SPE 90339
Modern Carbon/Oxygen Logging Methodologies: Comparing Hydrocarbon Saturation
Determination Techniques
Ramsin Y. Eyvazzadeh, Oscar Kelder, A.A.Hajari, Shouxiang Ma, Abdallah M. Behair; SPE, Saudi Aramco
Copyright 2004, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition held in Houston, Texas, U.S.A., 26–29 September 2004.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in a proposal submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to a proposal of not more than 300
words; illustrations may not be copied. The proposal must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
Recent advances in Carbon/Oxygen (C/O) logging technology
have provided measurements that have become more
quantitatively robust in reservoir monitoring projects,
especially in mixed salinity environments. Enhancements in
tool design, characterization and interpretation algorithms
have contributed to increases in precision and accuracy of
fluid saturation measurements.
Even though these innovations have led to major
improvements, fluid saturation profiles provided by different
service companies are often varied. The variations are due to
differences in tool designs and interpretation methodologies
and thus, a unique solution is not always provided. The
inconsistencies in answers are generally not understood due to
characterization complexities of the formation and the
borehole environment including cements, casing, fluid types,
etc.
As a consequence, a study was conducted in a large
Middle Eastern carbonate field to evaluate and compare
accuracy and precision of different types of Pulsed Neutron
Spectroscopy (PNS) tools in a controlled environment.
Several open-hole wells were chosen and logged with the
latest types of tools under identical conditions with well
defined environmental parameters, thus enabling accurate
correlations between tool responses and fluid saturations. The
accuracy of the results was then evaluated based on a
comparison to core, production logs, pulsed neutron sigma,
resistivity and fluid sample data.
This paper presents the results of the study and illustrates
how differences in service company tool designs,
characterizations and interpretational methodologies affect
fluid saturation computations in this field. In addition,
recommendations are provided on job planning and utilization
of this technology in large scale reservoir monitoring projects.
Introduction
One of the most important factors in managing reservoirs is an
accurate determination of water saturation. The accuracy of
this value is very critical in time based measurements that are
used in tracking reservoir depletion, enhanced recovery,
workover strategies and injection water breakthroughs. This
parameter is even more sensitive in large fields, where small
variations in water saturation calculations can translate into
large volumes of hydrocarbons.
The carbonate field in this study was discovered in 1950’s
and an enhanced oil recovery project was initiated in 1970’s.
Since then, several types of waters with varying amount of
salinities have been injected. This salinity variation has
caused complexities in the saturation computations that rely
on accurate measurements of formation water resistivity, i.e.
resistivity tools. Resistivity measurements are used in
empirical equations to calculate fluid saturations based on
known formation water resistivity. In formations that contain
fresh waters and unknown water salinities, these equations
produce answers with large uncertainties. These limitations
have contributed to the development of the Pulsed Neutron
Spectroscopy (PNS) tools. The tools use neutron generator
produces high energy neutron that collide with different types
of elements that are present in the formation. These collisions
produce gamma ray signature values that are used to measure
the relative abundances of elements. Two of the most
important elements are carbon and oxygen. The abundances
of these elements are directly used to calculate volume of
hydrocarbons.
C/O logging, introduced in the 1960s, has been
commercially available since the 1970s. The earlier
technology was cumbersome, difficult to use and often
provided unreliable answers. In the 1990s several new
generation of tools were introduced by the three major logging
companies; Schlumberger, Halliburton and Baker Atlas. In
comparison to the older tools, these new tools have high
output neutron generators with better detectors and
characterizations that provide more accurate and precise
answers.
Even though these tools operate on the same principles,
service companies have taken different avenues of
technological developments and methodologies, which have
resulted in non unique solutions among the vendors.
2 SPE 90339

In this paper, we examine these differences in two wells. illustration of the windowing technique that is used to
In the first well, saturation data from Nuclear Magnetic determine elemental yields.
Resonance (NMR) were compared to C/O and laboratory core
measured saturation data, to determine the applicability of this 40 35 pu fw ss
technology in this field. In the second well, resistivity and
capture data were used as references to compare data from X5 36 pu oil ss
three different types of PNS tools. 30
26 pu fw ls
The tools presented in this paper do not represent all of the

Normalized Counts
-3
x10
available technology. There are some other logging
companies that also provide this service. Due to tool Si Ca C O
20
availability, comparisons were only made between the three
major service companies, Schlumberger, Halliburton and
Baker Atlas.
10
In addition, C/O technology offers many different
applications that are not discussed in this paper. The primary
focus is to compare the computation of saturation by inelastic
spectral measurements that are crucial in mixed salinity 0

reservoirs. 2 4 6 8
Energy (MeV)

Figure 2 -- Windowing and spectral based techniques are used to

Carbon-Oxygen logging
Gamma ray spectroscopy measures gamma ray counts in time
and gamma ray energies. Elements when bombarded with
neutrons emit gamma rays at specific energies levels. The
number of the gamma rays is proportional to the relative
amounts of the elements. Naturally occurring and the induced
gamma rays are counted and sorted by energy levels to
produce a spectrum. This spectrum is then processed to
identify the concentrations of the elements figure 1.
compute the relative abundance of carbon and oxygen in the
formation.
In the inelastic mode, the most important measurement is
the ratio of the carbon to oxygen yields. Test pit
characterizations provide charts that relate this value to the
fluid saturations, as illustrated in figure 3.
6" Openhole, Limestone Formation
1.9

Count Rates 1.8

Oil Borehole
Water Borehole
1.7

1.6

1.5
C /O

1.4 ∆ C/O
SO = X / ∆ C/O
1.3 X

1.2

Energy 1.1

Time 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

Porosity (p.u.)

Figure 1 – Inelastic as well as capture spectrums are used to

determine elemental yields
C/O tools use generators that produce high energy
neutrons that are emitted into the formation. Emissions of
neutrons produce three types of collisions; inelastic, elastic
and absorption. In the inelastic spectrum, carbon and oxygen
yields are used to compute hydrocarbon volumes. In the
elastic mode the neutron losses its energy until it’s absorbed in
thermal energy levels. In these interactions, elemental yields
such as, silicon, calcium, chlorine, hydrogen, iron, etc are
determined.
One of the most difficult aspects of this measurement is
the differentiation of elemental yields within these spectrums.
Energy peaks from different elements can often cause
background noise. Windowing and spectral techniques are
often used to overcome these problems. Figure 2 is an
Figure 3 --The standard Fan chart is used to calculate the volume
of hydrocarbons based on porosity and Carbon/Oxygen ratios.
In this figure, a saturation point is determined by a
crossplot of porosity and C/O. In addition to these charts,
service and oil companies have locally developed relationships
that are generally based on Monte Carlo simulations and local
reservoir knowledge.
Tool Design/Characterization
In the last decade, several new pulsed spectroscopy tools have
been introduced in the industry. In this study, Schlumberger’s
Reservoir Saturation tool (RSTPro)*, Halliburton’s Reservoir
Monitoring Tool (RMT-Elite) ** and Baker Atlas’ Reservoir
Performance tool (RPM) *** were evaluated in two wells in
this carbonate reservoir.
* Mark of Schlumberger
** Mark of Halliburton
*** Mark of Baker Atlas
SPE 90339
These tools represent the latest technologies that are presently
available in carbon-oxygen logging.
Even though all of these tools operate on the same
principle, they are vastly different in design and
characterization. The following is a brief outline of published
material to these tools.
Reservoir Saturation Tool-Pro* (Schlumberger)
New generations of C/O tools called the Reservoir
Saturation Tools were introduced in 1991, by Schlumberger.
These tools featured newer detectors and with higher output
generators that delivered much better results than their
predecessors. In 1999 a new service called the RSTPro was
introduced that greatly enhanced the ability of these tools to
make more precise and accurate measurements.
There are two versions of these tools, RST-C and RST-D. The
RST-C tool has a diameter of 1.6875 inches and RST-D tool
has a diameter of 2.5 inches.
Detectors: These tools have two gadolinium-oxy-ortho-silicate
(GSO) detectors. Due to the statistical nature of this
measurement, detector density plays an important role in
resolution and efficiency in gamma ray detection. These
detectors are among the highest density crystal detectors.
There are many features that make one detector better than the
next. Table 1 is an outline of the detectors and key features
that are presently being used by the three service companies.
Detector technology has been one of the key technological
advancements of this field.
Tool Geometry: One of the primary goals in C/O logging is to
maximize formation signal and minimize environmental
effects. The RST-D is the only tool in the market that
provides shielding, where the near detector is focused to the
borehole and the far detector is focused to the formation. Tool
characterization, modeling and hold up measurements are
some of the key features that are enhanced by this design. In
addition, both detectors are simultaneously used in the
interpretation of fluid saturations. Figures 5 and 6 are
examples of interpretational parallelograms that are used to
calculate oil saturation from both the near and the far
detectors. Note the increase in the tool fidelity on the Y-axis
in figure 5 (RST-D) with respect to figure 6 (RST-C). The
increase in the fidelity is due to the shielding in the RST-D
tool.
Calibration: Differences in tool electronics, detectors, and
generators cause tool to tool variations. In large scale
monitoring projects, this variability can often generate
inconsistencies in the interpreted saturation data. Spectral
calibration, based on characterizations of standard
measurements, has been used to overcome this problem.
Several RST tools were calibrated in test pits to develop
algorithms that are used to calibrate each of the spectral
channels. These calibrations are then carried to the field tools
by the field calibration tank.
* Mark of Schlumberger
3
Interpretation: Two methods are used to determine elemental
yields, spectral and windowing. Spectral techniques match
elemental signatures to the entire spectrum to determine
elemental yields. This approach creates good accuracy but
reduced precision. In the second technique, windows around
the elemental energies are used to determine elemental yields
(figure 2). This method increases the precision, but reduces
accuracy. In order to combine the positive aspects of both
data sets, Schlumberger developed a mathematical model,
called Alpha processing*, that combines the accuracy of the
spectral data to the precision of the windowing method.
C/O, measured from yields, are computed individually in
each detector and then they are transformed into saturation
using a data base of measured tool responses in known
environmental conditions by the following equation;
C K1 + K 2φS 0 + K 3Y0
= , (1)
O K 4 + K 5 (1 − S 0 ) + K 6 (1 − Yo )
where C and O are the carbon and oxygen yields, So is the
formation oil saturation, Ø is porosity and Y0 is the borehole
holdup. The coefficients Ki represent the sensitivities of
matrix, formation fluid and borehole fluids to carbon and
oxygen. The values for these coefficients are determined in
calibration test pits. In equation 1, C/O measurements are
very sensitive to the borehole fluid effects, thus fluid holdup
measurements are very essential to the computation of
hydrocarbon saturation. In the RST-C tool, borehole fluid
fraction should be determined by production logging tools, as
the formation and bore hole sensitivities are the same for both
detectors. Focused shielding in the RST-D enables borehole
holdup measurements, since the near detector is more sensitive
to the well bore fluids.
Reservoir Monitoring Tool-Elite (Halliburton)
The Reservoir Monitoring Tool – Elite (RMT-Elite) is the
newest version of Halliburton’s carbon-oxygen tool. It is a
dual detector tool with a diameter of 2.125 inches. This larger
diameter tool has enabled greater accuracy and precision than
previous smaller versions of this tool.
The following are some of the key features:
Detectors: The RMT has dual Bismuth Germinate (BGO)
detectors that are 1.4 x 6 inch and 1.4 x 1 inch for the far and
the near detectors, respectively. Table 1 provides a
comparison of the available detectors. These are the highest
density detectors that are used in the market.
Calibration: Horizontal water-filled field calibrator is used to
field calibrate the following:
• Measurement the spectral non-linearity of each
detector, for a real-time correction.
• Calibration of the near and far ratio’s.
•
Correction of the differences in the spectrum by
means of gain applied to the pulse height spectrum.
4 SPE 90339
• Verification of neutron generator output to correct
value to achieve specific count rate.
• Resolution of dead time of detectors.
• Measurement of hydrogen peak resolution.
• A check of the electronics tool systems.
Dead time, pileup, nonlinearity and spectral gain and offsets
are some of the features that are used to minimize tool-tool
variation.
Interpretation: A windowing method is used to determine
elemental yields. These yields are corrected for environmental
effects by algorithms that are developed in test pit facilities.
The corrected data is put into a CarbOxSat* model that utilizes
the following equations;
LIRI = (0.32 Vls + 0.30)(1- φ ) + 1.505, (2)
The lithology ratio LIRI is calculated from the fractional
volume of calcite and porosity ( φ ). The coefficients in this
equation are determined in laboratory test pits. An
independent measurement of the C/O can then be calculated
by the following equation;
∆CO = COIR -0.15LIRI + 0.07 φ - 0.263 + A , (3)
where COIR is the Carbon/oxygen ratio, and A is a constant
that removes any residual effects. ∆CO is then the corrected
C/O ratio. The constant A in this equation is either set in
known zones of 100% water or known saturations. The oil
saturation can then be calculated by the following equation;
1 − .35φ ∆CO
Soil = 1.53 − , (4)
φ ∆CO + 0.19Chc
Where φ is the porosity, Chc is the carbon index of the oil.
Reservoir Performance Monitor (Baker Atlas)
A new multi-detector slim pulse neutron instrument was
introduced in 1998. This tool features 3 detectors that are
used in several different logging modes. This tool features
pulsed neutron capture, C/O, holdup imaging, activation water
flow, gravel pack evaluation and fracture efficiency modes of
logging.
Detectors: Three sodium iodide crystal detectors, short
spaced, long spaced and extra long spaced are used to
optimize the logging signal. C/O measurements are made
between the two closest detectors. A Dual Detector
optimization method is used that combines the effects of the
high signal to noise ratio and high sensitivity borehole effects
of the near detector to the low signal to noise ratio with a
weighing method that maximizes the fidelity of the calculated
saturation values. The third detector is used for activation of
oxygen, which is used to determine cross flows and water
velocity in horizontal wells.
Calibration: Horizontal water filled tank and quality control
curves are used to minimize tool to tool variability.
Interpretation: There are several methods that are used to
determine hydrocarbon saturation values with this tool. One
of the most effective that was used in this study is the
Dynamic Response Generator (DRG) **, figure 7. The DRG
utilizes a database that contains thousands of laboratory
measured environments that relate carbon/oxygen to saturation
values. This method determines saturations at every modeled
condition at every depth level.
C/O vs. Resistivity logging
Recent technological advancements have greatly enhanced
resistivity and PNS logging tools. Slim array induction tools
as well as newer cased-hole logging tools have also provided
for new options for reservoir monitoring.
Even though both of these technologies have their merits,
there are limitations and aspects that make one measurement
superior to the next. The following factors should be taken in
consideration with carbon-oxygen and resistivity logging.
• Formation water salinity range and profile.
• Bore-hole conditions.
• Re-invasion of bore-hole fluids.
• Resistivity contrast.
• Porosity range.
• Scaling/acidizing.
• Casing condition.
• Cement condition.
• Completion restrictions.
These factors should be evaluated in every well and thus
careful consideration should be taken in the pre-job planning
phase of every logging job. This in turn will minimize the
introduction of systematic errors in the final answers. In
addition, random errors that are inherent in the tool
measurements should also be considered. The three major
service companies provide carbon-oxygen job planners that
compute the random errors based on porosities, bore-hole
conditions and acquisition speeds. These planners are used to
optimize acquisition of data by calculating uncertainty in the
analysis based on these variables.
A new method has been developed that utilizes Monte
Carlo simulations to determine uncertainties in saturation
computations based on resistivity data. Figure 1 illustrates a
graph where errors in resistivity based saturations are
compared to errors in C/O saturations, under the same
conditions. In this example, Schlumberger’s RST-D planner
was used to calculate saturation error in a 15 pu formation. As
shown in this graph, errors in the resistivity analysis increase
as the formation waters become fresher and at a point they
become greater than the errors that are associated with C/O
logging. As this figure only represents one condition, several
simulations with varying porosity and electrical parameters
would be needed for a complete evaluation.
* Mark of Halliburton
** Mark of Baker Atlas
SPE 90339
Error in Saturation Carbon-Oxygen Vs. Resistivity
0.3
1 Standard Deviation
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000
Salinity
Figure 4 -- This figure illustrates the saturation errors that are
associated with C/O and resistivity logging data under same
conditions
Well Evaluations
A large scale reservoir monitoring project initiated in a large
carbonate field has prompted an assessment of technologies
that provide accurate and precise saturation measurements.
The main objectives of this study were to evaluate the
feasibility of this technology in this field and to compare the
latest technologies available in the industry. In order to
achieve these objectives two wells are chosen based on the
following criteria:
• Good bore-hole conditions (open-hole completion).
• Known lithology, porosity.
• Complete logging suites.
• The ability to shut-in and flow wells.
• No mechanical restrictions (tool sizes, casing, tubing).
• Good Reservoir Quality.
• Extensive laboratory core data.
Well-A
The first well chosen in this study was a newly drilled well
placed close to an injector. The primary purpose of the well
was to determine the remaining oil saturation behind the flood
front. Initially, a study was conducted in nearby wells to
determine the homogeny of lithology, porosity and rock type
as described by petrophysical facies.
A comprehensive logging program included the
following:
• Initially: Drill 5.875 inch hole.
• Coring: Sponge core.
• Log: Resistivity-Density-Neutron-Gamma Ray.
• Log: Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (base log).
• Ream out the hole to 8.5 inches with doped MgCl2
Mud.
• Log: Nuclear magnetic Resonance.
• Log: Schlumberger’s RST-D, shut-in condition.
• Log: Schlumberger’s RST-C, shut-in condition.
• Log: Schlumberger’s RST-C, flowing condition.
• Log: Schlumberger’s RST-D, flowing condition with
Production Logging Tool.
• Formation Tester (MDT*).
5
Samples from the MDT were used in conjunction with a
tracer material to determine formation water resistivity (Rw)
and hydrocarbons movability at several intervals. Laboratory
tests from these samples showed a variation from 7000 to
70000 ppm NaCl Rw’s. This variation in the RW profile
produced large errors in resistivity calculated saturations.
POR = 15%
Figure 8 illustrates resistivity saturation analysis as compared
to sponge core data. As shown in this figure, water saturations
C/O ERROR
15% from resistivity analysis did not compare well with the core
data. In addition to these results, an NMR Log-Inject-Log
method was used to calculate oil volumes. This method
utilizes a direct measurement of NMR fluid signal, which is
independent of formation salinity. As shown in this figure,
there is an excellent match between the NMR and core
measured values. NMR and core measured values were used
as benchmarks.
C/O tools were then run in conjunction with production
logging tools. Several passes were made with the RST-C and
RST-D in both shut-in and flowing conditions. Figure 9 is a
log that illustrates saturation results from sponge core and
RST-D, RST-C shut-in and flowing passes. As shown in this
figure, all of the tools provided saturation results that are in
agreement, except for the RST-C tool that was logged in
flowing condition. Since, the RST-C does not have shielding;
both near and far detectors are sensitive to borehole
environment. This sensitivity adds uncertainty to the
calculated saturations by a reduced dynamic range in the
interpretations. In this well, water saturations from this tool
are higher than the references. The tool movement in flowing
conditions can be attributed to these differences. In addition,
decrease in the dynamic range, due to shielding, is also
attributed to the results. Schlumberger does not recommend
flowing well conditions for the RST-C tool. The RST-D
flowing and shut-in results showed a good comparison. This
was expected, since the well did not have any movable
hydrocarbon. RST-D flowing data had the best comparison to
sponge core data. Analysis from Well-A has shown very
promising results for future application of this technology in
this field
Well-B
The objective in Well-A was to determine remaining oil
saturations, (ROS). In order to determine the effects of
borehole fluid and changes in formation saturation, a well with
50% water cut was selected as a candidate. Well B was
completed in May 2000, and was a candidate for propellant
stimulation. Logging objective was to optimize the treatment
interval for which the OWC or unflushed zones needed to be
determined. One of the primary objectives was to determine
the oil saturation in zone B (figure 12).
Well-B is an open-hole completed producing well. Again,
a complete geological and petrophysical analysis of nearby
wells showed homogenous rock types. Since core data was
not available in this well, an alternative benchmark was
needed.
* Mark of Schlumberger
6 SPE 90339
A test program was developed to compare C/O data from
all three service companies against saturations computed from
resistivity and pulsed neutron capture sigma based data.
A comprehensive logging program that extended for 11
days included the RST-D, RMT-E, RPM, production logs and
slim hole array induction log.
Table 2 is an overview of the sequence of operations. Figures
10 through 13 show the results of the analysis from these
logging runs.
The following observations were made from this well study:
• Borehole fluid sampling and sigma well bore
measurements showed good matches with salinity
waters above 100,000 ppm NaCl solutions. In these
salinity ranges, robust saturation measurements can
be expected from both resistivity and pulsed capture
sigma logs.
• Normalized sigma measured values for the three
companies were identical, thus providing for the
similar saturation profiles (figure 10).
• Hydrocarbon saturations measured by resistivity and
sigma data compared well in the entire logged
interval (figure 10).
• Comparing the difference between the flowing and
shut-in passes. The RST-D data provided reasonable
reinvasion profiles. RPM did not show much of
reinvasion effects, while a large difference was
noticed with the RMT-Elite. (figure 11)
• RST-D inelastic data matched well with both sigma
and resistivity data. (figure 12,13)
• RPM data overestimated water volumes with respect
to references. (figure 12,13)
• RMT-Elite data showed reasonable results in most of
the sections except in zone A in figure 12, where it
overestimated the water saturation. In this zone, high
water production rates were measured by production
logs.
• In zone B & C, Benchmark saturation data from
resistivity and Sigma data supported by C/O results
from RST-D and RPM, and did not provide clear
evidence of unflushed intervals and the stimulation
job was cancelled. An assessment based on RMT-E
data alone would have left at least two zones
candidate for propellant stimulation.
• RST-D’s borehole hold up measurements compared
well with production logging results. The results are
key in sigma logging measurements.
• RPM does not provide good hold-up results.
Conclusion
One of the key elements in successful C/O interpretation is
pre-job planning. Formation water salinity, bore-hole
conditions, re-invasion of bore-hole fluids, resistivity contrast,
porosity, scaling/acidizing, casing condition, cement condition
and completion restrictions need to be taken into consideration
prior to any job. In addition, pre job planning should involve
a sensitivity analysis. As shown, Monte Carlo simulations on
resistivity based saturation data and C/O job-planners were
used to optimize the saturation results.
The two wells tested in this study, showed promising
results on the application of these tools in this carbonate field.
The following is a summary of the conclusions:
• Well-A: RST-D data was much more reliable in
flowing conditions than the RST-C. Since
characterization and calibration methodologies are the
same for the two tools, we have concluded that
shielding enhances the interpretation by an increase in
the dynamic range, illustrated figures 5 & 6.
• Well-A: Resistivity results did not compare well with
core measured, fluid samples, NMR and C/O data. In
most situations, resistivity data is used as a benchmark
to C/O logging. Due to this high uncertainty, this
should not be practiced in formations that contain
fresh waters and/or variable formation waters.
• Well-B: RST-D, water volume from C/O flowing
compares well with results from Sigma and resistivity,
provided formation salinity changes derived from
borehole sigma and bottom hole fluid samples.
• RPM, the water volumes tens to be overestimated
relative to Sigma and resistivity results for both shut-
in and flowing analysis.
• RMT-Elite, the water volume from C/O flowing
appears to be reasonable consistent with results from
Sigma and resistivity, but is sensitive to fluid flow
from formation and borehole holdup. In Zone A,
caliper logs showed a small washout. Large
differences were observed between the shut-in and
flowing passes.
• RPM data was not affected by the washouts.
• C/O interpretations are generally performed by the
service companies by “Black boxed” models. The
empirical relationships used in RMT-E interpretation
are more transparent and local modifications are easily
provided.
• Presently, Halliburton is characterizing the RMT-E to
the reservoir in this study.
• Time Lapse reservoir monitoring projects should be
performed by a single vendor to minimize uncertainty.
References
1. Hemingway, J. et al., “Introduction to Enhanced Carbon-
Oxygen Logging for Multi-Well Reservoir Evaluation “,
SPWLA 1999
2. Simpson, G. A. et al, “Introduction Experiences of a New
High Accuracy Though-Tubing Pulsed Neutron Reservoir
Management solution in Asia-Pacific” SPE APOGCE 2001
3. Badruzzaman A., et al., “ Accurate Oil Saturation
Determination Using Carbon/Oxygen Logs in Three Phase
Reservoirs”, SPWLS 39th Annual Logging Symposium,
Keystone, May 26-29 1998
4. Medhat Mickael.,”Dynamic Multi-parameter Interpretation
of Dual-Detector Carbon/Oxygen Measurements”, SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, 1999
5. Simpson, G.A. et al., “Field Experience with a New
Carbon/Oxygen Logging System in Complex Well bore
and Formation Conditions”, SPE Annual Technical
SPE 90339 7

Conference and Exhibition held in New Orleans, Louisiana

2001
6. Chandran, T. et al.,“Waterflood Saturation Measurement
with Carbon-Oxygen Tools in a Middle-East Carbonate”
SPE AbuDhabi International Petroleum Exhibition and
Conference 2002
7. Eyvazzadeh, R. et al., “Nuclear Magnetic Resonance and
Carbon/Oxygen Logging Improve determination of
Residual Oil Saturation: A case study from the Minas
Field” SPE APOGCE 1999.
8 SPE 90339

Figure 5 -- RST-D interpretation: Based on characterized near and

far Carbon/Oxygen ratio’s from near and far detector. Note the Figure 6 – RST-C interpretation: Based on characterized near and
wider dynamic range of this tool with respect to the RST-C. far carbon/oxygen ratios from near and far detector.

6-12" OPEN -
& CASED -HOLES Salinities measured from
CUSTOM MDT samples

BOREHOLE SIZE
CASING SIZE SANDSTONE
COMPLETION LIMESTONE 100000 ppm O ppm

0-100% GEOMETRY DOLOMITE

BOREHOLE FORMATION
HOLDUP MINERALOGY

C/Omin
∆C/O
0.1-0.9 GM /CC 0-40 P.U.

BOREHOLE
FORMATION
HYDROCARBON
POROSITY
DENSITY
0-100%

FORMATION
SATURATION

Figure 7 – Dynamic Response Generator, Software that is used to

correct for environmental effected and calculate saturation on
level by level basis
Figure 8 – The area under the outline is the salinity values
measured from the MDT Sampling. The salinities ranged from
7000 to 70000 ppm NaCl’s. The Red curve in Track 3 is the
saturation from NMR analysis. The star points are the results
from core data, while the Blue curve is the result from resistivity
analysis.
SPE 90339 9

RST-C FLOWING

RST-C Shut-in

RST-D Shut-in

RST-D FLOWING

Resistivity-Analysis

Figure 9, Well-A Comparison of the RST-C, flowing and RST-D flowing and Shut-in passes and resistivity.
10 SPE 90339

Track 1 Track 2 Track 3

Figure 10. Well-B A comparison of the between sigma passes from the three service companies. Track 1 reveals the normalized sigma
passes. Track 2 is the saturation that is provided from Schlumberger on the Sigma passes (RED, flowing and Blue, Shut-in). The other two
companies did not provide saturation data from sigma. Track 3 is the comparison of the RST borehole sigma salinities and the downhole
sampling points.
SPE 90339 11

Track 1 Track 2 Track 3

Track. 11 Well-B, Comparison of the Flowing and Shut-in passes between the three companies, Track 1 is the data from Halliburton.
Track 2 is the data from Baker Atlas and Track 3 is the data from Schlumberger. The green shaded area represent the moved oil and
blue is the displaced water.
12 SPE 90339

Track 1 Track 2 Track 3 Track 4

Zone A

Zone B

Zone C

Figure 12 . Well-B, Comparison of the C/O results from Halliburton , Schlumberger and Baker Atlas. Track 1 RMT-Elite,
Track 2 Baker Atlas, Track 3 Schlumberger, Track 4 Resistivity analysis. The green shaded area is the measured oil
Volume.
SPE 90339 13

Schlumberger RST-D Baker Atlas RPM

Halliburton RMT

Figure 13. Well-B, Statistical comparison between the three service companies. As shown, Schlumberger RST-D provides the best match. In
these cross plots, water volumes from the resistivity analysis is compared to the C/O results.
14 SPE 90339

Detector Properties

Crystal Nal BGO GSO

• Relative light output 100 13 20

• Energy resolution
(at 662 keV for a 1-cm3 crystal) 6.5% 9.3% 8.0%
• Density (g/cm3) 3.67 7.13 6.71
• Effective atomic number 51 75 59
• Primary decay constant (nsec) 230 300 56
• Fragile? Yes No Slightly
• Hygroscopic? Yes No No
• Dewar system required? No Yes No

Table 1. This table illustrates some of the key features of the detectors that are used today. NaI is used in RPM
by Baker Atlas, BGO is used in the RMT by Halliburton and RST (Schlumberger) uses the GSO detector.

DAY-1 DAY-2 DAY-3 DAY-4 DAY-5 DAY-6 DAY-7 DAY-8 DAY-9 DAY-10 DAY-11 DAY-12 DAY-13 DAY-14
SLB SAIT & RST-D
BA RPM RPM
HAL RMT & PLT PLT & RMT RST-D

Well Status FLOWING SHUT-IN FLOWING

Table # 2. Sequence of operation for Well-B.