SPE 126029

Application of Chemical Tracers in IOR: A Case History

Mahmoud Asadi, SPE, ProTechnics and G. Michael Shook, SPE, Chevron ETC

Copyright 2010, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE North Africa Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Cairo, Egypt, 14–17 February 2010.

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
Secondary recovery is a process in which reservoir fluid is mobilized and moved from an injection well toward a production
well. The success of this process greatly depends on the knowledge of reservoir continuity and uniformity, in terms of fluid
transmissibility, and how much of the reservoir fluid volume can be contacted by the injection fluid. In any water/gas flood
injection project, fluid channeling through mini-fractures, faults, and high permeability streaks results in problems such as
poor reservoir sweep efficiency and low hydrocarbon recovery. Therefore, knowledge of direct communication between the
injection and production wells as well as an understanding of formation heterogeneity can be of great help to overcome these
problems. While techniques such as seismic, mapping geological deposition and reservoir simulation provide valuable
information about the feasibility of secondary recovery projects, tracer testing is the only available method that provides
valuable information on direct communication, flow-path, and formation heterogeneity across the injection and production
wells. This paper presents a detailed review of chemical tracer applications in IOR with a supportive case history from a
water-flood field. The paper also presents interpretation and discussion of the results on direct communication identification,
formation heterogeneity evaluation, and swept pore volume calculation.

Introduction
Secondary recovery is a process in which reservoir fluid is mobilized and moved from an injection well toward a production
well. The success of this process greatly depends on the knowledge of reservoir continuity and uniformity in terms of fluid
transmissibility and how much of the reservoir fluid volume can be contacted by the injection fluid. Techniques such as
seismic, geological deposition and reservoir simulation provide valuable information about the feasibility of secondary
recovery projects. Heterogeneity near a well may be studied by various methods such as well logs, formation permeability
and conductivity data, pressure transient and seismic analysis. A more supportive method to fully describe communication
between the injectors and producers is to trace the interwell flow line of injected fluid during a flood project.

Tracer testing in the petroleum industry started in 1962 and is a well-established technique to evaluate interwell
communication as well as reservoir heterogeneity.1-11 A tracer survey can provide a variety of information about the
heterogeneity of a formation, but its primary use is to precisely identify communication and reservoir continuity between the
injection and production wells. While transient tests can provide information about reservoir continuity, thief zones are
difficult, if not impossible, to detect. This is due to the fact that pressure transient tests provide an arithmetic average for
reservoir total transmissibility over the tested formation thickness,12 while a tracer survey provides a direct evaluation of the
flow field between the injection and production wells.

A tracer survey can provide a wealth of information about the heterogeneity of the formation. For example, the fluid flow-
path can be determined precisely from a tracer survey. Fluid flow path is defined as the preferential path reservoir fluid takes
to move from one point (injection well) to another point in the reservoir. This path could geologically be homogeneous in
nature or highly heterogeneous by the existence of natural fractures, faults, high-permeable thief zones, or flow-barriers. A
tracer survey not only can precisely identify this path but also can provide information on the time which fluid takes to move
from one point (injection well) to another point in the reservoir, which helps identify flow anisotropy, an important parameter
in reservoir characterization. For example, if tracer breakthrough time is short, it may imply the existence of a high
permeability channel. By contrast, if tracer breakthrough does not occur for a long period of time and if the tracer response
curve is a bell-shaped, it implies that the formation is reasonably homogeneous. In addition, any flow barrier and/or
directional thief zones such as faults can be identified by delayed tracer recovery. The mass balance technique can be used to
2 SPE 126029

calculate the amount of tracer recovered to distinguish between the existence of a fault, a flow barrier, or a low permeability
zone. Moment analysis and residence time distribution analysis11 can provide quantitative measures of the reservoir and
flood behavior. For example, the total pore volume contacted by injection fluid, sweep efficiency, and flow geometry can all
be obtained by these methods. In addition, sweep improvement techniques such as conformance and cement squeezes can be
evaluated with a tracer survey.

Interwell tracer testing consists of injecting either a radioactive or chemical tracer(s) into an injection well(s) at the beginning
of a flood project or after the reservoir has reached it’s fill-up condition, depending on the objective of the project, and
subsequent sampling of production well(s) for a prescribed period of time, which also depends on the objective of the project.
Samples are analyzed for tracer content, which will delineate communication between the injection and production wells. The
time during which samples are collected and analyzed depends greatly on the objective of the project. For example, if the
objective is to identify direct communication between an injection well and a production well, once tracer is detected in a
collected produced water sample, the project may be terminated. On the other hand, if the objective is to identify thief zones,
sample collection and analysis must continue for a long time after tracer is first detected in order to establish a more defined
elution curve. The severity of a thief zone can then be evaluated from the tracer response curve and its peak concentration.
An ideal interwell water tracer, IWT, is one that lacks slip velocity and therefore can travel at the same velocity as the carrier
fluid. Achieving the ideal situation, however, is impractical due to adsorption and desorption effects which cause the tracer
to lag behind the front. Also, diffusion dispersion effects can cause the tracer front to travel faster than the fluid front.
Therefore, a qualified tracer is one that approximately follows the fluid front with minimal slip velocity and whose chemical
composition is compatible with the formation salts.13-14

Example Tracer Test Interpretation

Field History
The field is located in the Permian Basin North America and was discovered in the early 1900’s and produced oil for about
two decades before reservoir pressure started to decline. A waterflood was started in the late 1960’s. At the time of
waterflooding, approximately 80 injection and production wells were active. Oil production was about 50,000 bpd from an
average depth of about 3500 ft. Due to a dramatic oil production drop, water injection was increased to pressurize the
formation and hence increase the production. This resulted in an increase in water cut from almost all of the producers, and so
a tracer survey was considered for a part of the field which included three injection wells and nine monitoring wells.

Tracer Application
The section of the field selected for tracer testing includes three injection wells, A, B, and C, and nine monitoring wells
patterned randomly. Three different chemical tracers were selected for injection. A volumetric method, a low detection limit
of 50 ppt (parts per trillion), and a safety factor to account for the uncertainties in reservoir parameters were used to calculate
the amount of tracer needed for injection in each well. Tracers were injected in the low-pressure side of the flow-line during a
6 hour period to assure thorough mixing. To assure detection of any high-permeability zones between the injection and
production wells, an aggressive sampling schedule of one sample per day per well for the first four weeks was proposed for
the monitoring wells. Selected samples were analyzed for tracer(s) detection. Additionally, one water sample per producer
was collected one month before tracer injection for analyses to establish a bseline of the reservoir fluid.

Results and Discussions

All three tracers were injected in a period of two days with each tracer being injected during a six-hour injection process to
assure through mixing. Water samples were collected on a daily basis during the first two weeks after the injection
campaign. Sample collection and analysis frequencies were reduced with time as the project progressed. Table 1 shows the
amount of tracer, tracer type and the injection wells.

Table 1- Tracer Amount And Type

SPE 126029 3

Tracer IWT-1100, which was injected in the injection well C, was detected in all nine of the monitoring wells in less than a
month. Tracer concentration at production well PQ reached 4,274,000 ppt. Tracer IWT-1000, which was injected in the
injection well A was only detected in the monitoring well PQ at a maximum concentration of 7,790 ppt. Tracer IWT-1200,
which was injected in the injection well B, was detected in three of the monitoring wells, PQ, PR, and PV. The highest tracer
concentration was detected at well PQ at 45,140 ppt.

Interwell Communication. Tracer detection in a given sample is an indication of direct communication between the
injection well and the corresponding monitoring well(s). However, the extent of communication depends on the
breakthrough times and tracer concentration values. Based on the tracer analysis results presented in Table 2, direct
communication is confirmed between the injection well C and all of the producers, between the injection wells B and A and
three of the monitoring wells PQ, PV, and PR.

Direct communications are shown in Fig. 1 between the injection wells and the corresponding monitoring wells, with thin
arrows representing low tracer concentration values and thick arrows representing high tracer concentration values. It is
important to note that arrows indicating direct communications between the injection wells and the corresponding monitoring
wells should not provide misleading information on the actual fluid flow path in the reservoir.

Fig. 1- Map Of The Field Showing The Direct Flow-path As Determined By Tracer Surveys

Heterogeneity Evaluation. A tracer elution curve can be used to evaluate the heterogeneity of a formation. To expand
on this subject, assume that tracer is detected in the collected water samples sometime after the injection day and its
concentration is gradually increasing with time to a maximum point and then gradually decreasing with time to zero to form a
bell-shaped curve once it is plotted vs. time. The bell-shaped elution curve is an indication of a perfectly homogeneous
formation. On the other hand, if tracer concentration in the collected water samples approaches a maximum value and
decreases to zero over a short period of time after the injection day, it indicates the existence of a high permeability channel
between the injection and the production well. To further elaborate on this, consider a high permeability channel located
between an injection well and a production well. As tracer is injected, it travels radially outward from the injection well
toward the production well(s). As the flood front reaches the high permeability channel, it moves at a much higher velocity
toward the end of the channel than the flood front outside the channel in the matrix. This causes the tracer moving with the
flood front in the channel to reach the production well faster than the flood moving within the matrix, hence showing a high
tracer concentration in the production well shortly after the injection. As the flood proceeds, the water behind the flood front
in the high permeability channel approaches the production well, still faster than the flood front in the matrix and causes the
tracer concentration in the production well to approach zero. The tracer moving with the flood front in the matrix, however,
reaches the production well later in time causing the concentration of tracer to increase again. The first tracer concentration
peak, therefore, represents the existence of a high permeability channel. It is intuitively evident that a multi-peak tracer
4 SPE 126029

concentration represents the existence of multiple-permeability channels. It is important to note that if the volume of fluid in
the high permeability channel is low and if the sampling frequency is too sparse, tracer may come and go without being
detected. Therefore, the more samples that are analyzed, the more defined the tracer response curve and hence a more
comprehensive analysis can be drawn on the heterogeneity of the formation.

All three injected tracers were detected in three days in the monitoring wells PQ, PR, and PV at relatively high tracer
concentrations. This indicates the existence of high permeability streaks between the injection wells and the corresponding
monitoring wells. The actual breakthrough times could have been obtained by analyzing the samples collected during the
first three days after tracer injection; however, the precise breakthrough time was not considered as important as the observed
rapid breakthrough, so a more precise measurement of actual breakthrough was not made.

Tracer elution curves for the the monitoring wells with high tracer concentration response are shown in Figs. 2 to 4 for wells
PQ, PR, and PV, respectively.

4500000 50000
IWT-1100 IWT-1200 IWT-1000

4000000 45000

40000
3500000

35000
3000000
Tracer Concentration, ppt

Tracer Concentration, ppt

30000

Wells A and B
2500000
well C

25000

2000000
20000

1500000
15000

1000000
10000

500000 5000

F3
0 0
11-Jun-08 21-Jun-08 1-Jul-08 11-Jul-08 21-Jul-08 31-Jul-08 10-Aug-08 20-Aug-08

Elapsed Time

Fig. 2- Elution Curve For The Monitoring Well PQ

SPE 126029 5

350000 2500

IWT-1100 IWT-1200
300000

2000

250000
Tracer Concentrations, ppt

Tracer Concentrations, ppt

1500
200000
Well C

Well B
150000
1000

100000

500

50000

F4
0 0
1-Jun-08 21-Jun-08 11-Jul-08 31-Jul-08 20-Aug-08 9-Sep-08 29-Sep-08 19-Oct-08
Elapsed Time

Fig. 3- Elution Curve For The Monitoring Well PR

25000 2000

1800

IWT-1100 IWT-1200
20000 1600

1400
Tracer Concentration, ppt

Tracer Concentration, ppt

15000 1200
(Well C

Well B

1000

10000 800

600

5000 400

200

F5
0 0
11-Jun-08 21-Jun-08 1-Jul-08 11-Jul-08 21-Jul-08 31-Jul-08 10-Aug-08 20-Aug-08 30-Aug-08 9-Sep-08 19-Sep-08
Elapsed Time

Fig. 4- Elution Curve For The Monitoring Well PV

6 SPE 126029

The very early, sharp peaks presented by tracer IWT-1100 detected in well PQ, PR, and PV in Figs. 2-4 indicate the existence
of high permeability channels between the injection well C and the production wells PQ, PR, and PV. The high
concentrations of tracer peaks for all these wells indicating that these channels are highly conductive and are east-west
oriented, perhaps representing a natural fracture. The short wave-length of these three elution curves indicates that the
detected high permeability channels are thin in thickness, which in turn supports the argument of an exisitng natural fracture.
Furthermore, the high concentration of tracer IWT-1100, about 4 ppm, in samples collected from the production well PQ
suggests that the conductive section of this identified fracture is located closer to the production well PQ. The medium
concentration of tracer IWT-1100, about 0.3 ppm, in samples collected from the production well PR suggests that the fracture
length is extended to the production well PR. The low concentration of tracer IWT-1100, about 0.023 ppm, in samples
collected from well PV suggests that the east-west oriented fracture is extended to the production well PV.

Tracer elution curves for IWT-1200, which was injected in the injection well B, exhibits similar characteristics, but to a lesser
degree. The concentration of tracer IWT-1200 collected from the production well PQ is 0.045 ppm, while the tracer
concentrations of samples collected from the production wells PR and PV are about 0.002 ppm. This supports the previous
argument that the identified natural fracture is east-west oriented with its high conductivity region located closer to the
production well PQ.

Tracer elution curves for all other monitor wells are similar in tracer peak concentration (about 300 ppt), with their wave-
lengths indicating the existence of low permeability channels between the injection well PQ and the other production wells.
This may support the fact that these low permeability channels are micro-fractures branching off from the main identified
east-west oriented fracture.

Residence Time Distribution Analysis. Residence time analysis is a powerful tool for quantitatively describing the
reservoir volume contacted by tracer, and the distribution in flow geometry of that volume. The methods were shown to be
rigorously valid for a very general set of field conditions, including fractured reservoirs, partial recovery of tracer, variable
injection and production rates, etc. by Shook et al.11 The calculations apply to any well pair in which tracer was injected in
the injection well and produced in that producer.

Total volume of reservoir contacted between a given well pair is given by the mean residence volume of the tracer (for details
on the methods see reference 11; see Nomenclature for definition of terms):

mp 0
∫ qCtdt V
slug
  Vs = − (1)
M Inj ∞ 2
∫ Cdt
0

Flow geometry is also readily calculated from tracer residence time distributions. Flow capacity of a given flowpath is
defined as the volumetric flow rate of that path, divided by the total volumetric flow. Storage capacity of the same flowpath
is its pore volume divided by the total pore volume contacted, Eq. 1. A Flow Capacity – Storage Capacity diagram is simply
a cumulative distribution function of the individual streamlines’ flow and storage properties.

These properties are readily calculated from tracer data by the use of the tracer residence time distribution. Recall the mean
residence time (or volume) is the time-weighted average residence time of all the flowpaths connecting a given injector with
a producer. Similarly, the mean residence volume of flowpaths faster than, say, one breaking through at time t is given as11:

mp 0
∫ qCtdt V
slug
Vs = − (2)
M Inj ∞ 2
∫ Cdt
0
SPE 126029 7

Normalizing Eq. 2 by the total mean residence volume gives the fraction of the total swept volume that is
completely swept at time t:

t Vslug
∫ qCtdt − 2
Φ (t) = 0 (3)
∞ Vslug
∫ qCtdt − 2
0

Flow capacity is likewise straightforward to estimate from tracers. Implicit in tracer interpretation is that the tracer
does not affect the flowpaths; it flows with the injected fluid. Fractional recovery of tracer is therefore directly
related to the relative volumetric flow rate of flowpaths carrying injected fluid, and so F is defined as:

t
∫ C(τ)dτ
F(t) = 0 (4)
∞
∫ C(t)dt
0

These methods were applied to the tracer data presented above. However, an immediate concern arises because of the low
tracer recovery in most of the well pairs, Table 2. Therefore, this analysis is restricted to the two well pairs, C-PQ and C-PR,
with the highest tracer recovery.

Table 2- Tracer Recovery

C-PQ
The tracer concentration history for well PQ is given in Fig. 2. This well recovered approximately 11% of Tracer IWT-1100
(including extrapolating the tracer history to infinity as required by Eq. 1), which is sufficient to provide a meaningful
analysis. Using Eq. 1 to determine the total swept pore volume for well pair PQ gives a volume of 2340 ft3. This is
somewhat surprisingly small volume, given that a unit width volume between these two wells is,

V/W = (1200 ft.)*(85 ft.)*(0.1)*(0.55) = 5610 ft3/ft

The cause of the low swept volume could be a thief zone, or the presence of E-W trending fractures. A thief zone, while
possible, seems unlikely because no other nearby wells recover tracer IWT-1100, except wells PR and PM. The narrow
azimuth of tracer IWT-1100 recovery is more consistent with a set of fractures.

The flow capacity diagram (or F-Φ curve) for C-PQ is given in Fig. 5. For reference, the diagonal on the figure is a
homogeneous displacement (each flowpath with identical volumetric flow and pore volume). Comparing the true F-Φ curve
with the diagonal shows the fluid displacement in this well pair is only mildly heterogeneous; for example, 40% of the flow
coming from 30% of the pore volume. That is not to say the total pore volume is homogeneous, only that the volume
contacted behaves fairly homogeneously.
It is worth emphasizing that the tracer data cannot diagnose the cause of the low swept volume. It merely reports the volume
contacted by the tracer. This information must then be reconciled with other field data (e.g., Earth model, core analysis, well
test data, etc.).
8 SPE 126029

Fig. 5- Flow Capacity Diagram For Well Pair PQ

The relatively mild divergence of the curve from the diagonal (which represents homogeneous displacement) indicates a
relatively low degree of heterogeneity in the swept volume.

C-PR
The tracer concentration history for Well PR is given in Fig. 3 above. Well PR recovers approximately 2.2% of Tracer IWT-
1100. The low recovery makes this interpretation somewhat tenuous; however, the peak concentration is well above the
detection limit, so one can proceed with caution.

The total pore volume swept for this well pair is 850 ft3. Again, the cause of this low volume contacted is unknown and
needs to be reconciled with other data. The F-Φ curve for this well pair is shown in Fig. 6. This figure shows a significant
range in flow geometry and displacement heterogeneity; e.g., 70% of the flow is coming from 40% of the pore volume, and
only 10% of the flow (0.9 – 1.0) is coming from 38% of the volume (0.62 – 1.0). The very low volume swept coupled with
the large displacement heterogeneity is suggestive of fracture sets that connect wells C and PR. A summary of the
interpretations for these two wells is given in Table 3.

Table 3- Summary Of Tracer Interpretation Using Residence Time Distribution Analysis

Well Volume Degree of heterogeneity / Observations
Pair Swept
C-PQ 2340 ft3 Mild heterogeneity and very low swept volume – fractures suspected
C-PR 850 ft3 Moderate heterogeneity, very small volume swept. Fracture sets? Low tracer recovery makes the
interpretation slightly tenuous.
SPE 126029 9

Fig. 6- The F-Φ Curve For Well Pair PR

Much smaller swept volume, but more heterogeneity is observed in that volume for this well pair. These data need to be
reconciled with other available information (well tests, logs, etc.) for best use.

Note the larger degree of heterogeneity compared with PQ. One possible explanation is that this well pair is not aligned with
the fracture system, and thus communicates via a set of non-orthogonal micro-fractures.

The low tracer recovery observed in the other wells precludes analyzing the data using residence time distributions, but there
are additional properties that can be estimated from the tracer results.

Well PQ. Average daily water production rate during the tracer survey project was 478 bpd. The injection period from the
day of tracer injection to the date of last sample analysis was 52 days for well C and 29 days for wells B and A, respectively.
According to the mass balance calculations on tracer recovery (summarized in Table 2), 11% of the injected water in well C
was produced in the production well PQ, but only 0.3% and 0.04% of the total water injected in wells B and A, respectively.
Water velocities in the formation between the monitoring well PQ and the injection wells C, B and A were 258, 469 and 609
ft/day.

Well PR. Average daily water production rate during the tracer survey project was 716 bpd. The injection period from the
day of tracer injection to the date of last sample analysis was 101 days for well C and 29 days for wells B (tracer IWT-1000
which was injected in well A was not detected in the monitoring well PR). According to the mass balance calculations, only
2% of the injected water from well C was recovered in the production well PR during the sample analysis period. Water
recovery from the other wells was minimal. Water velocities in the formation, however, between the monitoring well PR and
the injection wells C and B were 305 and 328 ft/day, respectively.

Well PV. Average daily water production rate during the tracer survey project was 1004 bpd. The injection period from the
day of tracer injection to the date of last sample analysis was 29 days for the monitoring well C and 10 days for well B,
respectively. According to the mass balance calculations, less than 1% of the injected water from the injection well C was
recovered in the production well PV during the sample analysis period. Water recovery from the other wells was minimal.
Water velocities in the formation, however, between the monitoring well 1-2 and the injection wells C and B were 352 and
563 ft/day, respectively.

A high fluid velocity in the formation, which is driven by high formation permeability, is an indication of water recycling.
According to the results, the average water velocity in this formation and between these injection wells and the monitoring
wells are tremendously high, about 25 ft/hr, which may be due a very highly conductive channel.
 10 SPE 126029

Layering. A tracer elution curve may be used to identify reservoir layering. In a perfectly homogenous formation the tracer
wave arrives at the production well first at a low concentration, due to dilution with the flood-front. The tracer concentration
will then gradually increase to a maximum peak, representing the center of the tracer wave, before it decreases to zero
(diluting again due to the back of the flood). Under this scenario, the single peak of tracer concentration represents matrix
permeability as the only layer of a homogenous formation. However, in a non-homogeneous formation, every layer is
represented by a tracer concentration peak on the tracer elution curve. Tracer elution curves presented in Figs. 2 to 4 all
exhibit one single sharp tracer concentration peak representing a high permeability channel between each injection well and
the corresponding monitoring wells. If sample analysis had continued for a longer period of time, the tracer concentration
would have gradually increased forming a second tracer concentration peak representing the matrix permeability. One could
argue that due to the created mini-fractures, more layers would potentially be identified over a long period of sample analysis.

Conclusions
Tracer surveys indicate the presence of a highly conductive flow path between the injectors and several of the production
wells. These wells may be connected via a major east-west natural fracture that extends to all producers by micro-fractures.
It is believed that high volume producers create pressure sinks and may draw injection fluid towards them. The knowledge
gained from the tracer work allowed the company to adjust its injection patterns, and the pattern adjustments are expected to
improve sweep efficiency and to improve recovery.

1. Tracer surveys confirm communication between three of the injection wells and all nine producers.
2. Tracer surveys identified a major east-west highly conductivity channel.
3. Individual tracer elution curves suggest a highly conductivity channel between the injection wells C, B and A and
the monitoring well PQ.
4. Tracer elution curves for other monitoring wells suggest that the identified high conductivity channel located
between the injectors C, B, and A and the producer PQ is extended to the monitoring wells PR and PV.
5. Tracer survey results indicate the existence of many low permeability channels which may be micro-fractures
branching off from the main identified east-west oriented fracture.
6. Although the calculated swept pore volumes are low, the high fluid velocities between the injection and monitoring
wells suggest that the identified channel is highly conductive.

Nomenclature
C = Concentration of tracer
Fn = Cumulative flow capacity to layer n
Minj = Mass of tracer injected
mp = Mass of tracer produced at a given well
q = Volumetric injection rate
t = Time
tslug = Tracer slug time
Vs = Swept pore volume
Vslug = Volume of tracer slug

Greek symbols
Φ = Storage capacity

References
1. Greenkorn, R. A.: “Experimental Studies of Waterflood Tracers,” J. Pet. Tech., January 1962, 87-92, Trans. AIME, 225.
2. Wagner, O. R., Baker, L. E., and Gordon, R. S.: “The Design and Implementation of Multiple Tracer Program for Multifluid, Multiwell
Injection Projects,” paper SPE 5125 presented at the 49th Annual Fall Meeting of Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME, Oct. 6-9, 1974,
Houston, TX.
3. Wagner, O. R.: “The Use of Tracers in Diagnosing Interwell Reservoir Heterogeneities-Field Results,” J. Pet. Tech, November 1997, 1410-
1416.
4. Hagoort, J.: “The Response of Interwell Tracer in Watered-Out Reservoir,” paper SPE 11131 presented at the 57th Annual Fall Meeting of
Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME, Sept. 26-29, 1982, New Orleans, LA.
5. Beier, R. A. and Sheely, C. Q.: “Tracer Surveys to Identify Channels for Remedial Work Prior to CO2 Injection at MCA Unit, New
Mexico,” paper SPE 17371 presented at the SPE/DOE Enhanced Oil Recovery Symposium, April 17-20, Tulsa OK.
6. Vilela, M. A. and Zerpa, L. B.: “Water and Gas Tracers at El Furrial Field,” paper SPE 53737 presented at the Latin American and
Carabiant Petroleum Engineering Conference, April 21-23, 1999, Caracas, Venezuela.
7. Mercado, M., Perez, C. E., Asadi, M., and Casas, D. R.: “Gas Flood-Flow Pattern Evaluation: A Successful Interwell Field Study”, SPE
81005 presented at the Latin American and Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference, April 27-30, 2003, Port of Spain, Trinidad.
8. Zemel, B; “Tracers in the Oil Field”, Elsevier Science, 1995.
SPE 126029 11

9. Deans, H. A., “Using Chemical Tracers to Measure Fractional Flow and Saturation In-Situ,” paper SPE 7076 presented at the 5th
Symposium of Improved Methods of Oil Recovery, Tulsa, OK, April 16-19, 1978
10. Shook, G. M., Ansley, S. L., and Wilie, A.: “Tracer Testing Methods: Test design and Implementation, Tracer Seleciton and Interpretation
Methods,” INEEL report January, 2004.
11. Shook, G. M., Pope G. A., and Asakawa, K.: “Determining Reservoir properties and Flood Performance From Tracer Test Analysis,” paper
SPE 124614 presented at the SPE Annual technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, LA., 2009
12. Cheung, S., Edwards, A., and Howard, J: “A Novel Approach to Interwell Tracer Design and Field Case History,” paper SPE 56610
presented at the Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Oct. 3-6, 1999, Houston, TX.
13. Lichtenberger, G. J.: “Field Application of Interwell Tracers for Reservoir Characterization of Enhanced Oil Recovery Pilot Area,” paper
SPE 21652 presented at the Production Operations Symposium, April 7-9, 1991, Oklahoma City, OK.
14. Craig, F. F.: The Reservoir Engineering Aspects of Waterflooding: Monograph Volume 3, Society of Petroleum Engineers, New York City,
New York, 1993.