Linking Solutions to Problems

Pete Edmonds A cultural revolution brings about new ways of thinking and behaving.
Sugar Land, Texas, USA
Such a revolution has reshaped relationships between operators and

service suppliers, making the focus on problem-solving more pervasive

than ever before. The future belongs to service companies who adopt

strategies to rapidly customize solutions to meet specific oil company

needs—whether for products, services or new ways of doing business.

This is the essence of the ClientLink initiative.

For help in preparation of this article, thanks to Bernard ClientLink, FIV (Formation Isolation Valve),
Gremillet, Schlumberger Oilfield Services, New York, IDEAL (Integrated Drilling Evaluation and Logging),
New York, USA; Terry Greene and Dustin Free, Dowell, MatCADE, PowerPak, StimCADE and VIPER are
Sugar Land, Texas, USA; Trevor Burgess, Dave Bergt and marks of Schlumberger.
Dave Malone, Anadrill, Sugar Land, Texas; Dave Formas Oracle is a mark of Oracle Corporation. Webcrawler is a
and Yves Lemoign, Sedco Forex, Montrouge, France; mark of America Online
Charles Currie and Imran Kizilbash, Schlumberger
Wireline & Testing, Montrouge, France; Koji Kusaka
Schlumberger Wireline & Testing, Aberdeen, Scotland;
Tore Karlsson, Geco-Prakla, Gatwick, England; and Lars
Sonneland, Geco-Prakla, Stavanger, Norway.

4 Oilfield Review
A long period of low and stable oil prices
has motivated the oil industry to develop
cost-effective services that can be cus-
tomized to fit specific needs. At the same
time, oil companies have streamlined opera-
tions, focused on core competencies and
outsourced more tasks to the service and
supply sector. The proliferation of strategic
alliances and joint product development
programs confirms that oil companies are
finding these new relationships beneficial
and profitable. As always, operators want
partners who anticipate their needs and
help them succeed.
Careful identification and evaluation of oil
company needs are required to pinpoint
opportunities that make good business
sense. To do this, service companies are
aligning their goals with those of opera-
tors—their clients—through a broadening of
traditional business practices. The ClientLink
initiative embodies the Schlumberger
approach to this new business environment.
Winter 1996
A Focus on Client Needs
The ClientLink initiative was introduced in
1992 as a means of addressing changes in
the global marketplace. It establishes a
cohesive framework for the total range of
client-related interactions. Its spirit and pur-
pose are realized through regular client con-
tacts and the design, development and exe-
cution of specific programs. The ClientLink
approach is not a set of rigid guidelines, but
a mindset—a commitment to standards
against which individual and company
activities are measured to aggressively pro-
mote client-consciousness.
Some of the programs currently adding
new vitality and a client-centered focus to
the company include the ClientLink Solu-
tions Program (CSP) and data base; inte-
grated services and strategic alliances; joint
quality, health, safety and environment
(QHSE) standards, typified by programs such
as Dowell Quality Management; joint R&D
programs; client surveys, client advisory
boards and client acceptance testing; client
training seminars and technical materials;
VIP Seminars and Well Evaluation Confer-
ences—specially prepared forums concen-
trating on technologies pertinent to operators
and particular regions of the world—and
communications training (next page, top).
Three Key Attributes
In all industries, profitable market segments
grow by exploitation of three different, but
related, attributes. The first is mastery of two-
way communications. The key is establishing
open communication links. A receptive atti-
tude and well-honed listening skills are
required to fully understand client needs,
both strategically and operationally. Clear,
effective communication skills convey how
these needs can best be met.
The art of persuasion is being replaced by
the insight to apply technology in new ways
and the foresight to identify unsolved prob-
lems that lead to mutually beneficial oppor-
5

ClientLink Solutions
Program (CSP)
Data Base
Integrated services/
Strategic alliances
ClientLink
Initiative
Joint
Customized
R&D programs
Solutions
Client surveys
Client advisory boards
Client acceptance testing
■Key elements of the ClientLink initiative. This flexible approach provides a framework
for the total range of communications and interactions between Schlumberger and its
clients. The ultimate goal is to provide cost-effective, customized solutions that enhance
the efficiency of oilfield operations.
tunities. Problem-identifiers, technical
experts in one or more disciplines—the wire-
line engineer at a wellsite, the geophysicist
aboard a seismic vessel, and the completions
specialist at a weekly field meeting—are on
the front line. Their responsibilities include
monitoring economic conditions and market
trends and assessing the impact of these fac-
tors on clients.
The second attribute is team spirit, built
upon mutual trust and aimed at achieving
agreed-upon objectives. The emphasis is on
problem-solving, putting things together in
unique ways to address specific situations.
Problem-solvers must be involved in a con-
tinuing search for new applications, combi-
nations and refinements. They operate any-
where in an organization.
6 Oilfield Review
Joint
QHSE standards
VIP seminars/Well
evaluation conferences
Client training
The third quality is an effective means of
exploiting enhanced communications and
cooperation. This means connecting prob-
lem-identifiers and problem-solvers. Today,
the only viable way of forging a link between
the two is through a global, state-of-the-art
communications network (right).1
A Web of Solutions
The ability to connect problem-identifiers
and problem-solvers is critical, and in a
global organization, the logistics are daunt-
ing. To overcome this challenge, the
ClientLink Web site—linked to an Oracle
database framework and electronic mail
(e-mail) system—makes use of the latest
World Wide Web technology. All personnel
on the Schlumberger Intranet can access the
Web site. Efficient information flow and
indexing of locally maintained Web pages
speed deployment of client solutions. The
Web site is a crucial piece of the puzzle—a
link between needs and solutions and a
major asset in developing and transferring
customized solutions to clients. Finding a
solution to a client problem consists of up to
three steps.
The first step is a search for documented
solutions. This search is facilitated by
accessing a keyword index of Schlumberger
Web site repositories where local offices
place new or unique solutions to client
problems. Because only the directories with
solutions are indexed, response is rapid.
If an answer cannot be found, a second
step can be taken. Experts in that specific
area of technology can be queried to see if a
solution exists using a data base that lists
Schlumberger personnel by areas of exper-
tise. This is a self-administered extension of
the in-house e-mail system that permits
effective electronic networking on a global
scale. A few e-mails or phone calls may pro-
vide the necessary insight into a problem or
generate a solution. If not, a new develop-
ment or technology may be required.
The third step is to enter the unsolved
problem into the confidential ClientLink
Solutions Program data base for considera-
tion in the product development process
(next page). This data base was created to
■ Global networking. The success of such
a wide-ranging initiative requires the
combination of two-way communication
skills, a spirit of cooperation aimed at
achieving mutually agreed-upon objec-
tives and a means of effectively exploit-
ing communications and cooperation that
is best achieved through the use of a
global, state-of-the-art network.
 Customer

Originator Need Unit/division Company

inputs a recorded reviews, adds level reviews,
client need with assigned comments assigns status
number

Current capability
Unprompted
update of
Project ongoing
current CSP

Local solution exists

CSP
Originator need updated No action
receives recommended
comments or Sustaining project
updates candidate
R&E project
candidate

Customized solutions Check for CSP

data base Research and
need/solution needs and solutions
(updated weekly product center
match data base
with Webcrawler) marketing
managers
receive e-mail

Units’ customized solutions WWW sites

Product Query Research

New technology data base lines function centers
(updated as new technology
becomes available)

Product
centers

1. Reich RB: The Work of Nations: Preparing Ourselves
for 21st Century Capitalism. New York, New York,
USA: Vintage Books, 1992.
Clark R, Danti B, Guthery S, Jurgensen T, Kennedy K,
Keddie J and Sims D: “Building a Global Highway for
Oilfield Data,” Oilfield Review 5, no. 4 (October
1993): 23-35.
Balough S, Betts P, Breig J, Karcher B, Erlich A, Green
J, Haines P, Landgren K, Marsden R, Smith D,
Pohlman J, Shields W and Winczewski L: “Managing
Oilfield Data Management,” Oilfield Review 6, no. 3
(July 1994): 32-49.
■The ClientLink Solutions Program (CSP) data base: using information technology to
communicate solutions. The Schlumberger Intranet Web and e-mail systems combine
with an Oracle data base to collect and store unsolved problems from clients. Information
is entered into a review section of the data base by the originator using a Web form. An
e-mail is generated to a specific list of reviewers who add comments and recommenda-
tions that become part of the permanent record. Reviewers are selected to receive only
specific needs. After the first level of review, a second e-mail is sent to the next level of
reviewers. At the second review level, a status is assigned, and the original information—
with all comments—becomes accessible to all personnel. After this point, comments can
be added by any employee. This generates a follow-up e-mail, providing further feed-
back to the originator.
In the data base, client needs are indexed along with the contents of servers that store
customized solutions. The index supports searches by keyword and the data base can
generate summaries of problem types in any combination of 16 classifications. This pro-
vides users with tools to match client needs and existing solutions. To expand capabilities
for the future, newly commercialized technology will also be indexed. Not pictured here,
but part of the ClientLink Web site, is the Expert Finder, which allows users to contact
experts in a particular area of technology.

Through the Connect Schlumberger Web server (www.connect.slb.com), clients

can communicate needs electronically. The server sends an e-mail to the appropri-
ate Schlumberger representative who, in turn, uses the CSP Web site to enter needs
and search for solutions.

Winter 1996 7


,, 
,
, strates how a client-centered focus and
involvement of multiple disciplines, clearly
directed toward problem solving with the
latest technology, are changing the way
resources will be managed in the future.
Statoil began producing from the Gullfaks


, 
,
field in 1986, and is now producing from
three platforms. Prior to development, 3D
seismic surveys were shot and processed in
1985 to define the reservoir as accurately as
possible, given the technology available at
Before start of production After second survey that time. Now, a decade later, Statoil and


, 
,
Schlumberger are using time-lapse 3D, or
4D, seismic studies—combined with
advances in acquisition and processing
techniques—to provide information for
making educated economic decisions about
the future of the field (see “Seismic Snap-
shots for Reservoir Monitoring,” page 32).
This project is an outgrowth of a close
working relationship between Statoil and
Geco-Prakla who participated in an ongoing
study to define undrained areas and map
After third survey After fourth survey
changes in hydrocarbon saturation using
seismic data. With support from GeoQuest,
■Conceptual representation of imaging reservoir changes using time-lapse 3D, also
known as 4D, seismic data. The first image (upper left) shows fluid disposition prior to the pioneering work to extract additional infor-
start of production. Subsequent surveys (upper right, lower left) show progressive reservoir mation from seismic data evolved into a
depletion and significant bypassed reserves (green). Additional wells are drilled (lower method for using the data to map not only
right) to tap into bypassed hydrocarbons. The bottommost of the three original wells has the reservoir, but also dynamic fluid charac-
been shut in to prevent water encroachment (blue). This integrated approach to reservoir
teristics within the reservoir.
management helps maximize total economic recovery.
The project has proven the value of the
Seismic Classifier Toolbox software system.
collect and store information and facilitate There are many examples of how the The toolbox breaks the seismic data taken
action on unsolved client problems. Infor- ClientLink commitment to communications near a wellbore into multidimensional
mation can be entered by any Schlumberger skills, open cooperation and effective net- attribute space and assigns certain lithologi-
employee, anywhere, at any time. Clients working delivers successful solutions. The cal or fluid properties, determined by petro-
can input needs as well through following case studies show how closer physical measurements such as well log-
Schlumberger personnel. In a two-level business ties with oil companies, supported ging, to the resulting clouds of data. These
management review process, comments are both directly and indirectly by electronic classifications can then be applied to other
added and feedback is provided via e-mail networking and the CSP data base, are pro- seismic data and extended to provide a con-
to the originator. The review process may viding best-in-class solutions in a cost- sistent indication of lithology and fluid prop-
vary somewhat by company, but typically effective fashion. erties across the field.2
level one reviews are performed by region When the second seismic shoot was done
managers and level two reviews are done by From Structure to Reservoir Management 10 years later in 1995, other seismic acqui-
headquarters managers. As oil fields mature, decisions must be sition techniques such as seabed geophones
made, based on total ultimate recovery, were used in addition to towed arrays. The
regarding the expected life of facilities. analysis was done with the toolbox, and
2. Sonneland L, Tennebo P, Gehrmann T, and Yrke O: Technology for monitoring and, ultimately, results showed definite promise (next page).
“3D Model-Based Bayesian Classification,” paper
P137, presented at the 56th Meeting of the European
predicting the dynamic behavior of reservoir
Association of Exploration Geophysicists, Vienna, Aus- fluids is of immeasurable value in effectively
tria, June 6-10, 1994. managing production and recovery (above).
The following North Sea example demon-

8 Oilfield Review
 In 1996, a third survey was conducted to 1985 Fluid Distribution
evaluate how well the techniques work as a
reservoir monitoring tool over short time
frames. Based on the results, planning and
management of short-term remedial projects
to enhance ultimate recovery appear feasible.
During this project, multidisciplinary
teams were used to enhance understanding
of the reservoir. Involvement extended
beyond the traditional seismic domain to
include reservoir engineers, geologists,
petrophysicists and geophysicists from both
companies. Linking wireline borehole mea-
surements with seismic data further refined
the analysis. Because of its potential impact
on the industry, the project has been sup-
ported by the European Union’s Thermie
research program. The broad range of skills
and expertise that was focused on this single
problem exemplifies the ClientLink
approach to generating solutions.

New Solutions to Old Problems

The demand for offshore drilling rigs has
fluctuated widely over the past 15 years.
Finding the optimal rig configuration for a 1995 Fluid Distribution
well can be extremely difficult, particularly
if the prospect is in deep water. If the proper
rig isn’t available, modifying an available rig
can be costly and delay startup. For a single-
well contract, the expense can be pro-
hibitive. Today, through open communica-
tions and a willingness to explore
alternatives, Shell and Sedco Forex have
found an innovative, cost-effective solution
to these challenges.
Shell Angola decided to drill a well in
2000 ft [600 m] of water and then perform
an extended well test—EWT—(see “Cutting
Risk, Boosting Cash Flow and Developing
Marginal Fields,” page 18). A conventional
chain mooring system was not a viable
option. A suitable drilling vessel and dynam-
ically positioned support tanker were
unavailable, and modifying an available rig
was uneconomical.
After discussions with Sedco Forex, a
unique solution was devised. The limitation
of chain mooring systems is the weight of
chain per unit length. As depth increases, ■Changes in the Gullfaks 3D seismic image over a 10-year interval. A comparison of seis-
chains hang nearly vertical from the rig, pro- mic images acquired in 1985 (top) and 1995 (bottom) shows the reservoir changes that
viding insufficient lateral tension to keep the have occurred as this field has been produced. Water is shown in blue, oil in red and gas
in yellow. Green indicates areas where there is no reservoir quality rock. An assessment
rig on station. In 2000 ft of water, a combi- of actual drainage patterns is helping Statoil reservoir engineers optimize the manage-
nation wire and chain mooring system is ment of reserves.
required. The usual practice is to use a rig-
mounted, complex mooring system able to

Winter 1996 9
handle both the chain and wire cable. Sedco
Forex proposed a system that would allow
the anchor-handling vessel to insert a length
of wire cable to replace part of the chain, Chain to rig
leaving the on-board mooring system unaf- Pear link
fected. The resulting benefits are minimal rig Open socket
modifications and relatively unaffected oper-
ational procedures (right). 500-m by 92-mm
wire cable insert
To perform the EWT, a buoy would typi-
cally be anchored near the location to pro-
vide a mooring site for a tanker. Alterna-
tively, a dynamically positioned tanker Open socket
could be used. The first solution is costly for Pear link
a test of limited duration, and the alterna- 650-m
tive—a dynamically positioned tanker—was ground chain
not available. Weather conditions in the to anchor
area, however, allow another solution.
Because the seas are calm, and prevailing
winds are consistently from the same direc-
tion, changing currents and winds do not
pose a problem. Consequently, the tanker
can be attached directly to the rig with mini- ■Deepwater combination mooring system. Conventional chain mooring systems have
mal risk to either vessel. A tugboat, con- limitations, particularly as water depth increases and chain weight limits the ability to
control rig position. Replacing a portion of the chain with wire cable reduces total weight,
nected to the stern of the tanker, helps main- adds lateral restraining force and improves station-keeping.
tain proper alignment (below).
This approach will be taken a step further.
Since the tanker will be connected to the rig,
it makes sense for one party to coordinate
procurement and management of both ves-
sels, further reducing organizational com-
plexity. This solution will result in consider- Tugboat
able cost savings and is expected to have
application in several other offshore fields.
The ClientLink approach is acting as a
springboard for this project. Fitting an engi- Tanker safe
neering solution to the specific environmen- operating sector
tal conditions existing in the field, along
with a streamlined management approach,
is expected to result in significantly
Tanker
increased operating efficiency.

Cement QC for Deepwater Drilling

One of the advantages of the continuous
flow of client needs and ideas that comes
through the ClientLink approach is the abil-
ity to react quickly to changing oilfield situ-
ations and priorities. With the rapid pace of
change in today’s technology, long develop-
ment cycles can render a promising concept Drilling
obsolete before it can be commercialized. rig
The CSP data base can accelerate product Prevailing
development dramatically by providing an winds
early look at changing client requirements.

■Close proximity rig and tanker alignment for extended well test. Under certain sea and
weather conditions, this configuration replaces an anchored buoy or dynamically posi-
tioned tanker, significantly reducing cost with no compromise in safety.

10 Oilfield Review
For example, the increase in deepwater
drilling has expanded the use of foamed Flow rate,
cement, as documented by the CSP data pressure and
Surfactant density
base early in 1996. Foamed cement systems measurement
provide several advantages over conven- computer
tional slurries. They offer design flexibility,
including low densities for use where Manual
control
reduced hydrostatic pressures are required. valve
In addition, the slurries are nonshrinking, Mixed slurry
and logistical savings can lower total
cementing cost. Flow
meter
At high pumping rates, slurry quality can be
a problem. There are two approaches to
Manual Well
achieving a correct and consistent slurry. control
One is accurate monitoring and control of valve
nitrogen injection and foamer rates, based on
measured slurry rates—an open-loop solu- Computer
tion. The other is continuous measurement of
the as-mixed slurry properties and adjustment Nitrogen
of the nitrogen foamer rate to achieve the
optimum, designed consistency. This closed-
loop technique requires more sensors, but
allows dynamic adjustment of the slurry as ■Process-controlled foamed cement mixing system. This open-loop
the job is being pumped. system relies on parameters entered by the equipment operator
prior to the start of the job. As the job progresses, predetermined
Based on prior experience, the open-loop values for nitrogen and surfactant flow rates are set.
approach got the project off to a quick start.
This system requires the operator to enter
the parameters for each stage of the job
before pumping begins. As the job pro-
gresses, predetermined values for nitrogen
and surfactant flow are set. Work was initi- Mixed slurry
Automatic
ated to provide a precise, process-controlled control
injection and measurement system using valve
this technique (above right). The project Automatic Flow rate,
Flow control pressure and
began in February 1996, with commission valve Well
meter density
and startup a month later. Surfactant measurement
A second phase, currently under way, will computer

extend the technology by providing a pro-

cess-control capability using measured foam
properties. The flow rate, pressure and den- Nitrogen
sity of the slurry are constantly measured,
then fed back to a computer, which adjusts
the nitrogen to dynamically attain the opti-
mum pumped slurry. This closed-loop
enhancement will be in service by mid- Feedback
1997 (right). This illustrates how a broad and
continually updated view of the market- Computer
place provides a basis for improved deci- ■Closed-loop foamed cement mixing system. Here, the flow rate,
sion making and planning. The ClientLink pressure and density of cement slurries are measured continually.
approach resulted in rapid product evolu- These measured values are fed to a computer for analysis. The
tion and better quality control (QC). computer adjusts nitrogen rate to dynamically attain the optimum
properties for a slurry.

Winter 1996 11

Coiled tubing unit
Building a Better Snake
From a marketing and product development
perspective, the review process that is part of
the CSP data base can take many forms. The
relational data base allows analysis guided
by trends in the global marketplace, as well
as focusing on specific technologies in dis-
tinct disciplines.
For example, 8.5% of all entries in the
data base identified small boreholes as a
limiting factor. In the drilling services cate-
gory, however, the number rises to 24%.
This confirmed conclusions reached by
Anadrill and reinforced plans to focus
resources on small-diameter downhole sys-
tems. Looking further, 6% of the entries cen-
tered on coiled tubing, with 33% of these
being drilling-related. It was apparent that
any developments in small-diameter sys-
tems should consider the possibility of
coiled tubing as the conveyance method.
This input helped define the path to a new
technology (next page, right).
Under proper economic conditions,
drilling new wellbores from existing cased
wells has proven to be an effective means
of recovering additional oil and extending
the productive life of many fields. The
VIPER BHA with PowerPak motor
Drilling head module
Coiled tubing Check
and wireline valves
Wet
connect
12
■VIPER drilling equipment configuration
and bottomhole assembly. The VIPER sys-
tem, run on coiled tubing, combines
advanced technology with operational
simplicity and efficiency. The downhole
package includes a drilling head module,
logging section, powered orienting tools
and steerable motor. The assembly deliv-
ers fast updates, in any fluid environment,
of downhole measurements via wireline
cable. Modular construction affords easy
maintenance.
Alaskan North Slope, USA—an area where
Schlumberger, working closely with
clients, has developed and refined this
capability—is a case in point. The confines
of existing casings, cost of full-size service
rigs and tight spacing of wellheads posed
implementation problems. Coiled tubing
drilling provided the solution. Other
options were either prohibitively expensive
or logistical nightmares.3
Initial efforts using Dowell coiled tubing
and Anadrill directional drilling and down-
hole technology proved the concept was
workable, but existing hardware had defi-
ciencies. A key to success would be improv-
ing the design and functionality of the ori-
enting sub, which enables drillers to steer
the bit.
To address this challenge and define the
project’s scope, Anadrill and Dowell repre-
sentatives met in early 1995 with three
major clients who were using coiled tubing
drilling techniques. In the planning phase, it
became apparent that requirements would
evolve as more was learned about tech-
niques and potential applications. To get a
system to the wellsite efficiently, the project
was done in three phases. The first step was
Logging tool
Pressure transducers Ga
and electronics
Electrical Telemetry Direc
disconnect and power senso
Oilfield Review
 to produce a basic, reliable tool quickly.
Next, refinements to address other drilling-
related client needs would be developed.
Finally, additional while-drilling instrumen-
tation would be added.
The decision was made to take a systems
approach to the project. The resulting
equipment—the VIPER system—had to be
able to drill, steer and evaluate the wellbore
in real time. The system contains a drilling
motor with a nonmagnetic housing, backed
up by a measurement and guidance pack-
age that includes a sophisticated, powered
orienting device controlled from the surface.
The VIPER system addresses the shortcom-
ings of the original coiled tubing downhole
assembly and provides a flexible platform
for the addition of new features in the future
(previous page, bottom and below).
The integrated development team, essen-
tially a “virtual organization,” pulled exper-
tise and products from several Schlumberger
companies. Anadrill provided the instru-
mentation package and downhole motor;
Dowell supplied the disconnect and check
valves; Wireline & Testing supplied the wire-
line acquisition front end; and Vector Cable
provided the special connectors and cables.
Initial trials were performed in an Amoco
test well near Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA, in
April 1996. At the time, Saga Petroleum was
finalizing plans for a North Sea develop-
ment with the intent of using the VIPER sys-
tem. A Saga representative witnessed the
initial trials and committed to use the sys-
tem. The key challenge in the Saga program
is to drill two laterals out of 4-in. production
tubing in a well cased with 95⁄8-in. pipe.
Because of the critical nature of this work,
the potentially large number of wells
involved, and the complexity and diversity
of the procedures being used, a test well is
being drilled to evaluate the entire proce-
dure, including use of coiled tubing drilling
techniques and the VIPER system.
Orienting tool
ers Gamma-ray sensors Motor, gear train
and electronics and bearing section
Direction and inclination Motor and power
sensors and electronics electronics
Winter 1996
Since coiled tubing drilling technology is Total Data Base
evolving rapidly, client input has been cru-
cial at all stages of this project, reinforcing
the ClientLink approach to product develop-
ment. As part of the process, a survey
8.5%
involving over forty participants working Small borehole
with small-diameter drillstrings was con-
ducted in association with the Gas Research
Institute (GRI), Chicago, Illinois, USA. Ques-
tions ranged from general opinions about
future needs to detailed design specifica-
tions. The responses confirmed that drilling
formations that have been producing for 20
years requires a different approach than
drilling virgin formations. This input was
used to plan the second and third develop-
ment phases of VIPER technology.
Surprisingly, the GRI survey revealed the Drilling Services Section
desirability and acceptance of using wire- of Data Base
line cable in coiled tubing. The ability to
provide power downhole for instrumenta-
tion and the orienting device, the major
increase in data transmission rate, and abil- 33% 6% 24%
Drilling Coiled Small
ity to drill with any fluid in depleted reser- related tubing borehole
voirs were viewed as important benefits.
Drilling underbalanced to protect reservoirs
from damage was deemed critical to suc-
cess among those surveyed.
Client involvement has created intense
interest in ongoing development and testing
of the VIPER system. Every week, clients
request updates on field testing. Early tools
proved coiled tubing drilling of reentry wells
was economically feasible in certain environ- ■CSP database analysis. Assessment of
ments; VIPER technology is fulfilling this general and specific categories of entries
promise with an advanced, operationally reli- within the data base helps pinpoint areas
of industry need and interest as a method-
able system that makes through-tubing ology to aid decision making. Analysis of
drilling and sidetracking a competitive reality. entries on small boreholes impacted the
timing and priorities for new technology
3. Bigio D, Rike A, Christensen A, Collins J, Hardman D, developments, in particular with respect to
Doremus D, Tracy P, Glass G, Joergensen N and coiled tubing applications.
Stephens D:”Coiled Tubing Takes Center Stage,” Oil-
field Review 6, no. 4 (October 1994): 9-23.
Steerable motor
Articulation
Nonmagnetic Surface-adjustable
power section bent housing
13

Permanent gauge cable
51/2-in. tubing
Permanent gauge mandrel
Permanent packer
||
{{{
zz
yyy





,,,
Nipple
FIV tool
Polished bore receptacle locator Cement
Liner hanger
■FIV Formation Isolation Valve installation in a horizontal completion. Horizontal wells
pose special problems for perforating. The FIV tool, run as part of the completion string,
provides a reliable method for isolating the reservoir after underbalanced perforating
with long gun strings.
Getting More from Logs and Well Tests For decades, operators and service compa-
Frequently, a specific client need that relates nies have been attempting to maximize the
to an ongoing project will be entered into usable information that can be obtained
the CSP data base, providing an opportunity from the vast variety of well logs available.
to critique the development at an early stage. One particular client needed to electroni-
The data can help validate the goals and cally merge mud logs, measurements-while-
direction of the project or provide sufficient drilling logs and logging-while-drilling logs
information to initiate a mid-course correc- provided by different service companies, but
tion. Similarly, entries can provide the impe- current capabilities did not permit merging
tus to change priorities for pending projects due to differences in log formats.
when newly discovered client requirements In an effort to find a solution, a
clearly detail benefits that the industry will Schlumberger engineer, assigned to the
derive from the technology. client’s office, entered the need into the CSP
data base. The reviewer assessed the prob-
lem and promptly forwarded it to experts in
engineering for further study. Literally within
minutes, a response was received stating that
the next software release of the IDEAL Inte-
14
grated Drilling Evaluation and Logging sys-
tem would contain most of the required
capability. The new feature was well
advanced in its development, had completed
internal testing and was ready for a field trial.
Discussions between the client and Anadrill
have led to the planning of a field test with
the objectives specifically designed to
answer the client’s immediate need. The
route to a solution was fast and efficient. By
using electronic networking, the entire pro-
cess took only one day.
Using database entries to determine project
priorities can be just as important. An opera-
tor in the Middle East was experiencing
operational problems with gas well tests. The
testing procedure and equipment required
bleeding down pressure inside the testing
string, which created a large and undesirable
pressure differential, with only the ball valve
holding back formation pressure. Also, the
brine used in the annulus during testing cre-
ated an underbalance, so the pressure
increase due to shutting in at the surface
could cause the test tool to cycle and possi-
bly open at an inconvenient time.
The need was entered and catalogued in
the data base in June 1995. The solution was
a circulating valve with more positive con-
trol by annulus pressure. Assessment of the
need and its relevance on a global scale led
Schlumberger managers to give top priority
to a development project, already in the
planning stage. The project was initiated later
that year and field testing of the new annu-
lus-controlled, reverse-circulating valve in
the client’s well is scheduled for early 1997.
Improving Field Economics
Through Innovative Technology
Andrew field in the North Sea, identified
and evaluated by British Petroleum some 20
years ago, was not developed at that time
because of marginal economics. But since
then, advances in horizontal drilling have
changed the picture. Only half as many hor-
izontal wells compared to vertical wells are
needed to develop the Andrew field, which
greatly improves project economics.
However, viability of this new develop-
ment scheme hinged on using underbal-
anced perforating techniques to ensure a
sufficiently high productivity index from the
3600-ft [1100-m] long horizontal sections.
Underbalanced perforating of a section this
long would stretch current technology to the
limit and require development of improved
Oilfield Review
completion techniques. The Schlumberger
Perforating & Testing (SPT) Center in
Rosharon, Texas, USA was selected by BP
and Schlumberger Integrated Project Man-
agement—manager of the Andrew project—
to develop the necessary technology.
The solution proposed by SPT was a FIV Latch
profile
Formation Isolation Valve tool, a specially-
Rupture
designed, large-bore mechanical ball valve. Protection disk 1
The FIV tool isolates the reservoir after perfo- sleeve
rating with long gun strings. With the reser-
voir isolated, the well can be killed above
the valve, allowing guns to be retrieved
without pressure equipment (previous page).
Included as part of the completion string, Rupture
the FIV assembly is run in the open position, disk 2
permitting tubing-conveyed perforating guns Oil
to pass through. An entire interval can be chamber
perforated underbalanced at one time. With Time
a hydraulic workover—snubbing—unit, delay
pressure control is maintained while the
guns are pulled through the open valve. As
the guns are removed, a shifting tool con- Atmospheric Operator
nected to the bottom gun closes the valve, chamber mandrel
isolating formation pressure. Tubing pressure
is bled off and the tubing is displaced with
brine. After the guns are retrieved, the well
is placed on production by creating an
underbalance above the FIV tool and
Detent
reopening the valve (right).
Development of the FIV tool allowed
Latch
effective underbalanced perforating at profile
Andrew. The results: high productivity
Ball
indices and a safer, more efficient operation. operator
These improvements prompted Euroil maga- Ball
zine to recognize the FIV development with valve
a recent safety award, presented to
Schlumberger at the 1996 Offshore North-
ern Seas Conference held in Stavanger, Nor-
way during August 1996.
Successful development of the Andrew field
points out the significant changes—in tech-
nology, economics and the management pro-
cess—that have occurred in the industry.
Much of what has been achieved would not
have been possible five years ago before the
emphasis on the ClientLink initiative. Appli-
cation of advanced technology and the new,
cooperative business relationships between
oil companies and service companies were
pivotal in achieving project objectives.
■Sequence of FIV settings during completion and perforating operations. While running
in the hole, the FIV tool is in the open position (left). A shifting tool closes the FIV ball
valve once the tubing-conveyed perforating operation has been completed (center).
When the well is prepared for production, the FIV valve is opened (right).

Winter 1996 15

■Photomicrographs showing a simulated damaged formation
before and after a matrix treatment. Damage caused during
drilling and completion phases of well construction leaves pore
spaces plugged with debris (top). Treatment with acid removes
damage, creating open flow paths (bottom).
A Matrix Technology Partnership
Formation damage in a reservoir may occur naturally or can be
induced during well drilling and completion. It reduces the capabil-
ity of hydrocarbons to flow from the formation into the wellbore and
restricts well performance. Matrix stimulations—pumping reactive
or nonreactive fluids into the productive interval at pressures that do
not exceed the formation fracture gradient—are used to remove
existing damage and also to prevent future damage (above).4
StimCADE software, an integrated applications program for design-
ing well treatments to remove formation damage with the goal of
4. McLeod HO Jr, Ledlow LB and Till MV: “The Planning, Execution and Evaluation of
Acid Treatments in Sandstone Formations,” paper SPE 11931, presented at the 58th
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Francisco, California, USA,
October 5-8, 1983.
16
improving well productivity, was developed through a partnership
between the R&D arms of ARCO and Dowell. By combining the
technical strengths of both organizations, a reliable, standard pack-
age for design, real-time control and post-stimulation evaluation of
matrix treatments is now available to the industry. This software opti-
mizes job design and fluid usage, and maximizes the probability of
treatment success.
In the early 1990s, ARCO was involved in simulator development,
real-time data acquisition and evaluation of matrix stimulation designs
on the Alaskan North Slope. Researchers planned to add geochemi-
cal, scale predictor and critical drawdown models to the simulator to
predict sand production and formation collapse. At the time, cost and
complexity were prohibitive, and some pieces of the puzzle were
missing. Dowell had a matrix acidizing program, MatCADE software,
developed in the late 1980s that contained some of the missing
pieces, but it had structural and user interface deficiencies.
On the North Slope, 80% of ARCO’s stimulation treatments used
matrix acidizing technology. Results-based criteria showed that one
in every three matrix treatments was unsuccessful. Conversely, frac-
ture stimulation had only a one in twenty failure rate. Sophisticated
computer design programs were viewed as the reason. If the matrix
failure rate could be reduced to one in four, resulting production
increases and cost reductions would be sizable. This ultimately con-
vinced ARCO management to support the development of a supe-
rior matrix acidizing simulator.
ARCO assessed several development options and in June 1994
approached Dowell with the idea of combining MatCADE software
with ARCO’s models to produce a comprehensive package. The
cost of feasibility studies was shared by the two companies. Once
feasibility was successfully proven, Dowell committed resources at
its product center in Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA to develop the software
jointly with ARCO. An intercompany team was formed, combining
expertise and experience from both companies in a 50/50 joint
venture. Tight user specifications for the end product ensured that
essential features required by the industry would be included. A
Beta version was released in December 1995, with commercial
release following in June 1996 (next page).
To remain the industry standard, StimCADE software must evolve
to meet future needs. To accomplish this, a user organization has
been formed to guide future developments and to provide as well as
allocate funding—collected via membership fees—for major
upgrades and new applications.
Continued, close cooperation between ARCO and Dowell and
clear, mutual goal-setting were the keys to success. Both companies
have benefited, as has the industry as a whole. This example epito-
mizes the rewards that are possible through the ClientLink initiative.
A Framework for the Future
Operators and service companies are only beginning to tap the
potential of the new, cooperative atmosphere that exists within our
industry. As these case studies point out, clear-cut solutions emerge
when there is dedication to mutual goal-setting and precise defini-
tion of needs and expectations.
The ClientLink initiative is a framework for encouraging and for-
malizing all operator-service company interactions, and for provid-
ing Schlumberger companies with a more client-oriented culture.
Communication, close cooperation and global linking of skills and
expertise—through application of information technology—are
lighting a well-defined path to increased efficiency and improved
hydrocarbon recovery. — DEO
Oilfield Review
 Diagnostics
Candidate Formation Damage Fluid Selection
Well Selection Identification Advisor Advisor
Advisor Pump Fluid
Schedule schedule
Advisor

Damage Fluid
description schedule
Fluid
Matrix Design schedule
Simulators Skin vs. volume

Chemical
based Pressure vs. volume
Layer
properties Reservoir
based
Reservoir Treatment Wellbore
conditions

Production Prediction
Production
performance

Ball Ball
Sealer sealer

Critical
Critical Drawdown drawdown

Scale Scale
Predictor predictor

Additive
Mapping

■StimCADE software architecture.

Diagnostics: The Candidate Well Selection Advisor helps users identify, through a series of interrogations, if a well is a candidate for
matrix stimulation, fracture treatment or no stimulation. The Formation Damage Identification Advisor selects the most probable kind
of damage from more than 18 possibilities. The Fluid Selection Advisor defines the best generic fluid to treat the damage problem.
Matrix Design: The Pump Schedule Advisor optimizes treatment volumes based on damage penetration. Modules include a 2D, two-
phase, finite-difference package for computing pressure and skin evolution during treatment and a 1D, single-phase, finite-difference
model for flow characterization.
Production Prediction: This simulator models a single-layer reservoir to predict production performance based on the new
Productivity Improvement (PI) estimate.
Ball Sealer: The Ball Sealer placement simulator is used when conventional and buoyant ball sealers are included to selectively iso-
late zones for treatment.
Critical Drawdown: The Critical Drawdown program predicts the maximum sand-free production rate and maximum reservoir
depletion prior to subsidence.
Scale Predictor: This geochemical model identifies eight different scale varieties.
Additive Mapping: This module compares treating fluids to a data base, allowing users to develop a listing of specialized fluids.

Winter 1996 17
 Cutting Risk, Boosting Cash Flow and
Developing Marginal Fields

Terje Baustad Increasingly, oil companies are seeking to minimize financial risk
Stavanger, Norway
and accelerate return on investment. Lacking the confidence to go
Guy Courtin directly from a two-day well test to full-field development, operators
SOEKOR E and P (Pty) Ltd.
Cape Town, South Africa use extended well tests to deliver comprehensive, dynamic data and

reduce economic uncertainty. When unwilling to wait for installation

Tim Davies
Robert Kenison of conventional infrastructure, they are using low-cost, reusable
Jon Turnbull
BP Exploration Operating Company Limited production systems to speed up cash flow and cost-effectively
Aberdeen, Scotland
bring marginal fields onstream.
Bob Gray
Younes Jalali Many questions follow a hydrocarbon dis- Today, smaller reservoirs and tighter eco-
Jean-Claude Remondet covery. How much oil or gas is there; how nomic conditions put operators under
Clamart, France much is recoverable; how fast can it be increasing pressure. Oil companies want to
recovered; how much capital expenditure is reduce exposure to financial risk by acquir-
Lars Hjelmsmark required and what will be the return on ing superior data, and need assets to quickly
Cape Town, South Africa investment? Answering these questions start paying their way. These requirements
invokes a dilemma: Reservoir development have changed the conventional order of field
Tony Oldfield may not proceed without assessment, but developments. Extended well tests (EWT)
Christian Romano gaining adequate data for assessment and early production systems (EPS) may be
Ruben Saier requires some degree of development. used to maximize data acquisition while
Aberdeen, Scotland Historically, well tests usually lasted less minimizing development costs and generat-
than a week, while time to first oil was mea- ing cash flow. They allow commercial pro-
Geir Rannestad sured in years. Development infrastructure duction and evaluation using dynamic data
Statoil built to specifications drawn up using well- to be carried out simultaneously.
Stavanger, Norway test data often took dozens of months to A final development strategy may now be
build, install and commission. Yet when fields formulated using high-quality, dynamic pro-
came onstream, production facilities some- duction data from EWTs lasting up to 120
For help in preparation of this article, thanks to Randy times proved inappropriate because reservoir days. This reduces development risk and
Hansen, Alistair Oag and Paul Wand, Anadrill, performance and effluent characteristics dif- eliminates conservatism in facilities design
Aberdeen, Scotland; Dave Crowley and John Kozicz,
Sedco Forex, Aberdeen, Scotland; Yves de Lavergne and fered vastly from what had been predicted. (see “How Better Data Reduce Risk,” page
Claude Massa, Schlumberger Wireline & Testing, Mon- 21). According to Jon Turnbull, Machar
trouge, France; Peter Montague, Dowell, Aberdeen, Scot-
land; Tom O’Rourke, GeoQuest, Aberdeen, Scotland;
Team Leader, BP Exploration Operating
Graham Ritchie, Schlumberger Integrated Project Man- Company Limited, “There can be a world of
agement, Aberdeen, Scotland; Gerald Smith and Bob Tal- difference between developing a field on
bott, Schlumberger Wireline & Testing, Aberdeen, Scot-
land; and Kjell Ronaes, Schlumberger Wireline & Testing, the back of a few days of well flow from a
Stavanger, Norway. small number of wells, and observing pro-
BIGORANGE, Enerjet and MSR (Mud and Silt Remover) duction over a significant period of time.”
are marks of Schlumberger.

18 Oilfield Review
 Then, even before any full-scale facilities
are installed, an EPS may rapidly produce
tens of millions of barrels of oil, cutting time
to first oil to months or even weeks. In some
cases, a marginal field may be developed
for its entire life using low-cost facilities
based on modular and reusable equipment.
At their simplest, EWTs use standard, gener-
ally available well-test equipment upgraded
for more rigorous safety and increased efflu-
ent treatment requirements. Well-testing tech-
nology has seen significant advances over the
past 10 years, including high-technology
drillstem test (DST) strings, environmentally
clean burners to flare gas, and highly accu-
rate, stable gauges. Perhaps one of the
strongest incentives for these improvements
has been the need to test high-pressure, high-
temperature zones.1 For these critical wells,
only equipment of the highest integrity may
be used, and techniques like risk assessment
and quality management have become
increasingly necessary.
If the well is not already completed, the
first stage of an EWT must in effect complete
the well. A packer is set to isolate the pro-
ducing formation from wellbore fluid hydro-
static pressure. Downhole gauges measure
pressure changes and a subsurface valve is
used to shut in or flow the well. Rather than
a production Christmas tree, EWTs fre-
quently use DST well-control equipment.
On surface, produced fluids are separated,
treated and sampled, and stabilized oil is
exported. Typically flowing for 30 to 120
days at rates of up to 30,000 BOPD
[4770 m3/d]—high compared to the 5000 to
10,000 BOPD [800 to 1600 m3/d] achieved
in a typical DST—some 10% of the con-
tacted reservoir volume may be produced.
Sale of produced oil will often cover EWT
operating costs.

1. MacAndrew R, Parry N, Prieur J-M, Wiggelman J, Dig-

gins E, Guicheney P, Cameron D and Stewart A:
“Drilling and Testing Hot, High-Pressure Wells,” Oil-
field Review 5, no. 2/3 (April/July 1993): 15-32.

Winter 1996 19
 Higher flow rates and longer production
periods allow the reservoir pressure sink to
Production Systems Modular Concept
be reached earlier and make boundaries
more likely to be seen than with a short
DST. To handle these higher rates, EWT pro-
Full plant cess equipment must be more efficient than
20,000 to the production hardware used in standard
70,000 BOPD tests to allow not only phase separation and
measurement, but also the export of oil with
commercial characteristics.
In many cases, testing and early produc-
Half plant tion projects require equipment that has
10,000 to more stringent specifications than typical
35,000 BOPD well-testing process and control hardware.
each At the heart of such projects is the need for
a flexible, economical way of evaluating
reservoir potential. Schlumberger Wireline
& Testing employs standardized modules
Two-third plant and components to deliver this flexibility,
15,000 to allowing rapid mobilization of EWT and EPS
40,000 BOPD
equipment as well as fast-track development
of marginal fields (left).
Predesign and advance engineering accel-
erate delivery of equipment that traditionally
has long lead times—sometimes more than a
year. Additionally, to allow rapid response to
Production Systems Generic Package emergencies or projects with short lead
times, standard and reusable components are
Black Oil Liquid Capacity: Maximum 70,000 B/D kept in stock. Standardization also reduces
Oil: Maximum 70,000 B/D maintenance costs and improves reliability.
Water: 0 to 30,000 B/D After initial installation, capacity and process
Gas: 6 to 40 MMscf/D at 150 psi capability may be easily modified to fit
changing reservoir requirements.
Condensate Liquid Capacity: Minimum 20,000 B/D Although components may be standard-
Oil: Minimum 120,000 B/D
Water: 0 to 15,000 B/D
ized, the way they fit together cannot be stan-
Gas: 50 to 150 MMscf/D at 600 psi dard. For each well or reservoir, process engi-
neers look at fluid composition and
Equipment: Maximum 30 tons per skid production criteria, and feed this information
First and second stage identical 72 in. by 20 in. into a simulator to optimize setup and meet
720 psi working pressure specific gas, water, power generation, loading
Third stage 96 in. by 25 in.
150 psi working pressure
and export requirements.2 After decommis-
Pumping Series or parallel options sioning, separators, heaters and pumps can
be reconfigured to service another reservoir.
Options: Water treatment (cyclone or flotation) To illustrate the scope of EWT, EPS and
Gas compression (sized for specific project) marginal field development techniques, this
Power generation article looks at three case studies selected
from more than 40 projects undertaken by
Schlumberger Oilfield Services product
■Building blocks of Schlumberger Wireline & Testing standardized process plant. Twin, lines since the 1970s. In each case, produc-
three-stage separator trains may be run in different configurations. Each train is capable tion systems technology has been deployed
of handling up to 35,000 BOPD [5565 m3/d], depending on effluent characteristics. Identi- to deliver superior data, early oil, or both,
cal first and second stages are designed to handle flow surges of up to 20% above their
capacity, while each of the two oversized third stages is able to process 80% of total plant thus reducing financial risk and delivering
capacity. For further flexibility when three-stage separation is not required, the standard rapid cash flow to oil companies. Although
plant may be reconfigured as three two-stage plants or two two-third plants. these techniques are equally appropriate for
onshore or offshore fields, the examples dis-
cussed here are all offshore projects, where
higher risk promotes greater teamwork and
cooperation overall.

20 Oilfield Review

N
Cruden Bay
Aberdeen
Marnock
NORTH
SEA
Skua
Egret
Teeside
Heron Scoter
UK
Elgin
Fields under development
Franklin
ETAP fields
Other fields/discoveries Puffin
High-pressure, high-
temperature fields
■BP Machar field North Sea location.
Machar EWT/EPS, UK North Sea
In some cases, it is hard to distinguish where
an EWT operation ends and an EPS begins.
A good example is the Machar field oper-
ated by BP Exploration Operating Company
Limited in the UK North Sea (above).3
The Machar field is a carbonate reservoir
overlying a salt diapir, where a salt dome
has pushed up creating a steeply dipping,
dual-porosity, fractured chalk formation
with oil contained in the tight matrix, but
produced from natural fractures (next page).
Discovered in 1972, the field had uncertain
commercial prospects until 1994, when a
two-phase appraisal project was initiated.
Phase one was designed to test deliverabil-
ity of the reservoir. It involved an EWT that
used two existing wells to prove that suffi-
cient economic reserves could be produced
by natural drive. BP awarded an integrated
services contract for the Machar test and
production system to Coflexip Stena Off-
shore, Sedco Forex, Schlumberger Wireline
& Testing and Schlumberger Integrated Pro-
ject Management—the TAP (Turnkey Addi-
tional Production) alliance of companies.4
Winter 1996
20 km
12.5 miles
Mungo
Monan
Lomond
Mirren
Medan
Pierce
Cod
Machar
Shearwater
Erskine
30/2a-J
Blane
30/1c 2a-T
2. For a review of reservoir simulation:
Adamson G, Crick M, Gane B, Gurpinar O, Hardiman
J and Ponting D: “Simulation Throughout the Life of a
Reservoir,” Oilfield Review 8, no. 2 (Summer 1996):
16-27.
3. An EPS is distinguished from an EWT in the UK
because it requires a Field Development Plan and Pro-
duction Consent from the UK Department of Trade
and Industry. This requires operators to demonstrate
long-term plans for the field and for maximizing pro-
duction. On this basis, Machar was an EPS. However,
the main objective was to gather significant dynamic
data to help make the field developable. Newly devel-
oped jargon might call the Machar project an
extended appraisal test (EAT) because the amount of
oil produced exceeded that usually associated with an
EWT—up to about 4 million barrels—and it involved
more than one well. Nevertheless, the prime objective
of either an EWT or EAT remains the same: to clarify
reservoir uncertainties and confirm the field develop-
ment model.
4. In the TAP alliance, Coflexip Stena Offshore charters
the loading tanker and provides the flexible export
riser; Sedco Forex provides the rig, drilling services
and all well logistics; Schlumberger Wireline & Testing
provides completion, production and testing services;
and Schlumberger Integrated Project Management
provides well engineering and well construction man-
agement services.
Chafcouloff S, Michel G, Trice M, Clark G, Cosad C
and Forbes K: “Integrated Services,” Oilfield Review 7,
no. 2 (Summer 1995): 11-25.
How Better Data Reduce Risk
At its most basic level, a conventional production
test allows “back-of-the-envelope” calculations
that attribute total production to expansion of the
oil in place:
production = compressibility ×
oil-in-place × pressure depletion.
This can be regarded only as an order-of-magni-
tude estimate. To fine-tune this result using the
simple production-equals-expansion assumption,
a value for the compressibility of the total sys-
tem—acquired through extensive pressure-vol-
ume-temperature (PVT) experiments and core
analysis—and accurate pressure depletion data
are required. To be useful, a test must record a
drop in reservoir pressure during production. The
bigger the field, the greater the volume of produc-
tion necessary to deliver a significant pressure
drop and the longer the test.
However, this production-equals-expansion
model is not appropriate if the reservoir has an
active aquifer, expanding gas cap, or other compli-
cated drive mechanisms. One way of taking these
factors into consideration is to perform material bal-
ance calculations that integrate production history,
pressure history and PVT properties from extended
well tests and early production systems to give bulk
estimates of oil in place.
These calculations will not take into account
such issues as segmentation of the reservoir into
distinct flow units, stratification of each flow unit
into various layers, or the impact of water injec-
tion on recovery. To address these factors, a pre-
liminary reservoir model must be constructed that
approximates the production history of the field.
This working simulation of the reservoir may be
constructed at an early stage only with the avail-
ability of continuous bottomhole pressure data
from wells that is supplied by an EWT or EPS.
After this, recoverable reserves may begin to be
calculated and the full-scale development strat-
egy—in terms of number and type of wells, and
process facilities needed—can be formulated. In
the past, a paucity of data led to over-conservative
platform and facility designs capable of handling
the most extreme, worse-case situations for a
reservoir. By better understanding likely reservoir
needs, facilities may be scaled down and develop-
ment costs can be reduced.
21
 1400
Target for Well 20
Well Top Sandstone: 1800 m TVDSS
1600 10 Top Ekofisk: 1830 m TVDSS
Well
10Z Top Tor: 1850 m TVDSS
■How Machar reservoir drapes over the 1800
salt diapir. The Machar structure, most of

Total vertical depth subsea (TVDSS), m

the well locations and the target for the
new well—designated 23/16a-20—are 2000
shown with respect to previously drilled TD: 2250 m TVDSS
Well 3/16a-10, sidetrack 10Z, and the sub-
surface (top right). Not shown are natural Sandstone
2200
fractures that made the location of wells
so difficult. The steep dips of the diapir
Well
with respect to the salt dome (middle) are 2400 2
also shown along with a plan view of the
reservoir (bottom).
2600
Ekofisk
Hole angle: 51° Tor
2800
Azimuth: 287°

Faults Fault 3000 500 m

1640 ft Hod
3200

Salt dome
Sandstone

Ekofisk

Tor
500 m
1640 ft Hod

3000
2800 2600 2400

2200
2000
1800

1600

1400

1800

2400
2600
2800
Chalk and sand 3000
Sand only TVDSS, m
No reservoir 1 km
0.625 miles

22 Oilfield Review
 Sedco 707
semisubmersible Dynamically positioned
storage and shuttle
tanker

Flexible 6-in.
export flowline

1 mile
Rigid production [1.6 km]
riser

23 ft
[7 m]

Jumper flowline

■Delivering data and early production from Machar. The Sedco 707 semisubmersible rig
with full processing and water-injection facilities was located over the Machar wells. Oil
was exported via a 1-mile [1.6-km] long flexible subsea pipeline to the dynamically posi-
tioned storage and shuttle tanker Stena Savonita, which, when full, transported oil to the
terminal at Tetney, England.

True to the objectives of integrated services,
this contract included significant scope for
sharing risk and reward between BP and the
TAP companies (see “Machar Risk and
Reward,” next page).
A modular facility offering two-stage gas-
oil separation with pumping and metering
to a quick-disconnect export line was
designed, prefabricated and installed on the
Sedco 707 semisubmersible rig. Oil was
exported via a 1-mile [1.6-km] long flexible
subsea pipeline to the dynamically posi-
tioned storage and shuttle tanker Stena
Savonita, which transported oil to the Tetney
terminal, England (above). Process equip-
ment added some 220 tons [223,500 kg] to
Because of the size and flexibility of the
700-series semisubmersible, there was no
problem locating new equipment on the
deck. The only limiting factor during
hookup was capacity of the living quarters.
Electrical and instrumentation hookup was
the most complicated part. In all, nearly 18
miles [30 km] of cable was needed to link
the rig command-and-control system with
the new equipment.
Such was the speed of the design and
installation of facilities that first oil flowed
5. Oldfield GA: “Early Production System for the UK
North Sea,” presented at the 9th International Floating
Production Systems Conference, Genoa, Italy, May
25-27, 1994.

the rig deckload, so underdeck stiffening

was required (right).5
The rig was moved onto location in March
1994. New production equipment was
installed and commissioned while the rig
was recompleting the two existing, but sus-
pended wells—designated 23/26a-6Y and
23/26a-18Z—that would be used for phase
one production. Installation took about two
months, with 15% of project costs saved by
not using a shipyard.

■Machar EWT/EPS. The Sedco 707

semisubmersible and Stena Savonita stor-
age tanker at work in the Machar field.

Winter 1996 23
 Machar Risk and Reward
According to Jon Turnbull, Machar Team Leader,
BP Exploration Operating Company Limited, BP
has long wrestled with the difficulty of aligning the
goals of contractors with its own. The central prob-
lem is that the operator’s costs are the contractors’
revenue. Any cost-saving initiatives reduce the
contractors’ revenue, while the operator pays the
penalties in cost overruns if things go awry.
One way of overcoming this is to develop a pay-
ment mechanism so that the contractor shares in
the rewards of a successful project, and similarly
shares in the penalty of failure. The rationale for
developing such a mechanism is to change the
behavior of those who are actively involved in a
project or operation so that they are focused on a
successful outcome.
The Machar EPS was an ideal candidate for this
approach since it involved the cooperation of a
number of major organizations in the Turnkey
Additional Production (TAP) alliance—Coflexip
Stena Offshore, Sedco Forex, Schlumberger Wire-
line & Testing and Schlumberger Integrated Pro-
ject Management—in a single project with clear
objectives and readily measurable deliverables.
For phase one—natural depletion—a risk and
reward mechanism was constructed, based on
overall efficiency; health, safety and environment
(HSE) performance; and total production. The effi-
ciency element assumed a production efficiency of
77% based on expected weather downtime and
shuttle tanker discharge time, during which pro-
duction ceased. There was a downside cap limit-
ing contractor exposure in the event of significant
lost time. The HSE element was included to rein-
force mutual objectives and ensure that significant
reward payments would not be made in the
unlikely event of unacceptable HSE performance.
Finally, to align objectives to production vol-
ume, efficiency having been defined as time-
rather than production-related, a payment was
made to reflect contractor sharing in the possible
range of financial outcomes for the project—shar-
ing to a degree in the reservoir risk but not in the
risk of a fluctuating oil price.
24
For phase two—water injection—the risk and
reward structure was slightly modified to reflect
changed objectives. The efficiency and production
elements were combined into a single measure to
reflect average daily production. However, to qual-
ify for reward payment, TAP had to achieve a mini-
mum water-injection ratio.
The results of both phase one and two exceeded
BP’s expectations and significant reward payments
were made to TAP. The mechanisms ensured that
BP gains in cost savings were greater than the
reward payments. A bigger question is whether the
incentives changed the behavior of the people
involved in the project—compared to how they
would have acted under a conventional contract.
Jon Turnbull is convinced that the incentive con-
tract did change the way people acted, but not on its
own. “In order to be effective, the contract had to be
reinforced by appropriate behavior, awareness and
understanding,” said Turnbull. “In addition, it was
vital that an element of the reward was paid to the
individuals who made the project successful.”
from the two Machar wells at 30,000 BOPD
in June 1994, within 19 weeks of project
approval. During the subsequent 11 months
of phase one, some 7.7 million bbl [1.2 mil-
lion m3] of oil were produced, generating
$130 million revenue for BP.
To gain approval to operate the Sedco 707
as a production facility rather than a drilling
rig, it was necessary to prepare a new
design and operational Safety Case. As the
first drilling contractor to submit a Safety
Case in the UK after the Cullen Report on
the North Sea Piper Alpha disaster, Sedco
Forex was well positioned to do this. This
particular Safety Case was drawn up by
Sedco Forex in consultation with BP and the
UK Health and Safety Executive.6
A further hurdle facing North Sea opera-
tors is the need to gain UK Government
Department of Trade & Industry (DTI)
approval for development strategies. In this
case, the DTI put a cap on the extent of
phase one production by limiting the per-
missible change in gas-oil ratio, the volume
of oil that could be produced and the
amount of gas that could be flared.
Well 23/26a-6Y had been completed close
to the gas cap, so an increase in the gas-oil
ratio was expected during phase one. In
fact, there was no large increase, which
helped prove a higher reserve base than was
previously thought, and also confirmed that
the reservoir had a robust flow regime.
Because of the success of phase one, BP
decided to go ahead with phase two—test-
ing the sustainability of production and
whether additional reserves could be gained
by water injection.
The plan for phase two was developed
while phase one was still under way, ensur-
ing no interim demobilization. A month of
engineering followed by four months of man-
ufacturing and prefabrication preceded the
upgrade. The process equipment was modi-
fied, converting it to a three-phase system
6. The Safety Case must show that management systems
comply with the requirements of health and safety
law; that there are arrangements for regular indepen-
dent audits of the system; that hazards with potential
to cause major accidents have been identified; and
that risks of major accidents have been evaluated and
all reasonable measures will be taken to reduce risks
to personnel.
For a full explanation of Safety Cases:
Hansen H, Myers S, Redd E and Shannon R: “Pursuing
the Case for Safety,” Oilfield Review 5, no. 4 (October
1993): 36-45.
Oilfield Review
that increased production capacity to 35,000
BOPD [5565 m3/d]. Produced-water and sea-
water treatment equipment was installed,
including a deaeration tower to reduce oxy-
gen content in the injected water to below 20
parts per billion. Normal lead time for deliv-
ery of water injection pumps can be up to a
year. Therefore, the rig mud pumps were
adapted for treated seawater injection at
40,000 B/D [6360 m3/d ]. This was about half
as expensive as using dedicated pumps.
All this extra equipment was installed dur- Moran
ing the three-month production shutdown
Mungo
between phases one and two. At the same
time, one of the two existing producers—
Well 23/26a-18Z—was converted to water
Marnock
injection and a new production well—des- Skua
ignated 23/26a-20Y—was drilled to the Machar
Egret
base of the oil column. This well was then Heron
stimulated by Dowell using an acid-fractur- Production
ing treatment that yielded a record-breaking Oil export
460-fold increase in productivity index (see Gas injection
“Machar’s New Well: Drilling and Stimula- Gas export
tion,” next page).
A new DTI production license was granted. ■The Eastern Trough Area Project (ETAP). This 405 million-bbl development will link
With water injection under way, water seven fields using platforms and subsea wells.
breakthrough in the reservoir was expected.
However, when the test was concluded in
June 1996, there had been no water break- the Machar salt diapir starts in 1997 with In the Norwegian sector of the North Sea,
through and the produced oil remained dry first oil expected from the full-field develop- development of the marginal Yme field
throughout. Ten months of early production ment in October 1998 (above). Underscor- (roughly pronounced eeh-mah) using a pro-
yielded 6.8 million bbl [1.1 million m3] of ing the reusability of this design, Conoco duction system on a jackup rig addressed
oil, involved 9 million bbl [1.4 million m3] UK is using the Sedco 707 for an EPS in the the issue of gas production. Some produced
of injected water and demonstrated the via- North Sea that is similar to the one in gas is used to generate electricity. This
bility of a waterflood in this field. Machar field. power is then used to compress the remain-
In summary, the tests showed that under ing produced gas for gas lift and reinjection
natural depletion some 60 million bbl [9.5 Yme Field Production System, back to an underlying formation.
million m 3 ] of recoverable oil reserves Norwegian North Sea The Yme field is located in 312 ft [95 m] of
remain. Adding a waterflood doubled pro- A key element limiting the volume of oil water some 90 miles [145 km] offshore
ducible reserves to 120 million bbl [19 mil- that could be produced from Machar field about midway between Stavanger and the
lion m3], narrowing the range of uncertainty was the amount of gas that could be flared. Ekofisk field. The field is operated by Statoil
surrounding development of the field. The Sedco 707 had originally been sched- on behalf of itself and partners Saga and
The EPS proved more reliable than antici- uled to stay on phase-two production until Deminex. This production project is in three
pated. An uptime of 77% was originally fac- September 1996. However, having estab- phases. The first phase, Gamma West, is the
tored into the risk and reward formula, lished viability of the field under waterdrive, main structure. The second phase, Beta East,
including shutdown time when the Stena BP was reluctant to continue operations
Savonita was shuttling oil to shore. In prac- with the EPS beyond June because further
tice, greater than 80% uptime was achieved. production would have meant additional
There were also no lost-time incidents or flaring of associated gas.
discharges into the sea, and production tar-
gets were exceeded.
The Machar field will now be developed
as part of the 405 million bbl [64 million
m3], seven-field Eastern Trough Area Project
(ETAP) and will be tied into the Marnock
field platform using subsea completions.
Drilling of the four new wells that will drape

Winter 1996 25
 Machar’s New Well: Drilling and Stimulation

The Machar discovery was proven using eight appraisal wells with five side-
tracks, but drilling has always been difficult in the field. The fractured chalk
reservoir is steeply sloping on the flanks of a salt dome and the angle of the
beds makes drilling difficult. Field development problems are further exacer-
bated by the presence of the salt dome that distorts seismic data. In fact,
there were two sets of overlapping 3D seismic data for Machar field, each
yielding different subsurface models. GeoQuest interpreters used log data,
vertical seismic profiles and core information to develop sedimentological
models that were used to constrain the 3D seismic data and improve the sub-
surface structural model.
The two wells in production during phase one were Well 23/26a-6Y, com-
pleted close to the gas cap, and Well 23/26a-18Z at the base of the reservoir.
The objectives of a new well—designated 23/26a-20—were to have a high-
angle production well and to acquire a minimal set of logging data to aid in
After underbalanced perforating using expendable 21⁄8-in. Enerjet strip guns at
two shots per foot, a well test was performed. The new well was then acid frac-
ture stimulated using eight-stages of cross-linked gel pad followed by MSR (Mud
and Silt Remover) treatment fluid—a mixture of hydrochloric acid with mud- and
silt-suspending chemicals. Perforation ball sealers were used after each stage to
divert treatment fluids into the tightest part of the reservoir (below right).
The job was carried out by the Dowell stimulation vessel BIGORANGE XVIII
pumping through the subsea completion. Prior planning ensured that all elas-
tomeric seals were compatible with the acid, so there was no need to kill the
well. Following the 5740-bbl [912-m3] fracture treatment, a second well test
showed a 460-fold increase in productivity index—a new world record.
Bottomhole pressure
5500 Bottomhole temperature 120

Temperature, °C
100

Pressure, psi
5000
identification of productive fractures. Two nearby wellbores that had been 80
4500
60
abandoned during appraisal—Well 23/26a-10 and its sidetrack, 23/26a-10Z— 4000
40
provided geologic control over the top reservoir target location (below left). 3500 20
During drilling of Well 23/26a-20, real-time resistivity and gamma ray logging- 3000 0
Time
while-drilling data were used to help locate the well on the seismic image.
If borehole angle is wrong when drilling down a steep flank, wells can miss
Sedco 707
their targets by a long way. In this case, an unmapped fault skewed the inter-
semisubmersible
pretation and Well 23/26a-20 had to be sidetracked twice before hitting the
Surface
target, even though control-wells 23/26a-10 and 10Z were only 130 ft [40 m] tree
away. The first attempt hit a ridge into which reservoir fluids had percolated
2000 ft [600 m] higher than expected. The second attempt penetrated 492 ft
BIGORANGE XVIII
[150 m] too low and encountered too much water. The second sidetrack well
was completed in the target fractured reservoir. In the end, total well depth
was 9216 ft [2809 m] with a maximum 62.8° deviation. The diapir had thinned
more than expected, so the well penetrated only about 492 ft of reservoir,
instead of the planned 2165 ft [660 m]. However, a stimulation job that fol-
lowed more than made up for this shortfall.

Dual riser
Well 6Y Well 10
Well 18Z
Well 20
Well 20Y Emergency disconnect
Well 10Z
Lower-riser assembly
Well 20Z Crossover
Subsea tree
Remotely operated vehicle
Stab base
Wellhead

■Machar hookup and record-setting stimulation. The 5740-bbl

■Well 23/26a-20Y and its predecessors. The first drilling
attempt—Well 23/26a-20 (black)—hit a ridge where reservoir flu-
ids had percolated 600 m higher than expected. The second
attempt—Well 23/26a-20Z (blue)—penetrated 150 m too low,
encountering too much water. The third try—Well 23/26a-20Y
(green)—was completed in the fractured reservoir target.
acid fracture treatment of Well 23/26a-20 was performed by the
Dowell BIGORANGE XVIII stimulation vessel in a single operation
with very low treating pressures. The step-like bottomhole pressure
development (top right) shows where diverter balls sealed perfora-
tions, pushing gelled acid fracture fluid to other, tighter parts of
the formation. Because subsea equipment was designed to be
compatible with the acid, there was no need to kill the well, which
helped achieve the 460-fold increase in productivity and avoid
subsequent formation damage.

26 Oilfield Review
is a nearby, smaller structure. Other
prospects have been identified for an as yet
unspecified third phase. Gamma West was
the location of the field discovery—Well
9/2-1—which was then suspended. An
eight-well template has now been installed
on Gamma West. Following a dry hole,
Well 9/2-3 was drilled and suspended at
Beta East and a three-well template was
installed (below).
Maersk Giant, one of the world’s largest
jackup rigs, is operated by Maersk Drilling.
In January 1995, Maersk subcontracted
Schlumberger Wireline & Testing to design,
install and operate the Yme field EPS. The
project scope was to equip the rig in accor-
dance with Det Norske Veritas Production
“N” Class and to satisfy Norwegian
Petroleum Directorate regulations. Detailed
engineering specifications were not issued
with the contract. By November of the same

Yme Field Layout

Maersk Giant jackup

Subsea well and structure

Gamma West
Beta East

Maersk Giant jackup

Storage tanker 945,000 bbl

Shuttle tanker [150,000 m3]

Flexible 8-in. flowline

Anchor lines
1.5 miles
2.5 km

■Yme field development. The process plant is located on the Maersk Giant jackup rig positioned over the
Gamma West reservoir. The Beta East reservoir is exploited using subsea wells tied back to the production facil-
ity by 7.5-mile [12-km] long flexible flowlines. Gas lift and chemical injection lines have been laid from the rig to
the subsea template, although at present, both wells are flowing naturally. Produced oil is sent via a 1.5-mile
[2.5-km] flowline to a 945,000-bbl [150,000-m3] permanent storage tanker with a submerged turret loading sys-
tem. Shuttle tankers periodically connect to the permanent storage tanker to transport oil to shore.

Winter 1996 27
■The Yme 1400-ton [1.5-million kg] pro-
cess plant before and after installation.
The 50,000-B/D [8000-m3/d] capacity
plant was placed on one of the Maersk
Giant pipedecks. However, the rig is still
able to continue drilling during production.
A fire wall separating the living quarters
and cantilever deck from the process area
was constructed.

28 Oilfield Review

First stage gas
B
Booster
Second stage gas
■Handling Yme produced gas. There are two main gas compressors each with a capacity of 14.1 MMscf/D at 2500 psi [400,000 sm3/d
at 17.2 MPa]. After compression to 4700 psi [32.4 MPa] using the combined low-pressure and high-pressure booster compressor, up to
400,000 m3/d may be reinjected, with another 10.6 MMscf/D [300,000 sm3/d] for gas lift and 3.5 MMscf/D [100,000 sm3/d] as fuel for
power generation.
year, the process equipment had been
installed on the jackup at a shipyard in Rot-
terdam, The Netherlands (previous page).
First oil was produced from Yme field to the
tanker by February 1996.
There are two main three-phase, two-stage
separator trains, capable of a maximum
fluid capacity of 50,000 B/D [8000 m3/d].
The system handles a maximum gas input of
28 MMscf/D [800,000 m 3/d] with three
compressors—two main and one low-pres-
sure/high-pressure booster—preparing gas
for power generation, gas lift and reinjec-
tion. No gas is expected to be flared during
normal operations (above). There is one
37,750-B/D [6000-m3/d] high-speed pump
for water injection.
Winter 1996
300,000 Operating capacity
400,000 Design capacity
Compressors
400,000 Design capacity
400,000 Operating capacity
All capacities sm3/d
Two 6-MW gas turbines supply electrical
power to the gas compressors, water injec-
tion pump, electrical submersible pumps
(ESPs) and process utilities, while offering up
to 1 MW of power to the rig. By using gas to
generate the required 12 MW of electricity,
up to 88 tons [90,000 kg] of diesel are saved
every day.
With the process equipment installed, the
rig was moved onto location in November
1995. Final installation and offshore com-
missioning work followed and the original
discovery well was recompleted and
brought onstream at the end of February
1996. Since then, two additional producing
wells have been drilled on Gamma West
and one of them has been brought onto pro-
duction. Both wells use ESPs to aid produc-
tion. In addition, a dual, gas and water
injection well has been drilled. Water is cur-
rently being injected at some 37,750 B/D.
300,000
Gas lift
400,000
Injection
100,000
Fuel gas
Ultimately, there will be up to seven pro-
ducing wells and one dual-completion
gas/water injector on the Maersk Giant tem-
plate. On Beta East, the original exploration
well and another new well—drilled and
completed by semisubmersible rig Deep
Sea Bergen—have been brought onstream
using subsea completions and dual flow-
lines to the Maersk Giant.
The original plan anticipated at least three
years of production, although current pre-
dictions estimate that the wells will be on
line for at least six years. Norwegian
mythology relates that after being killed by
his sons, the body of the god Yme became
the earth, the sky and the rest of our world.
In choosing this name, Statoil clearly sees
the Yme field development as a precursor of
future EPS projects and marginal field devel-
opments offshore Norway.
29
 Johannesburg
REPUBLIC
Alexander OF
Bay SOUTH AFRICA
Durban
ATLANTIC Port CALM Storage and
OCEAN Mossel Elizabeth shuttle tanker Orca semisubmersible
INDIAN buoy
Cape Bay
Town OCEAN

400 km
250 miles 32 km George
20 miles
Mossel
Bay
Stilbaai
Flexible 6-in. flowline
N Wellhead

E-S Flexible 6-in. flowline

E-AR E-AA

E-BD E-AD
E-BT E-AJ
E-CB

■South Africa’s first oil development. A

floating production system (FPS) will be
used to exploit the E-BT field.
■How E-BT will be developed. Sedco I—renamed Orca—was converted to a floating pro-
duction facility. Oil will be exported via the catenary anchor leg mooring (CALM) buoy
facilities to a storage and shuttle tanker. Dynamic risers and flexible 6-in. flow lines from
subsea wellheads to the rig and from the rig to the CALM buoy will be installed. This
allows the semisubmersible rig to be located over the production wells, permitting rela-
tively easy intervention if needed.

E-BT Marginal Field Development,
Offshore South Africa
The progression from Machar field EPS to
the production system on Yme—gas flaring
to gas utilization—is clear. The next step is
for production system providers to also take
responsibility for the subsea part of develop-
ments as well as crude-oil storage and
export. In this third example, an alliance led
by Schlumberger product lines has responsi-
bility for delivering oil from the mudline to
the refinery.
The E-BT project will be South Africa’s first
oil development and first floating produc-
tion system. SOEKOR E and P (Pty) Ltd. is
the field operator along with partner Energy
Africa Bredasdorp (Pty) Ltd. An alliance of
Schlumberger Oilfield Service product
lines—Schlumberger Wireline & Testing and
Sedco Forex—plus Fred Olsen Tankers, has
entered into an agreement with SOEKOR
and Energy Africa to upgrade and operate
the semisubmersible Sedco I (renamed
Orca) as a floating production facility for the
E-BT field. Phase one of the project is to
deliver first oil in early 1997. The second
phase is to operate the field for an estimated
period of four years (above left).
This is a turnkey offshore development.
The scope of work includes procuring and
upgrading the semisubmersible rig, provid-
ing subsea trees and carrying out well instal-
lation work, providing and installing the
catenary anchor leg mooring (CALM) buoy
facilities, commissioning all the equipment,
providing the export tanker and transport to
the refinery, and managing and operating
the project for the entire production period.
Schlumberger Oilfield Services will provide
project planning and management; Sedco
Forex will provide rig upgrade and rig man-
agement services; Schlumberger Wireline &
Testing will be responsible for the process
plant and production operations. Fred Olsen
Tankers will provide the CALM buoy for
exporting oil, a customized tanker for stor-
age and transport to the refinery, and tanker
management.
The project alliance is working with the
field and reservoir management team of
operator SOEKOR. The alliance will be
turnkey equipment supplier, except for com-
pletion tubulars and components, which
will be supplied by SOEKOR. The rig and
associated process and buoy equipment
belong to SOEKOR and Energy Africa.
During 1996, Orca was upgraded at a
shipyard in Simons Town, South Africa. Fol-
lowing an audit and fatigue analysis, a pro-
gram of life enhancement and structural
strengthening was carried out. Rig accom-
modations have been modernized, the
mooring system was upgraded to withstand
marine conditions offshore South Africa,
and the drilling equipment was enhanced to
provide full workover capability. Oil storage
capacity has also been installed inside the
rig’s three columns—nine tanks and a total
capacity of 30,000 bbl.

30 Oilfield Review
 Intelligent Production Systems
Intelligent production systems (IPS) are based on
the premise that liquid yield of a hydrocarbon sepa-
ration process can be improved if process-operat-
ing parameters are fine-tuned as wellstream com-
position and reservoir conditions vary, or ambient
conditions change. These improvements may typi-
cally be in increments of a few percent—100 BOPD
per 10,000 BOPD.
For example, the wellstream may originate from
several zones, each saturated with different types
of crude oil. There may also be an areal variation
of crude gravity and sharp fluctuations in seasonal
temperature that affect surface operations. The net
effect is that the separation process will be ineffi-
cient unless operating parameters are adjusted to
meet changing demands.
A fully modular production system with a
capacity of 25,000 BOPD [3975 m3/d] was
installed. This system, offering water injec-
tion, two-stage separation, gas flaring and
produced water processing, is similar to the
one used on the Sedco 707 for the Machar
EPS. The rig, process plant and loading buoy
equipment were built or upgraded for ten
years of production (previous page, right).
Average output from the two production
wells will be 20,000 BOPD [3180 m3/d].
This can be choked back to 5000 BOPD if
bad weather delays offshore loading or
transport to refinery. In this case, the pro-
duction at the reduced rate is diverted into
the 30,000-bbl capacity buffer storage in the
rig columns. Before production starts, the rig
mud pumps will be used to start water
injection into one well at up to 30,000 B/D
and 3000 psi [20.7 MPa]. The cementing
unit offers additional water injection capac-
ity. Gas for lift purposes will be injected via
the control umbilicals, which will also con-
vey instrumentation data.
By early 1997, Orca will be on location
completing the wells, and the dedicated
storage and transport tanker will arrive in
South Africa following shipyard work to
install the necessary modifications to
accommodate the CALM system. The CALM
loading buoy itself was upgraded in Singa-
pore. A diving-support vessel will install the
flowlines and dynamic risers, and position
the CALM loading buoy.
Winter 1996
A typical system for production optimization
consists of a dedicated PC-workstation installed
either at the operator’s offices or the production
facility. In either case, a communication link via
modem is required to transmit data between the
facility and the office.
The PC will host the IPS process simulator and
the proprietary interface, which permits retrieval
of essential process parameters from a data base
at the production facility—including upstream and
downstream choke pressures, separator pressures
and temperatures, and gas and oil flow rates.
These data are then filtered, validated and
directed to a simulator that computes the current
optimal conditions of separation.
Besides pinpointing optimal separation condi-
tions, the simulator also raises flags if measured
and computed values disagree significantly. This
The E-BT project is not envisaged as an
“early” production system, but is intended
to stay in service for the full production life
of the field. This represents a significant
reduction in platform investment, and even-
tually will reduce concerns about how to
deal with permanent marine structures once
their useful life has ended.
Smarter Production, Not Just
More Data and Early Oil
When designing a production system,
whether as an EPS or to last for the life of
the reservoir, it is important to use well-test
data to optimize processing hardware. Then,
data gathered during the productive life of
the reservoir may be used to fine-tune EPS
operating parameters and maximize produc-
tion. For example, as produced fluids or
flowing conditions change, the hydrocarbon
separation process can be altered slightly to
improve liquid yield. This may be achieved
using intelligent production systems, a pow-
erful production management tool that opti-
mizes reservoir depletion by linking perma-
nent monitoring and reservoir modeling to
an online topside simulation. Operating
conditions can now be fine-tuned to yield
maximum liquid hydrocarbons (see “Intelli-
gent Production Systems,” above).
There is no doubt that operators are
increasingly inclined to consider imagina-
is an effective way of diagnosing process irregu-
larities and abnormalities. In short, the IPS simu-
lator is a tool to aid in the proper management of
process facilities.
An added dimension is upstream and down-
stream optimization, which is particularly relevant
when injection programs and artificial lift systems
are implemented, or when choke manifolds oper-
ate under subcritical conditions.1 In the latter
case, variation of separator pressures can have an
impact on reservoir deliverability and well pro-
ducibility. Hence, it is imperative that the process
simulator be linked to a working upstream model
to optimize the production system.
1. The general definition of critical flow for oil wells is
that pressure upstream of the choke is greater than
twice the downstream pressure. Thus fluid velocity is
greater than the sonic velocity of the choke.
tive ways of extracting data and early oil
from their assets. The Schlumberger Wireline
& Testing production systems group has
been active since 1974—a track-record that
may be traced back to the days of Flopetrol
Schlumberger—and has notched up cumu-
lative production of an estimated 350 mil-
lion bbl [55 million m3] of oil. The ten
plants currently in operation deliver an aver-
age of 190,000 BOPD [30,200 m3/d]. How-
ever, new projects now under way will dra-
matically increase this tally.
Early production systems are akin to full-
scale development projects. They require
the same planning, regulatory approval and
safety analyses. At the same time, these
solutions rely on a wide range of human
and institutional interfaces. Many of these
interfaces are already well-known to the
well-testing community. Other interfaces,
for example those concerning offshore stor-
age facilities and shuttle tankers, may be rel-
atively new. However, it is clear that the ser-
vice industry tradition of rapidly deploying
equipment and services using multifunc-
tional teams is helping operators profit
despite ever-tightening margins. —CF
31
 Seismic Snapshots for Reservoir Monitoring

Seismic surveys acquired at different stages in the life of a reservoir can

provide time-lapse snapshots of the fluid distribution over production time.

This technique, called four-dimensional (4D) seismic reservoir monitoring, is

helping operators delineate bypassed hydrocarbons and design development

programs to optimize recovery and extend the useful life of fields.

Lars Pedersen
Statoil
Bergen, Norway

Sarah Ryan
Colin Sayers
Cambridge, England

Lars Sonneland
Helene Hafslund Veire
Stavanger, Norway

For help in preparation of this article, thanks to Olav

Holberg, Geco-Prakla, Oslo, Norway; Dominique Pajot
and Robin Walker, Geco-Prakla, Gatwick, England; and
Benoit Reymond, Geco-Prakla, Stavanger, Norway.
RST (Reservoir Saturation Tool) and TRISOR are marks of
Schlumberger. Some work described in this article was
performed as part of the Thermie project “4D Seismic,”
European Commission Contract No. OG 117/94 UK.

32 Oilfield Review
Reservoir management today is a science of
approximation when it comes to the rate
and direction of fluid-front movement. Opti-
mal management requires up-to-date infor-
mation throughout the entire reservoir vol-
ume. Access to the latest data on fluid
distribution in a reservoir, and knowledge of
how that distribution is changing with time,
allows engineers to develop cost-effective
strategies to get the most out of every field at
the lowest possible risk.
Today, in addition to static, or one-time
measurements, time-dependent answers
from various oilfield disciplines help con-
strain, refine and improve the accuracy of
reservoir models. Time-lapse logging of
fluid saturation through casing can show
which zones are contributing to production
and which are watering out or being
bypassed.1 Permanent downhole sensors
provide continual observations of pressure,
temperature and other diagnostics of reser-
voir performance.2
These measurements supply crucial infor-
mation about fluid behavior at the well
location, but fail in the vast interwell region.
One measurement technique, the 3D seis-
mic survey, has routinely been relied on to
provide interwell data. In the past, seismic
surveys were mainly interpreted for struc-
Winter 1996
tural features and stratigraphic variations
within the reservoir, but they can also be
sensitive to contrasts in fluid type. Applied
in surveys separated by periods of produc-
tion, time-lapse, or four-dimensional (4D)—
3D plus time—seismic images can map
fluid changes in a producing reservoir
(below). This article describes the technique,
the rock physics and seismic modeling
required for successful application, con-
straints in seismic acquisition, and new
interpretation methodologies that allow
changes in seismic response to be inter-
preted as changes in saturation. Application
of these techniques will be discussed in an
example from the North Sea Gullfaks field
where water is displacing oil—the ultimate
challenge in seismic monitoring.
How 4D Works
As a reservoir is exploited, pore fluid under-
goes changes in temperature, pressure and
composition. For example, enhanced oil
recovery (EOR) processes such as steam
injection increase temperature. Production
of any fluid typically lowers fluid pressure,
increasing effective pressure of overburden
on the formation rock. Gas injection and
waterflooding mainly change fluid composi-
tion and pressure. These fluid changes alter
the formation’s seismic velocity and density,
which combine to affect travel times, ampli-
tude and many other features, or attributes,
of reflected seismic waves.
When these changes are great enough, a
seismic survey acquired after years of pro-
duction—called a monitor survey in this
article—will show different attributes than
one acquired earlier, perhaps even before
production begins—the baseline survey.
With today’s computer technology, it is pos-
sible to take the difference between two sur-
veys, be that the change in amplitude, fre-
quency, phase, polarity, reflection intensity,
or of any seismic trace attribute (see “Seis-
mic Attributes,”next page).3 The key to 4D
seismic monitoring is for the change to be
sufficiently large to be seen once the differ-
ence between a baseline survey and subse-
quent monitor surveys is computed.
1. For a review: Albertin I, Darling H, Mahdavi M,
Plasek R, Cedeño I, Hemingway J, Richter P, Markley
M, Olesen J-R, Roscoe B and Zeng W: “The Many
Facets of Pulsed Neutron Cased-Hole Logging,” Oil-
field Review 8, no. 2 (Summer 1996): 28-41.
2. Baker A, Gaskell J, Jeffrey J, Thomas A, Veneruso T and
Unneland T: “Permanent Monitoring—Looking at Life-
time Reservoir Dynamics,” Oilfield Review 7, no. 4
(Winter 1995): 32-47.
3. For background on seismic attributes: Taner MT and
Sheriff RE: “Application of Amplitude, Frequency, and
Other Attributes to Stratigraphic and Hydrocarbon
Determination,” in Payton CE (ed): Seismic Stratigra-
phy—Applications to Hydrocarbon Exploration AAPG
Memoir 26. Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA: American Associ-
ation of Petroleum Geologists (1977): 301-327.
■ Seismic snapshots chronicling
fluid movement over the lifetime
of a reservoir.
33
 Seismic Attributes

Seismic attributes represent a way to compress the
information contained in seismic traces. Attributes,
such as amplitude, frequency, phase, polarity and
a host of others, may be defined in different ways.1
Some are computed at one time sample—that of
the interpreted top of the reservoir, or whatever
surface is being characterized. Such attributes are
called instantaneous. Taken collectively, over
many traces, the attribute then represents some
characteristic of the reflecting surface. Display of
an instantaneous attribute is often accomplished by
color coding the display of the surface itself in two
or three dimensions (next page, left).
Other attributes may be computed over several
time samples in a trace, effectively describing a
volume. Called volume attributes, they compress a
potentially large quantity of seismic data into a
single value. For example, reflection heterogene-
ity, related to the “length” of seismic trace
between two selected time samples, says some-
thing about the homogeneity or heterogeneity of
the internal reflector pattern in the volume of
reservoir between the two time samples.2
A third type, a surface attribute, can be com-
puted on a defined area of the interpreted surface.
Examples are the apparent dip and dip azimuth of
the surface.
Different attributes can be sensitive to different
reservoir properties. Instantaneous phase, for
example, highlights continuity of reflectors.
Instantaneous frequency has been reported as a
light-hydrocarbon indicator. Acoustic impedance
contrast has been used for porosity mapping.3 Vol-
ume reflection heterogeneity is sometimes a
lithology indicator.4 Dip and dip azimuth are pow-
erful fault and fracture indicators.5 Finding the
right attribute, or combination of attributes, that
will show sensitivity to the reservoir properties of
interest, is the job of the interpreter.
Interpreting 4D seismic data for fluid contact
changes in Gullfaks field requires mapping the top
of the reservoir, pinpointing areas where different
caprocks overlie the reservoir and identifying the
type of fluid below. This process relies on a com-
bination of instantaneous and volume attributes
(below). Instantaneous attributes show sensitivity
to the top surface of the reservoir and volume
attributes describe the fluid content.

1. For the classic introduction to seismic attributes:

Taner and Sheriff, reference 3, main text. Instantaneous Amplitude Amplitude Deviation
2. Sønneland L and Barkved O: “Use of Seismic
Attributes in Reservoir Characterization,” in Buller AT,
Berg E, Hjelmeland O, Kleppe J, Torsæter O and
Aasen JO (eds): North Sea Oil and Gas Reservoirs—II.
London, England: Graham & Trotman (1990): 125-
128.
3. Alam A, Matsumoto S, Hurst C and Caragounis P:
“Qualitative Porosity Prediction from Seismic
Attributes,” presented at the 65th Society of
Exploration Geophysicists International Exposition
and Annual Meeting, Houston, Texas, USA, October
8-13, 1995, paper IN2.2.
4. Risch DL, Donaldson BE and Taylor CK: “3D Seismic
Sequence Stratigraphy of Lowstand Deposits,” pre-
sented at the SEG Summer Research Workshop on 3-
D Seismology: Integrated Comprehension of Large
Data Volumes, Rancho Mirage, California, USA, Polynomial Factor Polynomial Factor
August 1-6, 1993.
5. Heggland R: “Detection of Ancient Morphology and
Potential Hydrocarbon Traps Using 3-D Seismic Data
and Attribute Analysis,” presented at the 65th Society
of Exploration Geophysicists International Exposition
and Annual Meeting, Houston, Texas, USA, October
8-13, 1995, paper IN2.3.

■Seismic attributes of the top reservoir surface. The instantaneous attributes describe the top surface of the
reservoir, and volume attributes are sensitive to fluid content. The instantaneous amplitude (top left) shows posi-
tive amplitudes in red grading to negative amplitudes in blue. Instantaneous amplitude deviation (top right)
enhances definition of regions where amplitude changes from positive (white) to negative (blue). The two
attributes plotted in the bottom figures are related to principal components of a polynomial that approximates the
trace shape.

34 Oilfield Review
 1.1 10
Water

Normalized compressional velocity

2000 Oil

Compressional velocity, m/sec

9
1.0 Gas

Acoustic impedance
0% oil
100% brine 8 Saturation
0.9 1600 change 4%
7 Pressure
50% oil
0.8 50% brine change 12%
6
1200
0.7 100% oil
Seismic Data Cube 5
0% brine Initial Producer
stress stress
0.6 800 4
0 50 100 150 200 0 20 40 60 80 100 0 10 20 30 40 50
Temperature, deg C Gas saturation, % Effective stress, MPa
x y
■ Effect of gas and high temperature on seismic velocity. Increasing temperature
decreases velocity in oil-filled rocks (left). Introduction of gas also decreases velocity dra-
Time

matically (center). A decrease in fluid pressure has the opposite effect (right), increasing
acoustic impedance—the product of velocity times density.

If temperature and pressure in the reservoir Introduction of gas into liquid-filled rock
are known, the effects on seismic properties or an increase in temperature of hydrocar-
expected from a change in fluid properties bon-filled rock both cause a decrease in
can be estimated from laboratory experi- seismic velocity (above). Introduction of gas
Amplitude Attribute (high in middle) ments on core samples. Most of the changes decreases velocity substantially by making
in seismic behavior come from fluid effects the fluid mixture compressible. The effect of
on the formation’s seismic velocity rather increasing temperature makes hydrocarbons
than on its density. Laboratory experiments less viscous, reducing overall rigidity and
on fluid-filled rock show how temperature, therefore reducing seismic velocity. Both
y
x pressure and fluid content can either effects are most prominent at low overbur-
decrease or increase seismic velocity.4 den stress, such as in shallow, unconsoli-
Frequency Attribute (low in middle) dated sands. A dramatic increase in velocity
4. Murphy W, Reischer A and Hsu K: “Modulus Decom-
position of Compressional and Shear Velocities in
can occur with decrease in fluid pressure, as
Sand Bodies,” Geophysics 58 (February 1993): 227- typically occurs during oil production. The
239. decrease in fluid pressure increases effective
Clark VA: “The Effect of Oil Under In-Situ Conditions stress on the reservoir rock, stiffening the
y on the Seismic Properties of Rocks,” Geophysics 57,
x (July 1992): 894-901. matrix and increasing velocity.
Tosaya C, Nur A, Vo-Thanh D and Da Prat G: “Labora- Replacing oil with water gives rise to a
tory Seismic Methods for Remote Monitoring of Ther- moderate increase in seismic velocity. This
■ Computing attributes on a time surface in a 3D mal EOR,” SPE Reservoir Engineering 2 (May 1987):
seismic volume. The seismic character of each trace 235-242. increase reaches about 10% in clean, high-
is analyzed at the selected time (top) and assigned a Wang Z and Nur A: “Wave Velocities in Hydrocar- porosity sandstones, and can be even greater
value. For example, the amplitude of each trace on a bon-Saturated Rocks: Experimental Results,” Geo- in unconsolidated sands. Above 30% poros-
physics 55 (June 1990): 723-733.
surface can be mapped on a separate plot (middle). ity, seismic velocities of oil-filled and water-
Watts GFT, Jizba D, Gawith DE and Gutteridge P:
In this example, higher amplitudes near the center of “Reservoir Monitoring of the Magnus Field Through filled rocks become distinguishable, at least
the 3D seismic volume plot as higher values in the 4D Time-Lapse Seismic Analysis,” Petroleum Geo- in theory and in the laboratory (next page).
center of the 2D amplitude plot. Other attribute sur- science 2, no. 4 (November 1996): 361-372. Most successes in early tests of seismic
faces are computed in the same way (bottom). 5. Greaves RJ and Fulp TJ: “Three-Dimensional Seismic
monitoring occurred where the dramatic
Monitoring of an Enhanced Oil Recovery Process,”
Geophysics 52 (September 1987): 1175-1187. effects of temperature increase and gas
He W, Anderson RN, Xu L, Boulanger A, Meadow B introduction gave clear results. In the 1980s,
and Neal R: “4D Seismic Monitoring Grows as Pro- the first reported time-lapse surveys were
duction Tool,” Oil & Gas Journal 24, no. 21 (May 20,
1996): 41-44, 46. made on combustion and steamflood pro-
6. Ariffin T, Solomon G, Ujang S, Bée M, Jenkins S, Cor- jects, where temperature effects are easiest
bett C, Dorn G, Withers R, Özdemir H and Pearse C: to see.5 Today, in some reservoirs, seismic
“Seismic Tools for Reservoir Management,” Oilfield
Review 7, no. 4 (Winter 1995): 4-17. monitoring of EOR progress continues to be
7. Johnstad SE, Uden RC and Dunlop KNB: “Seismic a cost-effective reservoir management tool.6
Reservoir Monitoring Over the Oseberg Field,” First Successes have also been reported in
Break 11 (May 1993): 177-185.
time-lapse seismic monitoring of gas-oil
Bossert A, Blanche J-P, Capelle P, Marrauld J and
Torheim E: “Seismic Monitoring on the Frigg Gasfield contacts. Norsk Hydro began seismic moni-
(Norway) Using AVO Attributes and Inversion,” pre- toring of the gas-oil contact in the giant,
sented at the 55th Meeting and Technical Exhibition of North Sea, Oseberg field in 1991, and Elf
the European Association of Exploration Geophysi-
cists, Stavanger, Norway, June 7-11, 1993. Aquitaine performed a similar project in the
nearby Frigg field.7

Winter 1996 35
■ Distinguishing gas, 5 Acquisition Concerns
oil and water. Com-
pressional velocities
of gas-, oil- and
water-filled clean 4
sandstones are simi-
Normalized Vp
lar at low porosities,
but are different
3
enough at high
porosities to allow
fluid identification.
Symbols represent
2
laboratory velocity
measurements, while
curves are theoreti-
cal predictions.
1
(From Murphy et al, 0 10
reference 4.)
Until recently, the technique was consid-
ered unproven for monitoring movement of
an oil-water contact (OWC). However, Sta-
toil petrophysicists working on sonic logs
from the Gullfaks field uncovered inconsis-
tencies in log response that turned into
favorable conditions for 4D seismic moni-
toring. Openhole logs from three wells
drilled through the original OWC, com-
pared to logs from wells drilled into water-
flushed areas, showed consistently higher
velocities in the water-filled zones than in
those zones filled with oil. Sonic logs run in
a steel-cased observation well were found
to be unrepeatable from year to year.
Periodic logging with the RST Reservoir
Saturation Tool in the same well showed
that the OWC was rising 13 m [42 ft] per
year. Analysis showed that sonic logs above
the OWC were repeatable from one year to
the next, while below the OWC, sonic
velocities increased where water had dis-
placed oil. If borehole sonic waves could
detect saturation changes at the well scale,
perhaps seismic waves could do the same
across the whole field.
Predicting Success
Seismic response to a change in fluid prop-
erties at a reflector can be predicted through
forward modeling, if elastic properties of the
rock and fluids are known. Relationships
published by Gassmann, and later reworded
by many authors, can be used to predict
density and seismic velocity through what is
called fluid substitution—knowing the prop-
erties of a rock filled with the original fluid,
as well as the properties of the new fluid,
allows computation of the properties of the
newly filled rock.8
36
Water
Oil
Gas
20 30 40
Porosity, %
Fluid substitution requires knowledge of the
density, porosity, and bulk and shear moduli
of the rock frame, the bulk modulus of the
grains making up the rock, and the density
and bulk modulus of the two fluids, all at the
pressure and temperature conditions of the
reservoir. Rock grain properties are usually
measured in the laboratory, while the rock
frame and fluid properties may be measured
in the lab or inferred from borehole measure-
ments of compressional and shear velocities,
porosity and density (next page, top).
The computed compressional velocity can
be used to model the anticipated change in
seismic response at the top of the reservoir,
in this case, the top of the Tarbert sand (next
page, bottom). When the rock is filled with
oil, a normal-incidence reflection has a very
slight swing to the right. When rock is filled
with water, the reflection shows a greater
swing, and to the left. The difference in
modeled responses to oil-filled and water-
filled reservoir becomes more pronounced
when the effects of seismic trace stacking
are taken into account.
This seismic modeling has assumed that
the Tarbert sand is completely filled with
either oil or water, but intermediate stages of
saturation can also be modeled. If the OWC
is an abrupt change in saturation that occurs
over just a few feet or meters—as was prob-
ably the case when the reservoir was at
equilibrium before any fluids were pro-
duced—the contact may also be a seismic
reflector. After years of production, the satu-
ration change may occur over a wide transi-
tion zone, and may or may not appear as a
discontinuity to seismic waves.
Predicting that the “before” and “after” pic-
tures will look different is just the first step
in setting the stage for 4D seismic snap-
shots. Seismic modeling usually assumes
that survey parameters in the baseline and
monitor surveys are identical. Survey
parameters include receiver positions,
source positions, source signature, and any
directivity or coupling effects associated
with the environment. In the past, this has
limited most 4D experiments to land, where
source positions can at least be marked and
receivers permanently implanted and revis-
ited for monitoring surveys.
In the marine environment, permanent
sensors have been used for decades, but
usually for earthquake and other seismicity
detection. Only in recent feasibility and
pilot tests have ocean bottom cables been
permanently installed over reservoirs for
repeat seismic surveying. In what may be
the biggest 4D seismic monitoring develop-
ment so far, BP and Shell have installed per-
manent cables in the seabed overlying the
Foinaven field in the deep waters—
480 m [1575 ft]—of the North Sea west of
Shetlands.9 A baseline survey was acquired
in 1995, and first oil will be produced in
1997. Monitor surveys are planned every
year. In this deepwater environment, opera-
tors hope that seismic imaging of bypassed
hydrocarbons will help optimize future
development plans.
Permanent sensors for marine seismic
monitoring are still in the experimental
stage. And though they will likely ease some
problems associated with imperfectly
repeated experiments, they cannot promise
the same weather, currents or other tempo-
ral conditions that affect all marine surveys.
This does not mean that 4D marine moni-
toring is infeasible. While some geophysi-
cists press the case for exact repeatability,
others say a high degree of repeatability is
desirable but not necessary. Most agree it is
essential to eliminate as many physical vari-
ables as possible between surveys.10
8. Gassmann F: “Uber die Elastizät Poröser Medien,”
Vierteljahrsschr. Naturforsch. Ges. Zürich 96 (1951):
1-23.
See also Murphy et al, reference 4 and Wang and
Nur, reference 4.
9. Kristiansen P and Currie MT: “Seismic Imaging Capa-
bilities Optimize Reservoir Management,” Petroleum
Engineer International 67 (December 1995): 22-23,
25.
10. Von Flatern R: “Adding Time Makes Seismic Data a
Production Tool,” Petroleum Engineer International
67 (December 1995): 17-18, 20-21.
Oilfield Review
 ■ Fluid substitution.
Density, Oil-Filled Velocity, Oil-Filled Replacing the oil
g/cm3 m/sec (red) in the pore

Depth, m
1.95 2.95 2177 7622 Porosity
Gamma Ray space with water
Density, Water-Filled Velocity, Water-Filled (blue) increases the
API g/cm3 m/sec %
0 150 1.95 2.95 2177 7622 0 100 density and com-
pressional velocity
Top Tarbert in the high-porosity
1880 Tarbert sand.

1900

1920

1940

1960

1980

Gamma Oil-Filled Synthetic Water-Filled Synthetic

Ray Seismic
Real Seismic Section
Trace at Well
50 API 125 NIP Stack NIP Stack
1866

1875

Top
Tarbert

1900
Time, msec

1925

1950

■ Modeling seismic response to different fluids using log input. Normal-incidence compressional (NIP) synthetic
seismograms computed for oil-filled Tarbert sand (track 2) and water-filled sand (track 5) show different charac-
teristics at the top reservoir reflection. Real seismic data traces, however, are the result of stacking traces from
many angles of incidence. The synthetic oil- and water-filled equivalents to the real stacking process are in
tracks 3 and 6, respectively. The seismic section near the well is shown in track 4. The seismic trace at the well
location is in track 7, repeated several times for ease of comparison with the synthetics.

Winter 1996 37
 For some time, conventional towed marine
3D has involved careful positioning of in-
sea elements, with differential global posi-
tioning system antenna and acoustic ranging
routinely providing receiver streamer posi- Gullfaks
tioning accuracy to within a couple of
meters.11 Imminent technological improve-
ments that help correct for tidal changes will
improve overall data quality and accuracy. Area
Similarly, improvements in source monitor- Gullfaks of detail
ing possible with the TRISOR source control South
system should lead to the elimination of
NORWAY
most of the variability in individual shot Bergen
characteristics, or signatures. With this vari-
ability minimized, processing should be
able to give “matched” data sets, in which Stavanger
differences between surveys are removed.
To ensure that the data from the two sur- N O R T H
veys resemble repeat acquisitions, the S E A
repeatability must be quantified. This Aberdeen
requires a diagnostic tool to verify that the UK
repeat accuracy requirements are met. In
N DENMARK
addition, there must be a compensation pro-
cedure to fix data that deviate from ideal
conditions. These diagnostic and compensa- ■ Gullfaks field, Norwegian North Sea.
tion tools may be used during acquisition or
processing, depending on the problem.
An example of repeatability diagnosis and
compensation may be found in a study of 0
Dipping seafloor
source depth during marine seismic acquisi-
tion. The depth of the source in the water
can be monitored with the TRISOR source 500

control system to within one meter [3.3 ft].

There may be, without intention or knowl-
1000
edge, a perturbation of the depth, say to 2 m
[6.6 ft] deeper than specified, starting at
Depth, m

some shot point. The effect on the recorded

1500
waveforms may be a slightly changed ampli-
tude, which, when processed, could be
interpreted as a change in seismic reflection Tarbert formation
2000
characteristics at the target. Diagnosing the
origin of the amplitude change as a source
depth shift can be accomplished by moni-
2500 400% vertical
toring the source signature. Continuity of exaggeration
signal is expected from shot to shot if the
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10,000
source depth is constant. When a perturba-
Distance, m
tion of the standard signal is detected, the
problem may be fixed during acquisition. If ■ Effects of Gullfaks structural complexity on seismic data quality
source monitoring is not done in real time, and modeling. The steep change in seabottom depth over the
the archive of acceptable shot signals may field, strong reflectors overlying the target and a highly faulted
be used to create a match filter, forcing the target combine to make imaging and characterization of Gull-
faks reservoir properties difficult.
perturbed source signal to conform to those
for the correct depth.
Monitoring the quality of the seismic sig-
nal and other essential measurements, such
as navigation accuracy, during acquisition,
allows identification of those perturbations
that can be accepted, those that can be
compensated for, and those that require a
new experiment.

38 Oilfield Review
 ■ Difficult field development. Complex faulting of the Gullfaks reservoir structure presents a challenge to
reservoir management.
The following 4D seismic monitoring
example shows how the combination of
high-quality marine acquisition and innova-
tive interpretation techniques has helped
Statoil optimize development of the Gull-
faks field (previous page, top).
Monitoring Gullfaks Production
Under the current production plan, begun
in 1986, the Gullfaks field in the Norwegian
North Sea will produce 50% of its 480 mil-
lion m3 [3020 million bbl] original oil in
place. About half the remaining oil could be
produced with infill wells, but locating
those wells optimally and reducing costs
continues to be a challenge.
Development of Gullfaks has been ham-
pered by the complexity of the faulted reser-
voir structure (above). New seismic data and
results from development wells have led to
improved knowledge and refinement in
fault mapping. Carefully planned data
acquisition and flexible drilling programs
Winter 1996
resulted in a sound understanding of reser-
voir properties early in the development.
Reservoir simulation has been used exten-
sively to continually evaluate production and
development options for the field. But even
with detailed reservoir models, engineers
don’t know where a fluid front is until it
arrives at a well. By tracking fluid-contrast
fronts before they get to wells, reservoir engi-
neers are able to take action to avoid poten-
tial problems. With 4D seismic monitoring,
the project team—comprising geophysicists,
geologists, petrophysicists and reservoir engi-
neers—will be able to map reservoir
drainage and optimize future production.
Several sets of seismic data have been
acquired over the Gullfaks field. Following
the initial exploration interpretation based
on 2D lines spaced on a 2-km [1.2-mile]
grid, a first 3D survey was acquired in 1979
and a second in 1985. Despite the marked
improvement in the quality of the second
survey, and careful reprocessing in 1992,
the data are still very complex due to vari-
able reflectivity and the highly faulted target
zone (previous page, bottom).12
A pilot reservoir volume was chosen to test
the ability of 4D seismic monitoring to map
changes in the oil-water distribution. The
selected area exhibited reservoir conditions
known to be favorable for seismic monitor-
ing: high porosity—averaging 34%—and a
reliable seismic interpretation.
The three production platforms created an
acquisition challenge for the 1995 monitor
survey: seismic vessels had to navigate to
avoid the platforms, leaving a gap in the
1995 3D volume. The missing volume was
filled in by undershooting—a source vessel
shoots to a separate receiver vessel posi-
11. Beckett C, Brooks T, Parker G, Bjoroy R, Pajot D, Tay-
lor P, Deitz D, Flaten T, Jaarvik LJ, Jack I, Nunn K,
Strudley A and Walker A: “Reducing 3D Seismic
Turnaround,” Oilfield Review 7, no. 1 (January
1995): 23-37.
12. Petterson O, Storli A, Ljosland E and Massie I: “The
Gullfaks Field: Geology and Reservoir Develop-
ment,” in Buller AT, Berg E, Hjelmeland O, Kleppe J,
Torsæter O and Aasen JO (eds): North Sea Oil and
Gas Reservoirs—II. London, England: Graham &
Trotman (1990): 67-90.
39
1985 Attribute Map 1995 Attribute Map (uncalibrated)
2

Apparent polarity
Low
coverage
0

Oil
-2 Gas
Water
Calibration Function 1995 Attribute Map (calibrated ) Nonreservoir

-4
-1 0 1 2
Factor

Low coverage
1

Amplitude
■ Compensating for coverage differences between baseline and monitor surveys. The
1985 Gullfaks survey, acquired before oil production, was able to achieve full coverage
of the top of the reservoir (top left). For the 1995 survey, seismic vessels had to undershoot 0
three platforms, leaving gaps in the 1995 3D volume (top right). If the overburden is not
affected by reservoir production, then comparison of the two surveys allows computation
of a calibration function (bottom left), which, when applied to the 1995 data boosts the
amplitudes to those that would have been recorded had the platforms not been present -1
(bottom right).

-2
-1 0 1
1985 Baseline Survey Factor

■ Attribute space plots showing bad and

good correlation between reservoir proper-
ties and attributes. Reservoir property val-
ues from well data are color-coded dots
with oil in red, gas in yellow, water in blue
and nonreservoir in green. Values are plot-
ted as points in the space defined by the
“apparent polarity” attribute on the verti-
cal axis and on the horizontal axis an
attribute related to a principal component
of a polynomial function fit to the seismic
trace (top). This pair of attributes does not
show good correlation with reservoir prop-
1995 Monitor Survey
erties: members of the nonreservoir class
are mixed with those of the oil and water
classes. A similar plot made with trace
amplitude shows good correlation, and
better separation of classes (bottom).

■ Tracking the top of the Tarbert. The 1985 baseline survey (top) was interpreted for the
reservoir top and all associated faults. The 1995 monitor survey (bottom) was interpreted
for the same feature.

40 Oilfield Review
tioned on the other side of the platform— Amplitude ■ Creating attribute-
but the acquisition geometry, and therefore space plots. In this
the raypaths and seismic energy reflected at example, the goal
is to classify the

Amplitude
the target, were different from the rest of the attributes in the
survey (previous page, top left). Polarity areas marked by
Researchers are testing ways of compen- the triangle, square
sating the undershot data for the difference and circle. Each
shape contains
in the amount of energy reaching the target.
many data points,
One method that appears to give good Polarity plotted as points
results is to assume that across the survey with that shape on
area the overburden does not change with the corresponding
time. This translates into the constraint that graph. When only
two attributes (top)
the total energy contained in the seismic Amplitude
are examined—
trace from the seabottom to the top of the amplitude and
reservoir be constant from one survey to the polarity—the result-
next. A calibration function, or match filter, ing 2D plot fails to

can be applied to the low-energy 1995 data
to fulfill this constraint.
Interpretation Innovations
The goal in interpreting seismic monitoring
data is to extend reservoir knowledge at
well locations into the interwell volume—to
predict reservoir properties where there are
no wells. The Gullfaks well data used for
this purpose consist of basic rock and fluid
information—whether the reservoir sand is
present, and if so, the type of fluids present.
To extend this information away from the
well into the reservoir, first the reservoir vol-
ume, especially the top surface, must be
accurately interpreted from the 3D seismic
data. In the case of Gullfaks, this surface is
the top of the high-porosity Tarbert sand,
and the interpretation includes all faults that
intersect it (previous page, bottom left). The
top picked in 1985 is a positive-polarity
reflection, and the same feature was inter-
preted in the 1995 data. Automatic horizon-
picking software is used to achieve the
required accuracy and avoid inconsistencies
introduced through manual interpretation.
The second step is to characterize the seis-
mic data, at or surrounding the well loca-
tion, that correlate with the information on
reservoir properties at the well. The seismic
information is captured in attributes. For the
Gullfaks interpretation, at least 20 different
instantaneous and volume attributes were
computed for the Tarbert sand.
13. Two unsupervised classification methods were
tested—competitive learning, sometimes called neu-
ral network classification, and K-mean, or nearest
neighbor classification. The supervised methods
tested were Bayesian and Fisher. In the case of the
Gullfaks data, neural network classification was
used, since the assumptions of the other methods
were violated. For more on the methods: Johnson RA
and Wichern DW: Applied Multivariate Statistical
Analysis. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, USA: Pren-
tice Hall, 1992.
Polarity
Phase
ase
Ph
Next, the attributes are examined for cor-
relation with a number of classes of reser-
voir properties. Four classes were identified
in the Gullfaks pilot area: 1) oil-filled Tarbert
sand; 2) water-filled sand; 3) gas-filled sand;
and 4) nonreservoir. Correlation of a class
with a set of attributes is determined by the
closeness with which members of the class
are located in a multidimensional cluster
plot with the attributes as axes (previous
page, right). The multidimensional space
thus created is called attribute space. When
members of a class lie close together, or the
cluster is tight, they correlate well with that
collection of attributes. The class members
have a distribution in attribute space that
can be quantified statistically.
In addition to mutual proximity, the mem-
bers of a class must also be well separated
from members of other classes. Several
combinations of attributes must be tested to
obtain a set of attributes that are sensitive to
the class properties and able to distinguish
the classes from one other (above).
To find this correlation between well data
and seismic attributes, only seismic data
near wells have been used. In a manner of
speaking, the seismic data have now been
“trained” to recognize desired reservoir
properties, perhaps in the way a person may
learn to relate sounds or letters to words.
Amplitude
distinguish squares
from triangles.
When three
attributes—ampli-
tude, polarity and
phase—are used
Polarity (bottom), all three
shapes can be dis-
tinguished because
the phase attribute
now distinguishes
squares from trian-
gles. On real seis-
mic data, any num-
ber of attributes
may be examined.
Attributes may be thought of as the letters
needed for the spelling of words—the alpha-
bet of a language, and so can be used to dis-
criminate between different words with dif-
ferent spellings or sounds. When the right
combination of letters yields the desired
words, the next step is to hunt through the
entire volume of sound for other groups of
sounds that resemble the words. For the
Gullfaks seismic interpretation, when the
optimum set of attributes has been found,
that next step is classification of the attribute
surfaces according to the four classes of
reservoir properties.
Several methods in multivariate statistical
analysis have been tested to achieve classifi-
cation. Some techniques, labelled “unsuper-
vised” classification, do not require training
with log data, but simply look for correla-
tions within the seismic data. The number of
classes to find must be specified. “Super-
vised” classifications use log constraints in
an initial classification and make assump-
tions about the statistical distributions of
class members in attribute space. Classifica-
tion results from different methods will be
similar if the statistical assumptions made by
the methods are not violated.13

Winter 1996 41
1985 Fluid Distribution 1995 Fluid Distribution

Oil Gas Water Nonreservoir

■ Fluid distributions before and after ten years of oil production. The best classification, obtained by analysis of 14 attributes, shows how
fluid distributions have changed between the 1985 survey (left) and the 1995 survey (right). Overall, oil (red) has been replaced by
water (blue) in the lower, western sections of each fault block. This indicates a relatively smooth sweep. In some areas, however, such
as in the northern part of the middle fault block, oil and gas (yellow) appear to be in a separate compartment that has not been tapped.

Final results of classification show how the 1985 Saturation Distribution

fluid distribution has changed in the Tarbert
sand over the course of nine years (above).
The fluid distribution changes inferred from
4D seismic monitoring are in agreement
with the expected drainage in the area. Sim-
ulated fluid saturations for 1985 and 1995
were extracted from the drainage simulation
models, which have been history matched
to the well data (right).
These simulated saturation distributions
show the same general features as the seis-
mic interpretations. Oil has been drained
from the westernmost fault blocks, and from
the western edges of the two central fault
blocks. A fault in the northern portion of the
center block appears, however, to be isolat-
ing oil and gas from the southern part of the
fault block, where the oil sweep appears to
be effective. 1995 Saturation Distribution
Based on the positive results of the 4D
seismic monitoring study, two major deci-
sions have been taken toward modifying
Gullfaks development. First, a new 3D sur-
vey was acquired to cover the rest of the
field in 1996, together with simultaneous
logging of pressure and saturation distribu-
tion in key wells. The new 3D survey also
covers satellite fields to the south and will ■ Fluid saturation
be the baseline survey for future monitoring distributions from
in those fields. Second, a new extended- reservoir simula-
reach well is being drilled from the C Plat- tion. Simulations of
the 1985 (top) and
form in the eastern part of the field, where 1995 (bottom) satu-
production from zones immediately below rations show sweep
has declined. The trajectory of the well is patterns similar to
designed to tap multiple compartments those imaged with
the 4D seismic
identified by the 4D survey as containing monitoring. Red
bypassed oil. indicates high oil
saturation.
0 100
Oil saturation, %
42 Oilfield Review

4D Seismic Data
Petrophysical Modeling
■ Central role of the common earth model in the many disciplines contributing to 4D seismic monitoring.
Now that Statoil has confirmed the feasi-
bility of 4D monitoring in the prime condi-
tions of the Tarbert formation in the Gullfaks
field, other more challenging applications
await. Deeper reservoir layers with lower
porosity might also be candidates for moni-
toring, pushing the technique to its limits.
4D Monitoring Will Change with Time
Many operators and service companies are
talking about and gaining experience with
4D seismic monitoring. The technique is
expected to decrease uncertainty in reser-
voir models and reduce risk in drilling new
wells. With faster and improved-quality 3D
seismic data acquisition, the investments in
a 4D seismic monitoring survey have
become low enough to be offset by the
expected increase in production associated
with a better understood reservoir. But 4D
seismic monitoring is still in its infancy: 3D
seismic technology took ten years to
become established. More field studies and
further developments are needed to prove
the value of additional knowledge brought
by 4D monitoring.
Winter 1996
Well Logs
Common Earth Model
Classification System
Further work is required in many areas to
bring this extraordinary technique into ordi-
nary practice. Repeatability of acquisition
may never be perfectly realized, but the lim-
its and tolerances of acquisition differences
should be better appreciated. There will
probably not be a single acquisition scheme
that will have universal application for 4D
monitoring, but rather a range of solutions
to cover a spectrum of different reservoirs.
Some of the failures of early attempts at
4D monitoring have been attributed to the
“incidental” nature of time-lapse surveys—
most 3D surveys are acquired without any
intention of comparing the results to a later
monitor survey. With 4D monitoring on the
horizon, there is great interest in making the
extra effort to ensure that baseline surveys
have all the information imaginable to
extend their value as long as possible.
More research and experimentation with
permanent sensors, both in ocean-bottom
cables and in boreholes, will advance
knowledge of hardware limitations and
bring down the costs associated with their
occasional use today.
Reservoir Simulations
Seismic Modeling
Work remains to be done on understand-
ing the relationships between seismic
attributes and rock and fluid properties. Cur-
rently, finding the right attributes for a
desired reservoir property is a time-consum-
ing interpretation project requiring an
expert. Forward modeling may help predict
which attributes are useful for a given fluid
change or rock type, and might allow some
automation of the interpretation process.
Central to integrating the efforts of geolo-
gists, geophysicists, petrophysicists and reser-
voir engineers is the model—a common
earth model—that can be tapped and refined
at every stage of reservoir management
(above). Continued refinements to 4D seis-
mic monitoring will be driven by the project
teams charged with optimizing recovery
from existing fields. These teams require
methods that allow them to improve the
location and timing of development drilling,
to not only understand but also control reser-
voir behavior. With that as a goal, seismic
monitoring may one day become the most
powerful of reservoir management tools.
—LS
43
 Revitalizing Production Logging

Thousands of high-angle and

horizontal wells have been

drilled in the last ten years.

Steve Bamforth Gilbert Conort As a result, there are many
BP Exploration Operating Co. Ltd. Montrouge, France
Poole, England mature fields with complex
Chris Lenn
Christian Besson Dubai, United Arab Emirates well production problems.
Ken Stephenson
Brad Roscoe Today, new technology and
Colin Whittaker
Ridgefield, Connecticut, USA
Cambridge, England better understanding of fluid
George Brown For help in preparation of this article, thanks to Ashok flow in wellbores have
BP Exploration Operating Co. Ltd. Belani, Schlumberger Wireline & Testing, Montrouge,
Sunbury on Thames, England France; John Ferguson, Schlumberger Cambridge revived production logging
Research, Cambridge, England; Yves Manin,
Gérard Catala Schlumberger Riboud Product Center, Clamart, France; methods for all types of wells.
Jean-Rémy Olesen, Beijing, China; DeWayne Schnorr,
Gilles Rouault Anchorage, Alaska, USA; Antonio Jorge Torre, Technical
Bernard Théron Editing Services, Houston, Texas, USA; and Amal
Clamart, France Vittachi, GeoQuest, Dallas, Texas.
BorFlo, CPLT (Combinable Production Logging Tool),
FloView, FloView Plus, PLT (Production Logging Tool),
PL Flagship, PVL (Phase Velocity Log), RST (Reservoir
Saturation Tool), TDT (Thermal Decay Time) and
WFL (Water Flow Log) are marks of Schlumberger.

44 Oilfield Review














,,,,,


■The challenges facing production log-
Fault ging in horizontal wells. Trapped fluids


,,,,,





,


can directly affect production and influ-
ence the data from a production log, espe-
Stagnant gas Failed external Formation
casing packer instability cially sensors such as spinners and capac-
Gas
itance tools. Because horizontal wells
inevitably have doglegs and undulations,
stagnant water may lie either inside or out-
side the casing in low areas at the bottom
of the well; stagnant gas may accumulate


,,,,,





,,,




,,
on the high side of drainhole undulations.
These nonflowing fluids distort measure-
ments. Changes in the flowing cross-sec-
tional area have a direct impact on spin-
Oil layer ner response (inset, left). Horizontal wells
are frequently completed uncemented,
using prepacked screens or slotted liners
with external casing packers (ECPs). An
Cuttings

,,,




Fractures
ECP that fails to set properly or formation
collapse create volume changes that
Water affect flow velocities. Faults, fractures and
formation instabilities may cause fluid
crossflow. Cuttings on the low side of the
borehole may alter fluid velocities and
result in erroneous readings.



For decades, production logs have been
used in new wells to optimize ultimate
recovery and to help avoid potential pro-
duction problems. In older wells, these logs
aid in diagnosing declining production and
planning remedial work.1
From the outset, production logging (PL)
has been used to determine the dynamic pat-
terns of flow rates of water, oil and gas under
stable producing or injecting conditions by
answering the following questions: How
much of the well is flowing? Which zones are
producing oil, water and gas? How much of
each type of fluid is flowing from each zone?
Ideally, PL techniques should identify each
fluid, measure the volume fraction of each
fluid in the pipe—called the holdup—and
its velocity, and from these compute flow
rates.2 Traditional PL measurements use tur-
bine flowmeters called spinners for velocity,
gradiomanometers for density, capacitance
for holdup, manometers for pressure and
thermometers for temperature. Of these five
measurements, only velocity and density
tend to be used in traditional quantitative
PL analysis.
The reliability of the data generated by
traditional PL logging depends almost
exclusively on the type of well being
logged. In vertical wells with high flow
rates—usually from 200 to 5000 B/D [30 to
800 m3/d], depending on the tool used and
the pipe diameter—these PL measurements
and their analysis usually produce reliable
results. However, in some wells, phenom-
ena such as flow behind casing or inter-
zone flow make traditional PL difficult.
The upsurge in deviated and horizontal
wells creates boreholes with very different
fluid flow characteristics from vertical wells,
adding further complexity to multiphase
flow and radically changing the physics and
technology of fluid-flow measurement
(above). In gas-and-liquid or oil-and-water
flow, the lighter phase moves rapidly along
the high side of the borehole, establishing a
circulating current that often causes a back-
flow along the lower side (see “Fluid Flow
Fundamentals,” page 61).
Depending on the borehole deviation, the
velocity and holdup of the different phases
can change dramatically for any given flow
rate. In these circumstances, traditional PL
measurements may become unreliable. 3
This article looks at how new techniques are
helping to shed light on flow in complex
vertical wells, and to deliver PL measure-
ments in deviated and horizontal wells.
1. Wade RT, Cantrell RC, Poupon A and Moulin J: “Pro-
duction Logging (The Key to Optimum Well Perfor-
mance,” Journal of Petroleum Technology 17 (Febru-
ary 1965): 137-144.
2. For an authoritative treatment of multiphase flow: Hill
AD: ”Production Logging-Theoretical and Interpreta-
tive Elements,” SPE Monograph 14, 1990.
3. Brown G: ”Using Production-Log Data From Horizon-
tal Wells,” Transactions of the SPWLA 36th Annual
Logging Symposium, Paris, June 26-29, 1995, paper SS.

Winter 1996 45
When to Run Production Logs
Generally, PL has two important applica-
tions: measuring well performance with
respect to reservoir dynamics and analyzing
X25
mechanical problems in the borehole.
Although decisions to run production logs
usually depend on specific reservoir eco-
nomics, there are general guidelines.
First, PL may be used in new wells to eval- Zone
uate initial production and verify the
integrity of the completion—for example,
indicating where there is flow behind cas- 4
ing. When initial performance does not
meet expectations, information from PL may
often point to remedial work to optimize
production and suggest different completion
techniques for future wells. 3
A special use of PL in horizontal, high-rate
wells is to verify friction-induced production
loss in long drainholes. This friction loss
sometimes negates any extra productivity 2
expected from the long drainhole, and a
better choice would be to drill multiple,
shorter lateral sections in a stacked or fan- X50
shaped pattern.4
Second, PL should be considered for any
well that shows sudden decreases in pro- 1
duction or increases in gas/oil ratio (GOR)
or water cut.
Third, just as a yearly checkup by a physi-
cian is prudent, PL may be used periodically
to detect problems such as water or gas con- 1:200 m Radius of Bit Openhole Sw Openhole Porosity Openhole Porosity
0 10 1993 50 p.u. 0 50 p.u. 0
ing, or fingering before extensive production
100 p.u. 0
loss occurs. This is particularly important for GR (C.H.)-GR (O.H.) Openhole Fluid Volume Shale 1
dump-flood wells, where PL is the only 10 0 Openhole Sw 1993 Shale 2
monitoring method.5 1996 50 p.u. 0
Borehole Water Feldspar
Fourth, injection wells may be initially Borehole Oil
100 p.u. 0
RST Fluid Volume Quartz
analyzed and then monitored with PL. 1996
Casing Wall Calcite
Knowledge of where injected fluids are 50 p.u. 0
going is critical for avoiding undesired Assumed Cement RST Oil 1996
Sheath Downhole Flow Rate Water
flooding that leads to serious problems such
0 B/D 10000
as casing-annulus crossflow, the creation of Formation
unswept and trapped hydrocarbons, and Perforated Zone RST Oil
water-wet damaged formations. Scales 1996
Nonmovable Oil (O.H.)
Water
Oil
Gas

■Openhole CPLT-RST evaluation from South China Sea. Track 1 (left) contains a well
sketch with casing (black) and a cemented casing-formation annulus (gray hatching).
Uranium scale was indicated by the difference in natural gamma ray activity between
the openhole and most recent cased-hole gamma ray survey. Track 2 contains the open-
hole log and the latest RST water saturation analysis. Track 3 shows the production logs
and static-fluid volume analysis in the formation. The top of Zone 3 at X41 and the top
half of Zone 2 at X47 still shows some unproduced oil. Zones 1 and 4 are completely
depleted. The production logs shows most of the water production coming from the top of
Zone 2 at X46 m.

46 Oilfield Review
 The ability to carry out downhole PL mea-
surements in a stabilized well under
dynamic conditions is the key to successful
production management. The resulting
downhole flow-rate determination may be
compared with stabilized surface flow rates.
This quantitative comparison between
downhole and surface flow rates allows
detection of any surface-to-downhole dis-
crepancies caused by such factors as tubing
leaks, thief zones, unwanted fluid entries or
other hydraulic malfunctions.
Production Logging in Vertical Wells
Increasingly, operators incorporate PL into
their reservoir monitoring programs. Today,
this often includes cased-hole saturation
logging techniques—such as thermal-neu-
tron decay time or carbon-oxygen measure-
ments—run in combination with traditional
PL tools to provide an enhanced under-
standing of reservoir dynamics.6
The RST Reservoir Saturation Tool can be
used to make a snapshot of reservoir satura-
tion. Repeating these measurements over
time helps monitor changes in reservoir sat-
uration. But the dynamic description of
flow conditions obtained from production
log profiles is absolutely necessary to
unravel complex commingled production
in a many wells.
For example, to gain a clear picture of pro-
duction dynamics in a declining reservoir, the
CPLT Combinable Production Logging Tool
log and the RST technique were used in com-
bination in a reservoir located in the Pearl
River Mouth basin in the South China Sea.
The reservoir, a sand-shale sequence, was
producing from four commingled sand-
stone formations, and the operator needed
to understand current reservoir production
on a layer-by-layer basis. The CPLT-RST
reservoir monitoring suite was deployed in
Winter 1996
a well located at the top of the reservoir
(previous page). Openhole well evalua-
tions, with the latest hydrocarbon volume
from RST C/O monitoring, showed the
changes in reservoir saturations.
The lowest zone had been completely
depleted, as had about half of the next
zone. A cased-hole versus openhole gamma
ray comparison revealed evidence of sub-
stantial scale buildup in the lowest perfo-
rated zones. This indicated that large vol-
umes of water had been produced from the
lower zones, and scale could potentially
plug perforations.
The production logs provided the key to
understanding what was happening in the
well. The flowmeter and gradiomanometer
profiles showed that there was only a little
fluid production, mostly water, coming from
the lowest perforations. About 60% of the
total water production came from the sec-
ond lowest set of perforations, and most of
that from just 2 m [6.5 ft] of the upper sec-
tion of perforations.
Surprisingly, the RST monitor log indicated
that water production was coming from a
fully oil-bearing part of the formation. It was
suspected that the water was coning up
from the bottom part of the zone, now com-
pletely depleted of hydrocarbons. Logs from
other wells, downdip in the reservoir, con-
firmed this conclusion. Reducing the draw-
down pressures may allow production of the
bypassed hydrocarbons, still contained in
this zone, to continue.
In the well’s second highest perforated
zone, the RST monitor logs showed a signif-
icant oil-water contact (OWC). The lowest
half of the zone was fully depleted, whereas
the upper half was untouched by produc-
tion. Unexpectedly, production log profiles
indicated greater hydrocarbon production
than water, perhaps because scale had
plugged the lower perforations in the
watered-out part of the zone. The upper per-
forations in this zone did not appear to be
plugged by scale, yet the production profiles
showed minimal contribution over the
entire interval. This result confirmed the
diagnosis from RST monitoring logs that the
upper formation layer had been swept of all
movable hydrocarbons.
Another example, this time in a vertical
well with a thief zone and borehole water
entry, occurred in India’s offshore Bombay
High field, operated by Indian Oil and Nat-
ural Gas Commission (ONGC). The reser-
voir was under waterflood, and the operator
needed to identify zones of water entry and
to determine whether flow was occurring
behind the casing. It was also suspected
that injection water had broken through
and was being produced from one of five
sets of perforations.
A WFL Water Flow Log tool was com-
bined with the PLT Production Logging Tool
log to distinguish between flow inside and
outside the casing (see “Fluid-Flow Logging
Using Time-of-Flight,” page 50). The down-
hole flow rates were complex. The top of
the lowest set of perforations, Zone 5, pro-
duced only small quantities of water. There
was a large increase in water flow coming
from the second lowest set of perforations.
A modest amount of oil, 400 BOPD
[63 m 3/d], was also produced from this
zone. The middle set of perforations, Zone
3, also produced 1000 BWPD [160 m3/d]
with only a small amount of oil. The second
highest set of perforations showed no fluid
production (next page).
4. Hill D, Neme E, Ehlig-Economides C and Mollinedo
M: ”Reentry Drilling Gives New Life to Aging Fields,”
Oilfield Review 8, no. 3 (Autumn 1996): 4-17.
5. In dump-flood wells, water is produced from an
aquifer and injected into a producing formation in the
same well.
6. Albertin, I, Darling, H, Mahdavi, M, Plasek R, Cedeño
I, Hemingway J, Richter P, Markley M, Olesen J-R,
Roscoe B and Zeng W: “The Many Facets of Pulsed
Neutron Cased Hole Logging,” Oilfield Review 8,
no. 2 (Summer 1996): 28-41.
An essential input for RST-A C/O monitoring logging is
the oil holdup in the borehole. The PL gradiomanome-
ter provides this measurement.
47
 200 GR
Gas

Oil 160
Water
200
Downhole Far 120
Flow Rate
160
Reconstructed Reconstructed B/D 80
GR
Fluid Velocity Fluid Density 0.0 6000.0
0 60
ft/min gm/cm3 1500 Near
API 120
40
0 125 0 125
1200
Measured WFL 80
0

Count rate, cps

Measured Fluid Measured Fluid Temperature Water Flow Rate 0 12 24 36 48 60
Velocity ft/min Density gm/cm3 °F BWPD 900
40
0 125 0 125 243 245 0.0 6000.0
1:200 600
0
0 12 24 36 48 60
Zone 300

1 0
0 12 24 36 48 60
Time, sec
X370
2

50
GR

40
3

X380 30

4 200 Far
20
160
10
120
5
0
X390
80 0 12 24 36 48 60

500 40
Near

■Thief zone in vertical well. The PLT-WFL interpretation 400

0
analysis indicated that Zone 1 is removing more than 0 12 24 36 48 60
Count rate, cps

120 BOPD and 2200 BWPD from the well. Crossflow had 300
been set up by the injection and production schemes.
At X354, the WFL decay-time distributions showed a 200
flow rate over 2000 BWPD inside the casing (inset,
above right). At X393 m, the WFL decay-time distribu- 100
tions showed that no flow was detected (inset, right).
0
0 12 24 36 48 60
Time, sec

With the top set of perforations—Zone 1—

the picture changed dramatically. Here,
more than half of the production from the
four zones below disappeared into the for-
mation. Zone 1 was acting as a major thief
zone, consuming 120 BOPD [19 m3/d] and
about 2200 BWPD [350 m 3/d] from the
well. This unusual crossflow, verified by
WFL results, indicates a pressure differential
between the two formation layers, which
was not present when the well was initially
put on production. The WFL survey also
indicated that there was no channeling
behind the casing.
Armed with this knowledge, the operator
had two choices for remediation—squeeze
the perforations in the lowest zones (3 to 5)
to prevent water production, or isolate
Zones 1 and 2 using a dual-completion
scheme, putting the long string on gas lift,
and allowing continued production of 400
BOPD [64 m3/d] from Zone 4.
Nonvertical Production Logging Other phenomena affect PL measurements
Once a well substantially deviates from in deviated and horizontal wells. For exam-
vertical and multiphase flow becomes ple stagnant fluids may confuse sensors;
complex, spinner tools often indicate only fractures and faults may allow crossflow;
reverse flow—especially when the spinner and failed external packers may introduce
is not centralized in the borehole, but lying variable flow regimes (see page 45).
near the bottom where the reverse flow is Horizontal and many deviated wells are
found (next page, right).7 Capacitance tools often completed either open hole, with
may also measure the lower, denser phase uncemented slotted liners or with
of the fluid giving misleading holdup data. prepacked screens. 8 Such completions
As the well’s angle increases to horizontal, introduce other special fluid-flow and pro-
flow becomes entirely stratified, and the duction problems that usually are not
averaged mixture velocity from a flowmeter encountered in vertical, cased wells—such
spinner alone is meaningless. as flow restrictions due to the logging tool in
the pipe forcing fluids to channel through
the liner-formation annulus. Furthermore, a

48 Oilfield Review





,,,,
400
Flow Outside Pipe


,,,,
 Water flow
■Backflow as drain-
hole moves towards


,,,,

Gas flow vertical. In highly
320 Velocity = 8.5 ft/min
deviated or horizon-

Count rate, cps

Rate = 439 BWPD
tal wells and at low
240 fluid velocities,
Total count rate
Background buoyancy forces
160
tend to segregate
fluids. The lighter
80
phase flows in the







,,,,

0
upper part of the
12 24 36 48 60 pipe dragging
Time, sec along with it some
of the heavier
Flow Inside Pipe phase. Sometimes
2200 part of the heavier
Velocity = 8.8 ft/min phase moves down-
1760
wards due to grav-
Count rate, cps

Rate = 850 BWPD

,,,,







ity, causing a circu-
1320
Total count rate lation within the
880
Background pipe. Badly central-
ized flowmeters in
440 the lower portion of
the deviated pipe
0 will respond to this
12 24 36 48 60 downward flow.
Time, sec

■Distinguishing between water flow inside

and outside casing. Time-of-flight gamma
ray time-decay distributions indicated
whether the flow is inside or outside the
casing. The lower graph shows the
response when water is flowing inside the
casing. The blue shaded area reflects the
final time-decay response to flowing water
after the background and standing water
signals have been removed. The blue area
had a sharply peaked response, which
indicated that the slug of activated water
flow occurred in a smooth cross-sectional
pipe area without dispersion. The top
graph indicates the magnitude and shape
of the time-decay response when flow is
outside casing. Here the time distribution
was much broader, reflecting slug disper-
sion as it flowed around the outside of cas-
ing. Lower total counting rates are due to
gamma ray attenuation in the casing.
special problem occurs near the uphole end
of a slotted liner. Here, annular fluids are
forced out of the annulus back into the liner
or casing, resulting in significant turbulence
that tends to mix the fluids. This turbulence
can encourage backflow to develop on the
low side of the hole, which can seriously
affect flowmeter readings.
In horizontal wells completed with con-
ventional cemented liners, flowmeter spin-
ner profiles look more like their vertical
counterparts, often showing smooth, distinct
evenly-separated profiles when recorded at
different speeds.9 However, cementing in
horizontal wells is usually not as successful
as in vertical wells because the liner is
decentralized within the borehole, often
leading to cement voids and channels with
accompanying annular production.
Other problems in horizontal completions
include acceleration of fluids due to gravity
when undulations in the well profile are suf-
ficiently large. If peaks of the flowmeter mea-
surements are taken as representative of the
full mixture velocity, the trend is an increase
in velocity where the well turns downward
and a decrease as the flow reaches the
trough of the undulation. Backflow always
appears to occur in inverted, undulating
wells where the heavy phase falls down the
low side of the drainhole. In many cases, the
heavy phase (usually water) simply circulates
in the sump and is not produced.
Delivering Data from Deviated Wells
Success in isolating crossflow problems in
the offshore Bombay well convinced the
operator to try a combined WFL-PLT
approach in a cased-hole, deviated well that
was producing oil, water and gas. The oper-
ator was unsure of the exact location of the
water entry zones and whether these could
be sealed off using cement squeezes to
reduce water cut.
Again, channeling behind casing was sus-
pected. This time, the WFL measurements
showed this, and confirmed the PLT measure-
ments in a difficult environment. The spinner
tool data below X050 indicated downflow,
the temperature gradient suggested possible
upward fluid movement and the gra-
diomanometer tool showed a single-phase
fluid below X050—a very confusing picture.
The spinner measurement was presumed
unreliable in this zone, as it had insufficient
resolution to measure low apparent flow.
The thermometer was affected by fluid
movement inside and outside the casing,
but could not differentiate between the two
flow regions. The WFL data helped resolve
the dilemma, by distinguishing between
flows inside and outside the casing (above
left). In this case, water was flowing outside
(continued on page 52)
7. In this article, the range of deviated wells will include
moderate to the so-called “high angle” 30° to 85°
from vertical; horizontal wells range from 85° to 95°.
8. Brown G, reference 3.
9. Spinner turn rates are calibrated by logging at different
cable speeds.

Winter 1996 49
 Fluid-Flow Logging Using Time-of-Flight

Several years ago, the WFL Water Flow Log tech- Near count Far count GR count
nique was introduced using the TDT-P Thermal rate rate rate
Decay Time tool to provide water-velocity data,
first in vertical wells, then later in deviated and
horizontal wells.1 Today, the RST Reservoir Satu-
ration Tool log provides water-velocity information
with more precision.2 A burst of fast neutrons from
Casing
the RST tool activates oxygen atoms in a small
Minitron Oil
region surrounding the neutron source in the tool.
This includes any oxygen in the water flowing in
the pipe. Oil does not contain oxygen and there-
Water
fore is not affected. Activated oxygen atoms, in a
process like fluorescence, give off radiation, in the
form of gamma rays, radiating for a short time
after the neutron burst. ■WFL Water Flow Log Measurements. A short burst of neutrons activates oxygen
in the surrounding water, and flowing water carries the activated cloud at the water
Moving water in the pipe will carry a cloud of velocity. Source-detector distances and time-of-flight are used to determine the
activated oxygen with it past the detectors in the water velocity.
tool (above right). The time between the neutron
burst and the detection of the activated water cloud
will be a time-of-flight for the water flow in the
Marker signal Near detector borehole sigma indicator
pipe, and is used to compute water velocity. The
half-life of the oxygen activation is only seven sec-
onds, so after a few minutes, the activation radia-
tion has subsided to an undetectable level, making
the measurement environmentally safe.
There are two detectors in the RST tool.The tool
can use a variable neutron burst width from 0.1 to 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Time, sec
3 sec with delays from 3.5 to 20 sec to measure
water-flow rates from as low as 6 ft/min [1.8 m/min]
Oil-miscible marker RST tool
to as high as 500 ft/min [152 m/min]. The RST tool
may be inverted to measure downward water flow. Casing
Oil
An additional gamma ray (GR) detector may be
incorporated in the logging tool string to measure
higher velocities. Water
The RST-WFL technique may be used to mea-
sure other parameters. The total activation count
PVL Phase Velocity Log sonde
rate is proportional to the volume of water acti-
vated by the neutron burst, and therefore is a mea- ■ PVL Phase Velocity Log technique. A slug of oil-miscible marker fluid is injected
into the flowing oil phase, and is detected by the RST tool. The time-of-flight
sure of the water holdup in the pipe. The time pro- between injection and slug detection along with the distance between the injector
file, or shape, of the activation count rate tool and RST detector gives the oil velocity. The same process is used for water
phase-velocity measurements except a water-miscible marker compound is injected
distribution carries information about whether the
into the heavier phase.
activated water is flowing near the tool in the bore-
hole or behind the casing pipe in the annulus.

50 Oilfield Review
 144
300 Raw Data
142 490 ft/min

Borehole sigma indicator

ft/min 200 100 50 Filtered Data
ft/min ft/min ft/min
140

138
12 ft/min

136

134

132
Oil
130 200 750 BOPD
0 5 10 15 20 25 60 80 100 120
Water
Time, sec
100
■Typical marker slug time-of-flight distributions for a variety of fluid-flow velocities.
0
For horizontal wells, fluid flows are stratified,
500
with the light phase moving rapidly in the upflow 200 1500 BOPD
sections of the well along the high side of the

PVL measurements, ft/min

400
borehole. Slight changes in borehole deviation 100
cause large changes in fluid holdup and the veloci-
300
ties of different phases, making it necessary to 0
know all fluid velocities. Spinners are usually not 200
applicable in stratified flow, and radioactive trac-

Velocity, ft/min
200 2300 BOPD
ers are useful useful only for water-velocity mea- 100
surements, because there are no oil-miscible 100
forms available. Radioactive tracers also have 0
0 100 200 300 400 500
strict procurement and safety issues. 0
Actual water velocity, ft/min
The PVL Phase Velocity log also uses a time-of-
flight method to measure both oil and water veloc- ■PVL water velocity measurements in the flow-loop. 200 3000 BOPD
ities.3 This technique uses a chemical marker that Water velocity measurements made using the PVL
technique for horizontal stratified two-phase flow (oil
is injected into either the oil or water stream. The and water), where the water holdup was kept at 50%, 100
time the marker takes to reach the detector is a show good agreement with actual controlled flow
rates. The error bars are dominated by the sampling
measure of fluid velocity (previous page, bottom). frequency of the borehole absorption measurement.
0

The chemical marker contains a high concentra-

tion of the element gadolinium, which has a large
thermal neutron absorption cross section. The RST
tool senses the large increase in the borehole
absorption cross section caused by the passage of
the gadolinium slug (above).
A high concentration of gadolinium chloride
[GdCl3] in water is used as a water-miscible
marker. It has the high density and low viscosity
necessary for the water-phase measurements. For
the oil-phase measurements, a new, gadolinium-
rich compound, with low density and viscosity is
used. These markers are safe to handle, even in
concentrated form, and pose no environmental
threat when injected into borehole fluids.
Flow-loop experiments at Schlumberger Cam- 200
bridge Research, Cambridge, England have vali-
dated the PVL measurements under a large variety 100
of flow conditions. Both single-phase oil and water 3800 BOPD
measurements show excellent agreement between 0
85 87 89 91 93
PVL-measured and actual flow rates (above). Two- Deviation, degree
phase measurements, using oil and water or gas
and water, demonstrate the ability to measure sep- ■Two-phase velocity measurements in the
Schlumberger Cambridge Research flow loop. Oil and
arately each phase in a segregated flow (right). water velocity measurements made using the PVL
1. Lenn C, Kimminau S and Young P: “Logging of Water technique in a laboratory flow loop with two-phase
Mass Entry in Deviated Well Oil/Water Flows,” paper flow where the water flow rate was maintained con-
SPE 26449, presented at the 68th SPE Annual Techni- stant at 1500 BWPD. The loop was tilted from 85 to
cal Conference and Exhibition, Houston, Texas, USA, 92 degrees and the water and oil velocities measured
October 3-6, 1993. for oil flow rates ranging from 750 to 3800 BOPD.
2. Albertin et al, reference 6, main text. The results show that small deviations from horizon-
3. Roscoe BA and Lenn C: ”Oil and Water-velocity Log- tal can cause large changes in the measured fluid
ging in Horizontal Wells Using Chemical Markers,” velocities.
paper SPE 37153, presented the 1996 SPE Interna-
tional Conference on Horizontal Well Technology,
Calgary, Alberta, Canada, November 18-20, 1996.

Winter 1996 51
the casing below X050 m causing the tem- WFL GR red WFL Water Rates
perature to change faster than the local Shale -25 ft/min 100 Gas
geothermal gradient. Above X050 m, the Perforations WFL Far blue Theor.Dens Theor. Temp Theor. Pres Oil
WFL data revealed flow inside the casing, in Production -25 ft/min 100 6.6 1.10 235 240 1010 1090 Water
good agreement with the production log- Cement WFL Near green gm/cm3 °C psi WFL Water Rate
ging interpretation (right). Matrix -25 ft/min 100 Fluid density Temperature Pressure 0 B/D 4000
The WFL interpretation helped pinpoint Well Sketch Fluid Vel 0.6 1.10 235 240 1010 1090 Downhole Flow Rate
the three-phase production to Zones 2 and 15 in. -15 -25 ft/min 100 gm/cm3 °C psi 0 B/D 4000
3. Only gas and oil enter the well from
Zone 1. The WFL data show that water, from
below Zone 5, flowed behind the casing.
With a clear understanding of the produc-
1
tion problems in the well, the operator
could choose between two remedial treat-
ments—eliminating all water production by
closing Zones 2 and 3, simultaneously cut- X025
ting potential oil production by a third; or
simply decreasing water cut by repairing the
cement below X050 m.
The next field example shows how a new
PL holdup and velocity imaging tool
helped determine the correct remedial
action for a well on the North Slope,
2
Alaska, USA operated by ARCO Alaska Inc.
and BP Exploration (next page, left).10
The 49° deviated well, was flowing at
1141 BOPD [181 m3/d] with 82% water cut 3
at surface and a GOR of 2583 ft3/bbl. Four
zones were originally perforated, and tradi- X050
tional PL interpretation based on density,
velocity and temperature indicated mixed
water and oil production in the lower three
zones, and gas in the top two. For example,
in the lowest perforated zone, the gra-
diomanometer showed a reduction in fluid
density, usually interpreted as first hydrocar-
bon entry. Based on traditional PL measure- 4 Ou Flo
wo
vel tside uts
ments and interpretation, only this lowest oci
ties
ide
zone would be produced, and all upper
zones would have been plugged. X075
A completely different picture emerged
using the recently introduced FloView imag- 5
ing tool (see, “Advantages of Holdup and
Bubble Imaging in Production Logging,”
page 54). The FloView water holdup curve
remained at 100% in the lower zone. The
density drop measured by the traditional gra-
diomanometer probably occurred when the
■Water flow logs at different depths in a deviated well. Track 1 (left) shows a well sketch
tool moved from a dense sump fluid lying and perforations at each zone. Track 2 shows WFL velocity results. The next three tracks
below the lowest perforated zone into lighter show PL density, temperature and pressure measurements. Results of flow model analysis
water produced from the first set of perfora- are shown in Track 6 (right). The reconstruction of PL measurements (dashed red) based
tions. Next, the FloView holdup detected a on the flow model analysis is shown along with the original (solid black) PL measure-
ments in Track 5. Three detectors were used by the WFL to cover a wide range of flows.
small hydrocarbon entry in Zone 2, and a
Water velocities inside the casing, derived from the near detector are shown as green cir-
large entry in Zone 3, as seen in the FloView cular tadpoles, while the far detector readings are shown in blue and the gamma ray
holdup map. readings in red. The triangular-shaped tadpoles represent readings for flow outside the
casing. In this display, the 45° angle of the tadpole tails show an upflow in the well.
10. Vittachi A and North RJ: ”Application of a New Downward flow would be indicated by tails pointing 45° downward.
Radial Borehole Fluid Imaging Tool in Production
Logging Highly Deviated Wells,” paper SPE 36565,
presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition, Denver, Colorado, USA, October
6-9, 1996.

52 Oilfield Review
 FloView Conventional PL Results
Casing FloView Gas
Holdup Velocity (up)
Oil 4 Gas
Perfs 0.5 v/v 1
FloView Oil
Hydrcarb. Water
GR Temperature FloView FloView 3
Velocity (down) Water

Zone
Holdup Map Velocity Map
Downhole Flow
0 150 218 °F 223 0 ft/min 350
Profile 2
API Gradio Density 0.6 1.0 Spinner Velocity 0 350
0 10,000
1:600 ft 0.6 gm/cm3 1.1 v/v 25 ft/min 375 ft/min B/D 1

0 1000 2000 3000 4000

Production, B/D

X800
PL Results with FloView

4 Gas
4
Oil
3 Water

Zone
2
X900

0 1000 2000 3000 4000

Production, B/D

■Comparing production logging tech-

niques. Downhole production from each
3 zone was measured using conventional
X1000 PL techniques and compared with those
from the new FloView imaging technique.
The new technique showed that only
2 Zone 3 had significant oil production.

Farther up the well, the opposite occurred.

Starting at Zone 4, the upgoing FloView
pass had a lower hydrocarbon velocity than
the downgoing pass. This occurs because
■Identifying fluid entry. The holdup map in Track 2 and the hydrocarbon velocity map hydrocarbon bubbles, carried by the
in Track 4, from an Alaskan well show the first hydrocarbon entry in Zone 3. The center
upward flowing water, were moving along
of each map track represents the high-side of the casing. The difference between the up
(dashed red) and down (solid red) passes of the FloView imaging tool in Track 3 indicates with the upward moving tool—a sign of sig-
backflow (shaded grey area where curves cross over) at X900, and hydrocarbon nificant hydrocarbon entry in Zone 4.
production (unshaded crossover) in Zones 3 and 4. The downhole flow rates and profiles com-
puted from the imaging measurements were
In addition, the FloView bubble (or hydro- and higher bubble velocity throughout the significantly different from those determined
carbon) velocity map pinpointed the first top section of the casing. This zone using traditional PL measurements alone.
significant hydrocarbon entry midway up appeared to have water backflow shown by Flow rates calculated using data from this
Zone 3. The caliper readings, shown as a comparing an overlay of two passes of the new technique were within 8% of actual
casing cross-section profile, supported the FloView velocity, one going up the well and production rates (above). Based on these
idea that the gradiomanometer interpreta- a second traveling downhole. A large sepa- results, the recommendation to the operator
tion was adversely influenced by changes in ration between the up and down passes was was to plug off all the zones except Zone 3,
casing diameter between Zones 1 and 3. A seen in the region experiencing the water the only significant oil producer.
restriction in the casing at X900 ft caused an backflow. The upgoing FloView pass read The overlay techniques shown in this
increase in both spinner and FloView veloc- higher hydrocarbon velocity than the down- example can be used as a qualitative
ity measurements. going pass. This occurred because water method of identifying zones of hydrocarbon
Just above X900 ft, between Zones 3 and was flowing backwards down the pipe, car- entry and water backflow.
4, there was a reduction in average FloView rying hydrocarbon bubbles down with it
bubble velocity. The FloView images against the upward motion of the tool. This
showed a narrow band of hydrocarbon in abnormal separation in FloView velocities is
this section of the well—low water holdup an easily recognized flag to spot reverse
flow in the well.

Winter 1996 53
 Advantages of Holdup and Bubble Imaging in Production Logging

The 111⁄16-in. FloView production logging tool

makes four independent measurements of bore-
Probe
hole fluids, distributed in different quadrants of the Ceramic Connector
pipe cross section (right). insulator
The self-centralized device uses matchstick- Casing
sized, electrical probes to measure the resistivity Conductive Probe holding
of the wellbore fluid—high for hydrocarbons and tip bracket

low for water. The probes are located inside of Probe

each of the tool’s four centralizer blades to protect Probe
them from damage, and their azimuthal position
within the pipe cross section is measured.
The FloView imager may be run in up to 95⁄8-in.
casing. Each probe is sensitive to the local resis-
tivity of the fluid within the pipe and generates a
binary output when their sharp leading edges
FloView images
Water holdup
impinge on droplets of oil or gas in a water-contin-
0
uous phase, or conversely, water in an oil-continu-
ous phase (next page, left). Assuming the fluids 0.5
are distinct and not in an emulsion form, and that
Flow rate
the bubble size is larger than the tip of the probe 1500 B/D 1
0.71 0.58 0.48 0.44
(less than 1 mm), both water holdup and bubble
count measurements may be obtained from the Flow loop photos
binary output of the probe.1
Water holdup is computed from the fraction of
Deviation
the time that the probe is conducting, and bubble 80º 89º 90º 91º from vertical
count comes from the average frequency of the out-
put. In a water-continuous phase, an increasing
■Flow-imaging tool and holdup images. The FloView imaging tool has four probes, which map the local water
bubble count means an increasing hydrocarbon holdup in the borehole (inset above). FloView images show increasing water holdup as deviation decreases
velocity, and vice versa in an oil-continuous phase. and correlate well with flow loop photos.
In biphasic fluid flow, the oil or gas holdup may be
obtained from a closure relationship with the water
In a typical two-phase environment, the FloView cult in highly deviated wells and are impossible in
holdup—the closure relation simply states that the
tool has many advantages over the gradiomano- horizontal wells because the vertical separation
sum of the holdups of all the phases equals unity.
meter (next page, right). Jetting of producing fluid between sensor measure points is reduced and the
The probes cannot discriminate oil from gas.
in front of perforated zones or changes in pipe measurement loses resolution. Finally, if the flow
Even in three-phase fluid flow, this device still
diameter because of scale or restrictions have a velocity is sufficiently high, friction will affect the
yields an accurate water holdup measurement.
venturi pressure effect on gradiomanometer gradiomanometer response.
Averaged local outputs for holdup and bubble
response. The gradiomanometer does not mea-
count are determined for each of the four individ- 1. During most field tests, bubble sizes vary between 1
sure density directly, but measures the gravitation and 5 mm, within the requirements of the probes. Only
ual probes. The outputs from each of these probes at high flow rates (in excess of 2 m/sec [6.5 ft/sec]) are
pressure gradient with differential sensors over a
are combined to map local stratified holdup. smaller bubble sizes experienced that might affect the
known vertical height difference. For this reason, holdup and bubble-count measurements.
gradiomanometer measurements are more diffi-

54 Oilfield Review
 Probe Probe output
Not
Conducting conducting Friction
effects
Third oil
entry

Jetting,
Second venturi
oil effects
entry

First oil
entry

Water
entry
Flow

Stagnant
FloView
water
bubble FloView
count holdup
Gradio
Mud

Oil
■FloView tool and gradiomanometer comparison in two-phase flow. At the bottom
Time Gas of the well (middle), there is frequently some mud and dense stagnant water. The
gradiomanometer (right) responds to density change, and will detect the density
■ Principle of local probe measurement. Oil and gas do not conduct electric decrease above the stagnant fluid, which in many cases might be mistaken for oil
current, but water does. Water holdup is determined by the fraction of time entry. FloView probes do not respond to the water change since both water and
the probe tip is conducting. Bubble count is determined by counting the stagnant water are conductive. Therefore, the holdup (left) remains at 100% and
nonconducting cycles. the bubble count stays at zero. The next zone is producing water, typically opposite
perforations. The gradiomanometer detects another density change, and as before,
this change may be misinterpreted as an oil entry, because the produced water is
invariably less dense than the stagnant water. Once again, FloView probes do not
respond to this water change since both waters are conductive. At the first oil entry
in the next zone, the outputs of the FloView probes will indicate less than 100%
water holdup, and the bubble count will start to increase. The gradiomanometer
density will also record the change, if enough oil enters, and the oil density is suffi-
ciently different from the produced water. As the tool passes across additional oil
entries, FloView water holdup will continue to decrease and the bubble count will
increase. The gradiomanometer will also register these oil entries with a decreasing
density, if the oil entries change the mixture density significantly.

Winter 1996 55
 CPLT Combinable
Production Logging Tool RST Reservoir Saturation Tool FloView tools Fluid marker Total flow rate
Pressure and temperature Oil holdup Bubble velocity injector
Gas indicator Water holdup
Gamma ray
detector

CPLT GR RST
FloView Plus tool Spinner

WFL Water Flow Log PVL Phase Velocity Log

Water velocity Marker injection for oil
Water holdup and/or water velocity
Water flow-rate index

■The PL Flagship tool string. This composite string consists of the CPLT Combinable Production Logging Tool, an RST module with an
extra gamma ray tool, used for water flow logging and PVL Phase Velocity Logging, a FloView Plus fluid imaging tool, a fluid marker
injector tool used with the PVL, and a total flow rate spinner tool. The two imaging FloView tools are mounted with their probes aligned
for enhanced coverage of the borehole cross section.

Horizontal Wells: The Flagship Project

During 1994, British Petroleum Exploration
Operating Co. Ltd. and Schlumberger Oil- Water holdup
field Services established a joint initiative—
“The Flagship Project”—to develop new Above 0.94
techniques for the diagnosis and treatment 0.88 - 0.93
of high-angle and horizontal well produc- 0.82 - 0.87
tion problems. 0.76 - 0.81
The diagnosis part of this project involved
0.71 - 0.75
development of new PL tools. First, a novel
0.65 - 0.70
tool string incorporating sensors targeted at
0.59 - 0.64
the stratified flow regimes encountered in
horizontal and near-horizontal wells was 0.53 - 0.58
developed—combining the CPLT tool, an 0.47 - 0.52
extra gamma ray detector, the RST tool, 0.41 - 0.46
FloView Plus tool, fluid marker injector and 0.35 - 0.40
a total flow rate spinner tool (above).11 This 0.29 - 0.34
equipment is now being used in the North 0.24 - 0.28
Sea and the Middle East to make quantitative
0.18 - 0.23
flow-rate measurements of oil and water in
0.12 - 0.17
cemented and perforated liners, with a long-
term goal of being able to measure three- 0.06 - 0.11

phase flow in uncemented liners. Below 0.5

The first application of this tool string was
to resolve flow profiles and monitor move-
ment of OWCs in the Sherwood sandstone
reservoir, in the Wytch Farm field that strad-
dles the coastline of southern England. Using
extended-reach drilling technology, at least
ten onshore wells were drilled with stepouts
of up to 8000 m [26,248 ft] and having
reservoir sections of up to 2700 m [8858 ft].
The wells have electrically submersible
pumps (ESPs) and produce up to 20,000
BOPD [3178 m3/d]. To manage the field, BP
employs production logging on selected
wells to assess flow profiles with respect to
Average holdup = 0.261
■Holdup image from Wytch Farm 1F-18SP well. Multiple positions of the imaging probes
provide a detailed local holdup image. From this image, the local holdup profile is com-
bined with the different phase velocities to determine multiphase fluid-flow rates.
reservoir zones and to monitor the move- 11. Lenn C, Bamforth S and Jariwala H: ”Flow Diagnosis
ment of OWCs. This information is used to in an Extended Reach Well at the Wytch Farm Oil-
determine future well trajectories, optimize field Using a New Tool string Combination Incorpo-
rating Novel Production Technology,” paper SPE
standoff from the OWC and target future 36580, presented at the SPE Annual Technology Con-
well intervention needs, such as to shut off ference and Exhibition, Denver, Colorado, USA,
October 6-9, 1996.
water and add secondary perforations.
12. Roscoe B: ”Three-Phase Holdup Determination in
Horizontal Wells Using a Pulsed Neutron Source,”
paper SPE 37147, presented at the 1996 SPE Interna-
tional Conference on Horizontal Well Technology,
Calgary, Alberta, Canada, November 18-20, 1996.

56 Oilfield Review
 Three Wytch Farm wells were chosen to
evaluate the new Flagship tool string—two
with water cut and one a dry-oil producer.
The first water-cut well 1F-18SP was drilled
to a 4450 m [14,600 ft] total depth, with a
horizontal displacement of nearly 3800
m [12,468 ft]. Once the main drainhole was
drilled through the productive section, the
well trajectory was dropped to penetrate the
OWC. This permits future logging of the
OWC as it moves. The reservoir was perfo-
rated 33 m [106 ft] above the initial OWC,
giving an initial estimated productivity index
(PI) of 100 B/D/psi.
Production started at 15,000 B/D
[2384 m3/d] dry oil, declining after three
years to a rate of 13,000 B/D [2066 m3/d]
fluid with a 9 to 14% water cut at the time
of logging. This well was selected to test the
new tool string because it had the highest
water cut in the field, penetrated the OWC
and presented the best opportunity for
coiled tubing intervention.
Despite using a revolutionary tool string
for this trial, the logging objectives were typ-
ical of any PL job: To determine the source
of water production, identify the oil and
water profile in the well and assess each
zone’s contribution, and determine any
movement of the OWC in the reservoir.
Analysis of the PL data revealed that the
well was producing fluid along the entire
length of its perforated section. Water pro-
duction was occurring only in the lowest
perforations—in the toe of the well—possi-
bly due to coning in a zone of high vertical
permeability, rather than a general move-
ment of the OWC.
The RST-Sigma saturation monitor logs
showed that the OWC had moved up only
10.8 m [35 ft] from its original position. The
independent WFL velocity and the PVL
water-velocity measurements both showed
good agreement with the PL results. In addi-
tion, oil-velocity measurements were
obtained from the PVL tool.
Local probes on the FloView tool provided
holdup distribution images of the fluids,
confirming that the flow was stratified (previ-
ous page, bottom). In addition, RST-C/O
ratio and borehole salinity from the RST-
Sigma logs were used for holdup analysis
(see “Multiphase Holdup Measurements,”
right). 12 All three methods—FloView
Images, C/O ratio, and borehole salinity—
provided similar results, confirming trends
or conclusions about holdup analysis. Flow
profiles were computed from the velocity
and holdup measurements for both oil and
water phases.
Winter 1996
Multiphase Holdup Measurements
Gas Holdup Response
Near and Far count rate
YG = 0.00
Inelastic N/F ratio
YG = 0.33
Casing YG = 0.67
Inelastic Spectrum Gas YG
YG = 1.00
Porosity
YG
Counts
RST
Carbon Tool
YO
Oxygen C/O Model Response
Water YW
oil
oil
Far C/O ratio
Energy ole
tion
eh
or
ma
B
wa matio
For
ter
For
r
ate
le w
Near and Far C/O ratio re ho
Bo
Near C/O ratio
■Multiphase holdup from RST tool. Inelastic spectra (left) lead to carbon-oxygen ratios and near-and-far
detector count rates. The crossplot of near and far C/O ratio responses are determined primarily by oil holdup
YO in the borehole (lower right plot) and oil volume in the formation. The near-to-far inelastic count rate ratio
(upper right plot) primarily depends on the overall borehole density which is related to the borehole gas
holdup, YG.
Multiphase holdup measurements are made with The RST C/O crossplot response and RST-A
the basic RST C/O measurement, which is usually inelastic near-to-far count rate ratios are used
used to determine the volume of oil in the forma- together to determine multiphase fluid holdup.
tion. The carbon and oxygen signals are generated The inelastic spectra give carbon-oxygen ratios and
by fast neutron inelastic scattering, which leaves detector count rates. The crossplot near detector
these elements in high-energy excited states that C/O ratio response is determined primarily by the
decay immediately by gamma ray emission. oil holdup in the borehole and the far detector C/O
Most carbon-oxygen excitations take place within response by the oil volume in the formation. The
15 to 23 cm [6 to 9 in.] of the tool. This means all near-to-far inelastic count rate ratio primarily
C/O measurements are sensitive to the local ele- depends on the overall borehole density, which is
mental concentrations, and therefore to the relative related to the borehole gas holdup.2 Two-phase (oil
amount of oil and water holdup in the borehole as and water) holdup is determined using the crossplot
well as the saturations in the formation (above). C/O response, while both crossplot and count rate
The RST-A tool has two detectors with one more ratios are used simultaneously for holdup determi-
and one less sensitive to the borehole environ- nation in three-phase (oil, water and gas) solutions.
ment by virtue of their spacing from the source. 1. Roscoe B: ”Three-Phase Holdup Determination in
Gamma ray spectra from both detectors lead to Horizontal Wells Using a Pulsed Neutron Source,”
paper SPE 37147, presented at the 1996 SPE Interna-
relative elemental carbon and oxygen yields, tional Conference on Horizontal Well Technology,
Calgary, Alberta, Canada, November 18-20, 1996.
which are used to solve simultaneously for the vol-
2. An approach to measure borehole gas holdup with a
ume of formation oil and the borehole oil holdup.1 fullbore backscatter gamma ray density tool can be
found in: Kessler C and Frisch G: “New Fullbore Pro-
duction Logging Sensor Improves the Evaluation of
Production in Deviated and Horizontal Wells,” paper
SPE 29815, presented at the 1995 Middle East Oil
Technical Conference, Manama, Bahrain, March
11-14, 1995.
57
 The data acquisition capability of the tool
string allows most critical parameters to be
Log Inputs Inputs Well and Fluid
determined by alternative independent Characteristics
methods—for example, C/O and imaging
holdup data, or WFL and PVL velocity data
Depth Matching
supported by spinner measurements— Data Editing
instilling greater confidence in the results. 7600
The new tool string clearly identified all
the water entry points in the well, confirmed Depth Matching 7700
that the downhole flow was stratified, and
proved that water and oil flow rates could
7800
be accurately determined using the new
phase velocity and C/O-based holdup mea- Fluid Velocity
Calibrations
surements. The upper perforations were pro- Spin - rpm
ducing oil. Oil flow rates derived from the
PVL velocity and C/O holdup, within 500 Stacking
B/D [80 m 3 /d], were 12,500 B/D Cable
Speed
[1986 m3/d]. The water-flow rates derived
Bot. Top Slope Intercept
from the PVL and WFL measurements, 7750 7700 .21 .02
within 500 B/D, were 3500 B/D [556 m3/d]. 7800 7750 .22 .03 Calibrations
In the second water-cut well to be logged Initialization
with the PL Flagship tool string, water entry
was found to be not from the toe as before, Reconstruction Blocking
but from a nonsealing intersecting fault. The Flow Velocity Temp Flow Model
S
logs showed that water was being drawn up o
7600
through the fault from the OWC. Tool Model l
Flow Rate v
In the third well—a dry-oil producer—the Solution e
7700
PVL oil-velocity measurements were tested Tool r
against a fullbore spinner flowmeter in the Incoherence
7800
horizontal drainhole completed with sand
screens. The PVL data matched the spinner Final Results
velocity, which functioned effectively in Tool
Incoherence
monophasic production.
Report and Well Sketch
Tying It All Together—Interpretation
Traditional PL interpretation for vertical 7600 Gas Upper
wells primarily uses density from the gra- Oil perfs
Water
diomanometer to compute oil and water 7700
holdup, and the averaged measured Lower
flowmeter velocity from the spinner to com- perfs
7800
pute fluid-flow rates using the slip velocity
computed from a fluid model.13 Pressure,
temperature and other data are largely
■BorFlo overview. The PL interpretation program allows the engineer to do log stacking,
ignored by conventional PL analysis. calibrations and define well and fluid characteristics interactively. The interpretation
However, such a limited approach is inad- matches the PL measurements with those determined by a fluid-flow model based on dif-
equate for most wells. By using all available ferent flow conditions occurring at each interval.
production logging data, more complete
answers may be delivered with greater confi- Multiple measurement of production 13. Slip velocity is the difference between the two-phase
dence. The BorFlo production logging ana- parameters—such as fluid velocities from average velocities. For discussion of traditional pro-
lyzer is being introduced to do this (above spinners, WFL and PVL logging runs, as well duction log interpretation: Hill AD, reference 2.
14. For example, the Duckler analytical model is used to
right). This single interpretation package uses as holdup measurements from imaging tools determine parameters of the gas/liquid flow regime,
physical models based on fluid dynamics in and RST logs—enable delivery of optimized and the volumetric model developed by Choquette
deviated and horizontal boreholes, relating solutions to the fluid-flow dynamics. Knowl- and Piers separates the oil/water regime. For more on
the development and use of the constrained solver
the physics of fluid flow to the parameters edge of sensor responses allows the opti- PL interpretation models such as PLGLOB: Torre J,
measured by the PL tools (see “Interpreting mization to be based on the confidence lev- Roy MM, Suryanarayana G and Crossoaurd P: ”Go
Multiphase Flow Measurements in Horizon- els of each logging measurement. with the Flow,” Middle East Well Evaluation Review
13 (1992): 26-37.
tal Wells,” next page). With this interactive This forward-modeling program tests the
PL interpretation tool, measurements may be results of different flow conditions, based on
stacked, tool responses calibrated and flow- many iterations, to determine the most likely
rate solutions determined. downhole fluid-flow regime that is consis-
tent with all the borehole geometries, well-
bore environment, and observed production
logging and surface measurements.14

58 Oilfield Review
 Interpreting Multiphase Flow Measurements in Horizontal Wells
A new fluid dynamics-based interpretation model
called the Stratflo model has been developed to
compute oil-water flow rates from logging mea-
surements in high-angle and horizontal wells.1 The
model depends on basic flow equations, which, in
turn, depend on dynamic parameters such as fluid
velocities and holdup, and static parameters such
as well diameter, borehole deviation, and fluid
densities and viscosities. Frictional terms at the
casing wall are based on monophasic results
(right). At the phase interface a simple flat inter-
face frictional model is assumed. A correlation for
the frictional factor between the two phases has
been developed from flow-loop measurements.
The model is based on the principle that the
pressure variation ∆P along the axis of the well in
each phase is equal. In steady state, the pressure
variation in each phase has a hydrostatic compo-
nent, which depends on density and the borehole
deviation (the difference in height of the vertical
positions), and a frictional component, which can
be divided into two parts: the shear stress on the
wall for oil Tow and water Tww, and the shear stress
on the fluid interface Ti.
The steady-state model simply sets the pres-
sure in the oil ∆Po equal to the pressure drop in
the water ∆Pw, by defining a function
F = ∆Po – ∆Pw = 0.
In this model, the function F depends on dynamic
parameters such as flow rates and holdup, as
well as static parameters, such as flowing diam-
Winter 1996
eter D, deviation angle, θ, fluid densities ρo and
θ
ρw, and viscosities, µo and µw. For example, in
terms of the dynamic parameters Vw water veloc- Tow
ity and Vo oil velocity and Yw water holdup, the Vo
Ti
function can be expressed as Vw ρo ∆h
ρw
∆P Tww
F(Vw, Vo, Yw) = 0.
∆P in water = ∆P in oil
This function is a nonlinear algebraic equation Pressure Drop
Wall friction (Tw)
and a function of three independent variables. Interfacial friction (Ti)
To use the model, readily-measured parameters ∆P
Gravity (ρ,devi)
such as local holdup and velocity measurements
may be used for two of the necessary input
dynamic parameters. With the mass conservation ■Stratified flow model. The flow model for two-
equations, which relate flow rates, velocities and phase flow equates the pressure difference due to the
hydrostatic head (which depends on borehole devia-
water holdup, the model can be solved for other tion angle θ), ∆h, and the wall, Tw, and interfacial, Ti,
combinations of inputs, depending on available friction components for each of the two fluids.
data. Outputs are computed from the flow model
and mass-conservation equations using a root-
finding technique. Flow model
The flow model gives good results up to about 1.0 Flow model
Flow=800 B/D
6000 B/D [953 m3/d] for each phase—the limit
Flow=7000 B/D
0.8
where the simple flat interface starts to degener-
Water holdup
ate as the mixing layer grows. The model accu-
0.6
rately accounts for the variation in holdup at differ-
ent borehole angles and flow rates (right).
0.4
1. Theron BE and Unwin T: ”Stratified Flow Model and
Interpretation in Horizontal Wells,” paper SPE 36560,
presented at the 1996 SPE Annual Technical Confer- 0.2
ence and Exhibition, Denver, Colorado, USA, October
6-9 1996.
0
87 88 89 90 91 92
Deviation, deg
■Measured and predicted holdup variation. Holdup
was measured at different deviations and flow rates
in the Schlumberger Cambridge Research flow loop
and compared with results predicted by the stratified
flow model StratFlo. The results show the rapid vari-
ation in holdup with borehole deviation at low flow
rates (red curve), as well as the reduced holdup sen-
sitivity at a high flow rate (yellow curve). The results
are shown for a water cut of 50%.
59
The Outlook
The ongoing development effort in under-
standing three-phase flow is delivering
results—including detailed gas holdup and
velocity measurements—that are reshaping
PL services. However, there is still an impor-
tant flow domain not adequately covered by
today’s technology—environments where
there is low water holdup and significant
drainhole deviation. Work is under way at
SCR to understand the complex fluid
dynamics, flow instabilities and phase mix-
ing in all regions. This experimentation
together with hydrodynamic modeling will
lead to better future understanding and
management of flow in the borehole (right).
Improved instrumentation and tool tech-
nology are also promising faster, more effi-
cient and lower-cost services—some using
slickline. Other applications will see per-
manent downhole sensors used for produc-
tion monitoring. 15 These devices are
rapidly becoming more sophisticated, mea-
suring properties other than temperature
and pressure—such as hydrocarbons and
phase mixing.
The outlook for production logging is cer-
tainly brighter now that it has been at any
time during the last decade. Operators can
look forward not only to a better under-
standing of their reservoirs, but also to use
of this knowledge for more effectively man- ■Computed 3D droplet-averaged simulations of two-phase flow showing the effects of
aging their assets. shear instabilities. Mapped projections of fluid holdup are shown for horizontal (top) and
—RH vertical (middle) lateral cross section of the borehole and at four positions cutting vertically
across a borehole (bottom). Oil (red) rises due to buoyancy forming an emulsified layer of
15. Baker A, Gaskell J, Jeffery J, Thomas A, Veneruso T, oil on the high side of the pipe. The lighter, upper layer flows at a higher velocity than does
and Unneland T: ”Permanent Monitoring—Looking the water (blue). This shear flow becomes unstable and an instability occurs that causes
at Lifetime Reservoir Dynamics,” Oilfield Review 7, the emulsion of oil to disperse in the water: large eddies mix the two phases up. Then the
no. 4 (Winter 1995): 32-46. process repeats farther up the pipe. Such fluid simulations help scientists test fluid-flow
models under many conditions and design better methods to measure their properties.

Technology Forum

In conjunction with the Schlumberger ClientLink initiative,

Oilfield Review announces its first online technology discussion.

The Production Logging Web-Forum

is an interactive site for comments on this article, inquiries about technology, or open
discussions concerning production logging tools, interpretation and applications.

To access this forum, point your browser to the following URL:

www.connect.slb.com/forums/pl/

If you have problems making the connection, please E-mail:

skipton@slb.com

60 Oilfield Review
 Fluid Flow Fundamentals
Full appreciation of developments in production logging requires an understanding of the complex
mechanics of fluid flow. This article outlines the basics of both monophase and multiphase flow.
Gérard Catala
Bernard Théron
Clamart, France
Gilbert Conort
Montrouge, France
John Ferguson
Cambridge, England
Researchers have sought for years to under-
stand and model the complex flow regimes
found within oil wells. The advent of
increased high-angle and horizontal wells
has only served to make this task harder.
Today, detailed theoretical work coupled
with extensive experimentation has
expanded the frontiers of fluid mechanics
knowledge, which in turn has helped in the
development of new production logging
sensors and analysis (see “Revitalizing Pro-
duction logging,” page 44).
Although many key advances have been
made in understanding multiphase flow, it is
first necessary to be familiar with the key
elements of monophase flow.
For help preparing this article, thanks to Christian
Besson, Ken Stephenson and Colin Whittaker,
Schlumberger Cambridge Research (SCR), Cambridge,
England.
1. Dynamic fluid viscosity indicates a fluid’s resistance
to flow, caused by shear resistance primarily across an
interface. Kinetic viscosity is defined as dynamic vis-
cosity divided by the density of the fluid.
2. Some shallow wells produce low-gravity crudes
where water-in-oil emulsions occur. The viscosity of
these fluids may exceed 100 to 1000 cp, and in these
situations laminar flow may be expected.
Winter 1996
Monophase Fluid Flow
How fluids flow in a pipe depends largely
on the pipe diameter D and on the physical
characteristics of the fluid: velocity V, den-
sity ρ, and dynamic viscosity µ.1 Inside pipe,
monophasic fluid flow is either turbulent or
laminar (right).
In laminar flow, the fluid layers slide
smoothly over each other. Momentum
exchange is at the molecular scale. Instabili-
ties are damped by viscosity, producing vis-
cous shear forces that resist the relative
motion of adjacent fluid layers. The velocity
profile of laminar flow increases uniformly
in a parabolic fashion from the pipe wall
inward across the pipe.
Typically, laminar flow is encountered
only under slow-flowing conditions, for
example near the bottom of the borehole.
For a typical well with a 35⁄8-in. casing,
water would have to flow less than about
8 in./sec [20 cm/sec] to maintain laminar
flow. For most flowing wells, turbulent flow
is the norm.2 In turbulent flow, the fluid
exhibits erratic motion with a violent
exchange of momentum and locally circu-
lating currents—vortices—resulting in a flat-
ter velocity profile across the pipe.
A wellbore’s fluid-flow character is deter-
mined by the dimensionless Reynolds num-
ber, N Re, the ratio of the fluid’s inertial
Laminar Flow
Dye
Turbulent Flow
Dye
■Laminar and turbulent velocity profiles
visualized using marker dye. Laminar flow
(top) is characterized by unmixed parallel
fluid streams of increasing velocity starting
from stationary fluid at the inside surface of
the pipe to the most rapidly moving fluid at
the center. The velocity profile across the
pipe is parabolic. Turbulent flow (bottom)
shows a rapid mixing and exchange of
fluid volumes across the pipe. The resulting
velocity profile is relatively uniform across
the pipe cross section.
forces—momentum—to its static frictional
forces—viscosity:
ρ×V×D .
NRe =
µ
If NRe is less than about 2000, the fluid flow
will be laminar, and if NRe is greater than
4000, the flow will be fully turbulent, with
a transition region between. In the transition
region, the flow profile depends on whether
the fluid is free of disturbances, especially
in the fluid inlet area.
61

The mixing layer thickness λ is:
For a given pipe deviation = constant
For a horizontal pipe ≈ 0
For a vertical pipe ≈ ∞
p
O
u
ho l
er ca
ld
il
at o
w L
M laye
ixi r
ng
W
at
er
Decreasing
average
water holdup
Increasing
average
water holdup
■Multiphase flow structures. Downhole
multiphase flow consists of a mixing layer
of bubbles between two monophase lay-
ers. The mixing layer thickness (λ)
depends on the pipe diameter and inclina-
tion. In vertical wells, the mixing layer is
infinitely large, and mixing is uniform
across the pipe. For horizontal wells with
stratified flow, there is essentially no mix-
ing layer. In deviated wells, as average
water holdup increases, the mixing layer
moves up across the pipe as shown by the
position of the local water holdup profile
(blue line) within the red box.
Multiphase Flow Dynamics
In general, production logs are used to
diagnose unwanted water or gas entries at
downhole conditons, where: oil and water
are immiscible; gas is miscible with water,
in small quantities; and gas is miscible with
oil, in large quantities. At a given pressure
and temperature, oil and water can absorb
a given amount of gas until they are saturat-
ed with gas. Above this gas saturation con-
centration limit, gas cannot mix further and
stays as a separate gas phase. So for a given
pressure and temperature, there can be up
to three phases: oil with gas in solution—
traditionally called oil; water with a small
quantity of gas in solution—traditionally
called water; and free gas—gas.3
When more than one phase is flowing in a
pipe, gravity ensures that the light phase
travels at a faster speed than the heavier
phase. The speed difference is called the slip
velocity. This phenomenon generates a dif-
ference between the phase flow-rate ratios
and the phase concentrations—for example,
in an oil-and-water system, the water cut is
always smaller than the water holdup.
62
Nearly vertical well
• Oil and water (mixed)
everywhere across the
section of the pipe.
• Smooth velocity
profiles.
• Almost linear holdup
profiles.
Deviated well
• Very complex flow
structure.
• Monophasic water
phase at the bottom
of the pipe.
• Dispersed oil phase at
the uppermost of the
pipe.
• Large velocity and
holdup gradients.
Nearly horizontal well
• Almost stratified flows.
• Monophasic oil at the
top and monophasic
water at the bottom.
• Narrow mixing layer.
• Oil and water streams
flow at different
velocities.
3. Flow structure and speed are phase-steering mecha-
nisms that may accelerate or slow down the physical-
chemical equilibrium of the three fluid phases. Empiri-
cal equations are used for transforming the quantities
seen downhole to surface, ambient conditions. These
corrections are small and approximate, and therefore
it is appropriate to neglect these steering effects at log-
ging conditions.
4. The holdup profile can be approximated by a linear
function.
■Flow structures changing with deviation.
Holdup and velocity profiles are deter-
Velocity mined by the pipe deviation, average
water holdup and the size of the mixing
layer. In nearly vertical wells up to 20°
(top), the mixing layer is large and extends
across the pipe diameter. There is a
smooth varying mix of oil and water across
the pipe. As pipe deviation is slightly
Top Bottom
increased, gravity ensures there is a higher
Holdup concentration of oil in the upper section.
1
In moderate to highly deviated wells of 20°
to 85° (middle), portions of the pipe have
monophasic fluid flow. The multiphase flu-
0
ids segregate by gravity with the heavy
Top Bottom fluid at the bottom of the pipe. The mixing
layer moves towards the top of the pipe,
and this domain has the most complex
flow structure with large gradients of veloc-
ity and holdup distributions. At low flow
rates, backflow may occur, where water is
recirculated. The water velocity will be
Velocity
negative in the lowest portion of the pipe.
In nearly horizontal and horizontal wells,
from 85° to 95°, the mixing layer becomes
0 small, almost disappearing at 90° (bottom).
The flow is monophasic oil at the top of the
Top Bottom pipe and monophasic water at the bottom
of the pipe. As soon as the well deviates
Holdup
1 slightly from 90°, the monophasic oil and
water streams flow at different velocities.
0
Top Bottom In a system with multiphase flow, buoy-
ancy due to pipe deviation causes different
density phases to separate with a mixing
layer of dispersed bubbles in between.
Separation into at least two different immis-
cible phases with a mixing layer in between
Velocity
leads to what is called a flow structure.
Multiphase flow structures—at least in
two-phase flow—are characterized by the
width of the mixing layer. Under these con-
ditions, another parameter of the flow sys-
Top Bottom
tem becomes critical to understanding the
Holdup flow structure: deviation angle of the pipe
1
from vertical. The mixing layer thickness is
fixed for a given pipe diameter and borehole
deviation. As the overall fractional volume
0
of water in the pipe—water holdup—
Top Bottom changes, the position of the mixing layer
moves across the pipe diameter (above left).
Even with a relatively simple two-phase
system, such as water and oil, the effect of
borehole deviation on mixing and flow
structure is complicated. At least three types
of flow structures can be defined based on
the pipe deviation angle.
First, in vertical wells, the oil and water
phases are fully mixed across the entire pipe
cross section. Even for wells with a deviation
less than 20°, the mixing layer is large and
the two phases are mixed across the pipe
with a smooth velocity profile. However, as
soon as the pipe is deviated further, gravity
Oilfield Review

■The Schlumberger-Cambridge Research
(SCR) flow loop. Built in 1985, the flow loop
can handle two- and three-phase fluid
flows to over 6000 B/D in 100-ft [30-m]
clear, high-strength pipes. The flow loop
can be tilted to simulate borehole devia-
tions from horizontal to vertical.
creates a higher concentration of oil in the
upper section of the pipe. The profile of local
water holdup is slowly varying across the
pipe (previous page, right).4 With this kind of
flow structure, averaged measurements
across the pipe using traditional PL sensors—
fullbore spinner and gradiomanometer—are
adequate to determine velocity and holdup.
Second, in deviated wells between 20° to
85°, portions of the pipe cross section have
monophasic flow, but the overall flow struc-
ture is complex. Heavy phase, typically
water, due to gravity, segregates at the bot-
tom of the pipe, and the mixing layer is now
located at the uppermost part of the pipe
with dispersed bubbles of oil or gas. In
mixed gas-liquid flow, the structure can be
more complex. The gas can flow in slugs
instead of small bubbles. This flow structure
has large gradients in the velocity and local
holdup distributions. At low flow rates,
water is frequently recirculated, and the
water velocity at the bottom of the pipe may
be negative in some areas.
At high flow rates, differential acceleration
of phases due to the shear forces between
the different fluid phases can lead to insta-
bilities know as Kelvin-Helmholtz instabili-
ties, almost causing a breakdown in stratifi-
cation. Under these conditions, production
logging sensors that yield average answers
Winter 1996
6000
Total flow rate, B/D
1500
600
80º 89º
Deviation from vertical
are not sufficient to understand the flow
structure. Local measurements made across
the pipe diameter are needed to clarify the
velocity and holdup profiles.
Last, for horizontal wells, with deviation
from approximately 85° to 95°, the flow
structure becomes completely stratified,
with little or no mixing. Water flows at the
bottom, and the oil or gas phase flows at the
top. At low flow rates, the flow behavior has
a strong dependence on the well deviation.
As soon as the borehole deviates slightly
from 90°, the monophasic oil and water
streams flow at different velocities.
At Schlumberger Cambridge Research,
Cambridge, England, controlled flow-loop
experiments with equal flow rates for oil
and water demonstrate the dramatic effects
of borehole deviation. (above left). At 90°,
oil and water velocities and holdup are
nearly equal. At 89°, the oil, which is lighter
than the water, accelerates under the action
of the buoyancy forces, and as a conse-
quence the water velocity decreases and the
interface level rises (above right).
In this case, the water holdup is high. The
effect is large, even at 89°, because the lon-
gitudinal buoyancy forces are already large
compared to the frictional shearing forces.
Here the water is flowing uphill, and there-
fore flows more slowly than the lighter oil.
Oil
Water
Oil
Water
Oil
Water
90º 91º
■Water-oil stratified flow in the SCR flow
loop. These experiments show a strong
dependence of the flow behavior on well
deviation at low flow rates. The structure
of the flow, holdup and velocity profiles
change completely between 89° and 91°
(lower rightmost figures). Here the oil and
water flow rates are both equal at 300 B/D
in a 5 1⁄2-in. pipe.
At 90°, oil and water velocities, shown by
arrows, and holdups are nearly equal. Oil
viscosity is slightly higher than water,
leading to oil velocity and holdup being
slightly slower and larger than water. With
a borehole deviation of only 89°, the heav-
ier water, which is flowing uphill, slows
down. As a result, water holdup increases
to maintain the same flow rate. Lighter oil
will speed up to maintain the same flow
rate. Effects at 89° are large, because lon-
gitudinal buoyancy forces are already
large compared to frictional forces. At a
borehole deviation of 80°, the change in
flow continues, but not as fast as the
change between 90 and 89°.
If the borehole deviates upwards to 91°,
heavier water now flowing downhill
speeds up, while holdup decreases to
maintain the same flow rate. Oil does the
opposite, slowing down in the 91° bore-
hole, with an accompanying increase in
holdup. The dependence on the deviation
is smaller at high flow rates, because fric-
tional forces against the pipe wall and at
the fluid interface increase at higher veloc-
ities to become the predominant forces
(middle figures). At high flow rates, the
interface between the two phases is no
longer flat, but wavy and bubbly showing
emerging shear instabilities (top).
63

Pure oil
Pure water
90º
3 tion is smaller because the increasing shear
4 2
Pure
oil 1 Pure
Deviation
0º
0%
Average water holdup
■Four domains of flow derived from flow
structure variation with deviation and
holdup. The traditional PL environment
Domain-1 has small borehole deviations
and a large mixing layer across the entire
pipe. Holdup and velocity profiles are
slowly changing. Domain-2 has deviated
wells with high water holdup and complex
water velocity profiles. In highly deviated
and horizontal wells, Domain-3, the mixing
layer is small and the flow consists of strat-
ified flow with monophasic regions at the
bottom and top of the pipe. Domain-4 has
deviated holes and low water holdup.
64
At 91°, the water flows downhill much
faster than the oil because its density is
higher. The oil-water interface level drops,
and the water holdup is low. At high flow
rates, the dependence on borehole devia-
frictional forces against the wall and inter-
water face dominate. Under high flow-rate condi-
tions, the position of the interface, and
100%
therefore average water holdup, is not as
dependent on borehole deviation as is the
case in lower rates of flow.
In multiphase flow, the flows are usually
considered turbulent, although laminar flow
can occur when the borehole is perfectly
horizontal. As soon as the borehole is no
longer horizontal, one phase accelerates
and generates turbulence. The Reynolds
number, which is clearly defined in a pipe
with monophasic flow, can be redefined in
multiphase flow in several ways by using the
mixture velocity or the velocity of each
phase and slip velocity. At present, there is
no general consensus on what to use for an
appropriate definition of Reynolds number
in multiphase flow.
The types of flow structures, discussed here,
can be classified into four domains, with
respect to the borehole pipe deviation and
the average water holdup. (left).
In Domain-1, the lowest region of the plot,
are the traditional production logging mea-
surements and techniques—applied to verti-
cal and nearly vertical wells. These wells
have simple velocity and holdup profiles,
where average measurements are suffi-
ciently accurate to determine fluid-flow
rates. In the right region of the plot,
Domain-2, are deviated wells with high
water holdup. Here the velocity profiles are
complex, sometimes changing direction
across the pipe, and detailed measurements
are necessary to accurately determine the
multiphase flow rates. In Domain-3, in the
upper region of the plot are the nearly hori-
zontal wells, and their special problems
with stratified fluid distributions and flow.
Here, detailed holdup and velocity flow
information is needed to determine accurate
flow rates.
Finally, there is Domain-4 in the leftmost
region, where development is still ongoing
to understand flow velocity and holdup
distributions. Generally speaking, this
domain is symmetrical to Domain-2. The
top of the pipe cross section is filled by
monophasic oil and the bottom by a bub-
bly mixture. The velocity profile across the
pipe is complex. This is currently an area of
active research.
Modeling in the Future
An increasingly sophisticated understand-
ing of the mechanisms of different types of
fluid flow is helping to improve production
logging services. Fluid-flow models, based
on a better understanding of the different
flow structures, are routinely used to help
interpret PL measurements.
However, the current models are still too
limited to accurately tackle all the con-
stantly changing flow structures actually
seen within oil wells. The challenge is to not
only develop these improved models, but
also to introduce appropriate new logging
measurements that adapt to every possible
flow structure.
Oilfield Review