools and their related algorithms is vital. It requires a close collaboration between the
operator and service providers.
In this field trial, two MDPN tools were analyzed in the carbonate (Mishrif) and clastic (Zubair)
formations and both tools showed similar saturation response and face the same challenge for low porosity
or low oil saturation formation. Smooth, slow logging speed and multiple passes can low the statistic of
CO measurement are still the key factors of CO surveillance. For low porosity formation, baseline or time
lapse sigma logs are still useful for monitoring saturation changes over time, in addition to the chlorine yield
SPE-192600-MS 15

and oxygen activation in perforated wells. These qualitative curves aid the interpretation where CO log is
limited at low porosities. From an operational perspective, nuclear modelling has helped optimise logging
speed and logging mode which reduced the acquisition and turnaround time of wellwork decisions.
For the Iraq region, a selection of saturations tools has considerable business value. Not only does it
create good competition on the market but also means the most appropriate tool can be selected for the
job. Slimline tools are good for y-tools completions where there are internal diameter restriction and larger
tools perform better in large casing sizes. This in turn has improved the decisions of wellwork activities
and ultimately the economics of the wells.

Acknowledgements
Thanks to BP, BOC and PetroChina for agreeing to the publication and personal acknowledgements
extended to Russ Farmer for his input and technical support.

About the Authors

Oliver Grimston is a Petrophysicist currently leading the Production Petrophysics team in the Rumaila
field,
Xiaogang Han is the nuclear specialist for the Global Production Petrophysics team.
Adrian Zett is the Production Petrophysics Advisor for BP’s Global Production Petrophysics team.
Andrea Caudullo is a Petrophysicist and is the rotational back to back to Oliver, and is also leading the
Production Petrophysics team in the Rumaila field.
Mohammed Naji Al-taee is Petrophysicist on the Production Petrophysics team in Rumaila.

Bibliography
Aarseth, N., Tjetland, G., Daae, V., Han, X., Webster, M., & Zett, A. (2016). Integration of Pulsed Nuclear Saturation
Logs for Monitoring Water Alternating Gas Injection. SPWLA 57th Annual Logging Symposium.
Cedillo, G., Raeesi, B., Itter, D., Han, X., & Zett, A. (2017). COMPARISON OF MULTI-DETECTOR PULSED
NEUTRON, NUCLEAR ATTRIBUTES OF MULTIPLE VENDORS IN PRUDHOE BAY ALASKA.SPWLA 58th
Annual Logging Symposium. SPWLA 58th Annual Logging Symposium.
Farmer, R., Kitching, D., Sayed, A., Anibaldi, A., & Abuzaid, M. (2014). INTEGRATION OPTIMISES THE VALUE OF
CASED HOLE SATURATION LOGGING DATA IN RUMAILA. SPWLA 55th Annual Logging Symposium, 1–19.
Han, X., Alkhasov, E., Schoepf, V., Webster, M., Zett, A., Guo, W., et al. (2016). IMPACT OF ACCURATE AND
ROBUST NUCLEAR MODELLING FOR ENHANCING RESERVOIR AND WELL SURVEILLANCE. SPWLA
57th Annual Logging Symposium, 1–12.
Holden, A., Lehmann, C., Ryder, K., Scott, B., & Almond, K. (2014). INTEGRATION OF PRODUCTION LOGS HELPS
TO UNDERSTAND HETEROGENEITY OF MISHRIF RESERVOIR IN RUMAILA. SPWLA 55th Annual Logging
Symposium, 1–12.
Inanc, F., Gilchrist, W., Ansari, R., & Chace, D. (2009). Physical Basis, Modelling, and Interpretation of a New Gas
Saturation Measurement for Cased Wells. SPWLA 50th Annual Logging Symposium.
Jude, E., Wells, M., Brown, R., & Camplin, D. (2017). High_Density Surveillance in Supergaint Field: Integrating Clastic
Sedimentology with Dynamic Data in a Mature Assest. SPE, 1–17.
Lehman, C. (2013). Sedimentology and Sequence Stratigraphy of the Mishrif Formation and its Impact on Reservoir
Heterogeneity, Rumaila Field, Southern Iraq: Second EAGE Workshop on Iraq.
Raeesi, B., Cedillo, G., Han, X., & Zett, A. (2017). Expanding Application of Multi-Detector Pulsed Neutron
Instrumentation for Quantitative Gas Saturation Monitoring in Gas-Filled Boreholes,. SPWLA 58th Annual Logging
Symposium.
Wells, M. R., Morton, A., & Frei, D. (2017). Provenace of Lower Cretaceous clastic reservoirs in the Middle East. Journal
of Geological Society, London, 174(5).
Zett, A., Webster, M., Spain, D., Surles, D., & Colbert, C. (2012). Application of New Generation Multi Detector Pulsed
Neutron Technology in Petrophysical Surveillance. SPWLA 53rd Annual Logging Symposium.