Production Logging Interpretation

Production Logging Interpretation
PLT Course
Purpose of this course is:

acquire a good knowledge of PLT interpretation
But it is also a practical session
Understand the acquisition/constraints
By the end of these session :

Propose the good sequence/program to fulfill you needs
Be able to interpret simple PLT/to reopen previous interpretation
Challenge RSV interpretation
Understand uncertainties
But this course won’t speak about

Technology (contractors) not used in TEPI
other cased hole logging methodology (Cf Pierre Rouelle Training)
2 Balikpapan – March 2011

Production Logging
Purpose of PLT
Evaluate reservoir performance
Production/Injection profile for production allocation
Productivity per reservoir
Reservoir pressure
Check completion integrity
Diagnose well problems
Water entry
Casing/Tubing Leaks
Low production
Additional loggings are available to help in well behavior understanding

CBL
Water flowlog
Pulse Neutron logs
Radioactive tracer log
PL can give unique information, unobtainable via any other method
MRPL vs SRPL
PLT acquisition sequence has to be designed to fullfill your need
SRPL (or even 2 rates) will give you only a production profile and possibly water
entry
SRPL is recommended for new wells in which the reservoir pressure are known
MRPL allow the reservoir engineer to get access to many data

Production profile at several Well head conditions
Productivity per reservoir
Reservoir pressure
Cross flows and type of fluid
Several rates allow sometimes to get information not obvious on SRPL
But MRPL is recommended when the eruptivity is correct (no outflow problems)
Higher are the rates better are the data for IPR/pressure estimation
When the fluid velocity is low, the flow regime change inside the well change
To have a good diagnostic, Don’t wait the

well is dying to ask for a PLT
PLT Acquisition
Types of logging strings and methods:

Memory (slickline)
Main acquisition done in TEPI
Cable with electrical connection to surface (wireline)
Horizontal or highly deviated wells

Tractor
Need Wireline equipment
Coiled tubing (with memory or surface readout)
Data quality could be very problematic
PL operations - Memory
Stuffing Box
Advantages
Less costs, especially in logistics.
Fast
Easy to run
Portability
Slickline Unit
Disadvantages BOP
Once set, no change in acquisition mode
No QA/QC at surface during acquisition
Some limitations on sensors (power
requirements)
Possible high friction in the well (especially
for deviated well)
Depth vs TIME
DATA vs DEPTH
(reconstructed)
Battery pack
Memory section
PL sensors Data vs TIME
PL operations – Electric-Line
Advantages
Reliable Grease seal
Quality control at surface
Program can be adjusted depending on results
Can log all tool type
Downhole calibration can be done on few sensors
Disadvantages BOP Logging unit

Constraint in deviation
More expensive than slickline in logistics
Need data acquisition system (logging unit)
PL sensor data recorded in the

surface computer.
Depth and cable speed recorded
by the surface computer.
Power sent down the cable

to the tool.
PL sensor signals sent up
the cable continuously
Conveyance Methods :
Tractor and Coiled Tubing
These are types specific for horizontal or high deviated wellswells
Advantages
Can log horizontally
Can log in case of high frictions
Can log even with some restrictions
=
Schlumb erger
Dowell
Disadvantges
expensive
Coiled Tubing
logging speed not always constant due to friction between the pipes
Tractor
Limited available velocity
In some configuration, could log up only
May not be able to log complete interval

Conveyance Methods
Tractor and Coiled Tubing
Coiled Tubing Logging

Advantages Disadvantages
High success rate CTL unit mobilization
Rig not required Extra personnel
Maintains well control Limited reach (Helixing)
Stimulation
Tractor
Advantages Disadvantages
Fast Cased hole only*
All standard PS services Can only log in one direction*
Standard Field Crew Not suited for every well
* Recently, tractors are available that can be run in open

hole and are capable of logging in both directions
Production logging tools
1 - Reference, date, place
Tool Summary : Main Measurements
The selection of the tool depends on the purpose of the PLT
Each tool has its role

1. Depth Matching
1. Gamma Ray (could help to locate radioactive scales)
2. CCL
2. Flowrate computation , Completion integrity (scales)

1. Caliper
2. Centralisers
3. Single phase profiles (i.e. injector)

1. Temperature (PVT, Liquid indicator)
2. Pressure (PVT & Res. Pressure)
3. Spinner Flowmeter (fluid velocity)
4. For a Multi-phase production

1. Density measurement
2. Fluid mixture hold up tool

Typical PL Tool string
Sondex
MPLT
PLT Tools – Standard tools

Gamma- Ray
Usually, the depth matching is done thanks to the GR log
Needs to load the open hole GR
Could give good indications of water source if scales are radioactives
With gravel pack, Frac-Pack, the natural radioactivity is not more visible.
CCL
CCL could help in depth matching if particular completion elements can be identified
Perforations may sometimes
Caliper
Caliper diameter is measured thanks to 2 perpendicular arms
Diameter is mandatory to compute flow rate
Even with an accurate completion sketch, caliper data has to be examined
Scales could be observed thanks to the caliper
Centralisers
To keep the tool in the middle of the wellbore is important to get a representative data (downhole
recirculation)

PLT Tools - Flowmeter
In line Flowmeters
small spinner
good for high flowrates
Mainly used as backup spinner
Full bore Flowmeters

maximum spinner blade size
best for wide range of flowrates
For injection wells could be
replaced by turbine
Petal Basket
stationary measurement
good for low flowrates
May affect flow regime
In line Fullbore Petal Basket
PLT Tools – Flowmeter types
Turbine
Spinner
Fullbore Spinner Fullbore Spinner Continuous In-line Spinner Diverter

3-arm 6-arm Spinner Flowmeter

PLT Tools – Temperature tools
SCHLUMBERGER - RTD
Temperature is one of the most useful “auxiliary”
measurements made in production logging.
SPECIFICATION RANGE
Temperature is very important as it is a good liquid indicator
in gas wells Temperature (max) 150 C
Pressure (max) 15000 psi
The temperature can be more sensitive to small flows than
the flowmeters Range Ambient – 150 deg c
Length 12.5”
Combined with pressure it helps compute the PVT
Accuracy 1 deg C
parameters.
Resolution 0.006 deg C
The response time is very important more than the resolution
itself (especially for quantitative temperature analysis)
In addition, it will detect very small fluid entries:

SONDEX - PRT
The derivative of temperature wrt depth (dT/dZ) can
be used to clarify fluid entries in complex SPECIFICATION RANGE
environments.
Temperature (max) 177 C
Gas entries, for example, are characterized by a
sharp reduction in temperature. Pressure (max) 15000 psi
Range 10-177 deg C
It is the only tool in the string that “sees” behind casing, Length 12.5”
hence it can be used to detect channeling.
Response time < 0.5 second
Accuracy 0.5 deg C
Resolution 0.003 deg C
PLT Tools - Density
Density is used to determine liquid source entry
Three technology are available on the market :

Gradiomanometer
Tool measure the difference in pressure between two points
Nuclear fluid density tool
Gamma ray absorption
Tuning fork density (New technology not yet tried)
Frequency measure
Derivative of pressure data gives another density log

PLT Tools - Gradiomanometer
Silicon oil
ρso
P2 - P1
Differential
(tool specific)
Pressure
Transducer- PB - PA
Diaphragm
(friction, deviation)
Density
In gas wells, frictions are very important as dependant of fluid velocity
Despite friction gradient is supposed to be corrected, by experience, frictions are not

well corrected (uncertain parameter : roughness)
Deviation will also affect the accuracy of measurement

SCHLUMBERGER - Gradiomanometer Issues

INFORMATION :
O-114 is main gas producer
(1.8 MMscfd)
Only 15 bbls/d of water at surface +
25 bbls/d of condensate can not
match such density increase
Well deviation is ~28 deg
Gradio response shows increase in
density
No liquid entry indication by
WATER SOURCE OR NOT? temperature and water hold up
sensors
Major density increase gives
misinterpretation of water source
Friction, deviation and jetting effect
shows water source as if from this
reservoir.
f = friction factor (Re, roughness)

V = speed of fluid
dP fρV 2 S S = surface contact with fluid
Friction Æ = ×
dZ 8 A A = area opened to flow
ρ = density
Gradiomanometer is very sensitive to frictions, deviation and jetting

effect
Need to be confirmed by other sensors
PLT Tool – Nuclear Density tool
The main advantage of the nuclear density tool is that the reading is not affected by wellbore
friction, deviations
Give a true fluid mixture density value
Based on TEPI experience, success ratio very good
Main disadvantage is the presence of nuclear source
Direct density measurement

γ-ray
Count rate measured at the detector is a function of the
electron density in the fluid around the tool
Some RA Density tools measure the density in a cavity,

within the diameter of the density tool itself, and
consequently the density measurement is measured
according to the tool position in the wellbore.
PLT tools - Pseudo-density
dp/dZ calculated from p vs Z
Needs:
- correction for pipe friction
- correction for deviation

PLT Tools – Density tools in TEPI
SONDEX - FDR SCHLUMBERGER - Gradiomanometer
Object of measurement : Object of measurement :
Radioactive Emission Pressure Differences
SPECIFICATION RANGE SPECIFICATION RANGE

Temperature (max) 350 F Temperature (max) 350 F
Pressure (max) 15000 psi Pressure (max) 15000 psi
Diameter 1 11/16 in Deviation (max) 70 degree
Length 585 mm Diameter 1 11/16 in
Range 0-1.25 g/cc Length 51.9 in
Accuracy +/- 0.03 g/cc Range 0-1.5 g/cc
Resolution 0.01 g/cc Accuracy +/- 0.03 g/cc
Not affected by well bore deviation Advantages More stable than pressure gauge derivative
Not affected by friction
Advantages Big error in fluid density estimation
Give instantaneous fluid density
Center tool –flow regime problem
Close 100% success ratio
Drawbacks Affected by wellbore deviation
Use nuclear source (Am-241)
Affected by wellbore friction
Drawbacks Center tool – problem with flow regime
Sensitive to ‘jetting effect’
Fluid circulation – design problem
Quite ‘frequently’ failure – silicon oil problem
PLT Tools - Density
The density measurement give an instant picture of the fluids in the well
As quicklook, do not interpret systematicaly density increase as a water
source (especially for gradio-manometer tool)
To confirm the validity of data, uses the derivative of pressure as a second

density profile
The slowest pass is best, as there are less effects on the curve.
Look for changes which will indicate entries of different fluids.
The sump may give confusing readings due to completion fluid

PLT Tools – Fluid Hold up tools
The purpose of this tool is to determine the mixture hold up and

determine the relative proportions of the phases present
Two main way to measure it

Single sensor in the “middle” of the wellbore
Capacitance/Impedance tools
Imaging tools that allow you to have a complete view of the borehole with several
probes : Multi array tool
Two main manufacturers are
Sondex :
Multi Capacitance (CAT)
Multi Resistivity (RAT)
Schlumberger : 4 probes
Multi Resistivity (flowview)
Optical probes (GHOST)
PLT Tools - Capacitance

This tool use the difference between the
dielectric constant of water (78) and that of oil
or gas (4).
A simple way to find the dielectric constant of

a fluid is to use the fluid as the dielectric
between the plates of a capacitor
The capacitance may be found by classical

methods such as including it in an RC network
and finding the resonant frequency
Hence the tool measures frequency… counts

/sec
This tool needs a calibration

Before job (in air and water)
During job (in water and hydrocarbon from shut-in pass)
So not possible with memory PLT and never done with E-line jobs (no witnessing)

PLT Tools – Capacitance Limitations
0
This class of tools works

Satisfactory well as long as
Yw hydrocarbon are the
continuous phase
0.5
Yw = 0.4
The tool goes into
“conductive” mode when
the water becomes the
dominant phase
1
6000 cps 3000
This tool needs calibration (surface check, and downhole in-situ calibration)
In practice they become unreliable if the water cut is above 30% - 40%
Filming and wetting effect could affect the interpretation
PLT Tools – Multi probe tools
The purpose of this tool is to determine the mixture hold up and

determine the relative proportions of the phases present thanks
to several probes
Imaging tools that allow you to have a complete view of the

borehole with several probes : Multi array tool
Two main manufacturers used in TEPI
Sondex :
Multi Capacitance (CAT) : trial done on PCK
Multi Resistivity (RAT)
Schlumberger : 4 probes
Multi Resistivity (flowview)
Optical probes (GHOST)

PLT Tools – Flowview (DEFT) - Probe principle
Used to differentiate water and

hydrocarbon
4 probes located on the caliper arms

Relative bearing recorded
Several position are possible
Based on resistivity measurement

Need a saline water
Distinct fluids (no emulsions)
Flow not affected by presence of the tool

(down pass)
It is not unusual to discard up passes
Only differentiates between water and

hydrocarbons
Cannot differentiate between condensate
and gas
Better gas bubble estimation in water column
Possibility to obtain wellbore image
PLT Tools – DEFT Limitations

DEFT sensibility depends on main phase
Water continuous phase
Current is emitted from the probe tip and returns to the tool
body
A small droplet of HC will break the circuit and will be
recorded
Gas continuous phase
A droplet of water touching the probe tip will not provide an
electrical circuit.
Instead, the water droplet must connect the electrical probe
to the earth wire. Thus a larger droplet is needed for gas or
oil detection than in a water-continuous phase
The fluid response is affected by the fluid

velocity especially in gas column
Î DEFT is not recommanded for high flowrate
The signal from the FloView probe lies between two baselines,
the continuous water-phase response and the continuous
hydrocarbon-phase response.
To capture small transient bubble readings a dynamic threshold

is adjusted close to the continuous phase and then compared
with the probe waveform.
The number of times the waveform crosses the threshold is

counted and divided by 2 to deliver a probe bubblecount

PLT Tools – Hold up tools in TEPI
SONDEX - CWH SCHLUMBERGER – DEFT/FLOW VIEW
Object of measurement : Object of measurement :
Fluid dielectric constant Fluid Resistivity
SPECIFICATION RANGE SPECIFICATION RANGE

Temperature (max) 177 C Temperature (max) -25 – 150 C
Pressure (max) 15000 psi Pressure (max) 15000 psi
Diameter 1 11/16 in Length 1.75 m
Length 666 mm Weight 11 kg
Accuracy 1.0% Accuracy 5%
bubble >2 mm
Resolution 0.1%
Dev < 30 deg
Good for vertical well

Advantages
Dedicated to “3 phase” identification Multi point sensors (4 probes)
Advantages Dedicated to water detection (in gas
and oil well)
Center tool – problem with flow regime
Limited in BSW (40%) Limitation in fluid velocity
Drawbacks
Drawbacks Measured in single point Limitation in water salinity (2000 ppm)
Need down hole in-situ calibration
Wetting Effect
Sondex – Capacitance Array Tool (CAT)

Same technology as capacitance
12 capacitances positioned on centralizing arms

All sensors are located on the periphery
Same limitation as capacitance
Trials done in TEPI concluded in overestimation of

water
SONDEX - CAT
12 Probes

PLT Tools – GHOST - Probe principle
Used to differentiate gas and liquid
4 optical probes positioned on centralizing arms

Relative bearing recorded
0.1 mm diameter sensing area
No wetting effects
No maximum phase velocity limitation
Reflection of light to photodiode is

high in gas and low in liquid.
Water Flow Log

Based on Oxygen activation of the water with a neutron emitter
Gamma rays are transported by water and are detected by Near and Far detectors)
Detect water movement

Either inside or outside tubing
Whatever the salinity
Two runs to detect

Emitter up : detect water circulation downward
Emitter down : detect water production
Used during stationary
Allow to evaluate a water velocity

Rates are difficult to estimate due to unknown diameter of the channeling
Succesfully recorded in TEPI (SNB-201, TN-AA21)

PLT Interpretation method
Kappa Conventions
Quantitative Flowrate estimation is based on spinner data
The purpose of the PLT is to use cable velocity to get fluid velocity
Conventions
POSITIVE cable velocity is going down

Depth is increasing as we go down, so cable speed must be positive
Spinner is NEGATIVE when tool moves UP
Depth is decreasing as we go up, so cable speed must be negative
Positive Spinner
Up Velocity Down Velocity

- CS + CS
Negative Spinner
Balikpapan – March 2011
PLT Interpretation - Conventions
Positive Spinner Negative Spinner
Tool Direction
Run In Hole (RIH) Pull Out Hole (POOH)
Fluid Direction
Production Injection
Run In Hole Pull out of Hole

Cable Velocity
Positive Speed Negative speed
Calibration of Spinners
Each spinner has its own characteristics
The actual rps are also dependent on the logging speed, direction of the tool and
the pitch of the spinner.
The response slope is in RPS per ft/min and the intercept is ft/min (or equivalent
metric units)
The intercept is known as the threshold velocity or lowest flow velocity required
to start the spinner rotating
In a typical producing well the spinner reads higher running into the well
(against the flow) than running out (with the flow) at the same speed.
To find the actual fluid velocity the spinner must be calibrated at downhole
conditions – IN-SITU CALIBRATION

PLT Interpretation - Basics
rps
rps = a × V fs
Response slope
rps: frequency of rotation
Vfs: fluid velocity, relative to spinner
-CS (UP) Vfs +CS (DOWN) a: pitch coefficient, function of tool geometry
PLT Interpretation : Real response – Zero Flow
rps
b μ Increasing μ
rps = aV fs − −c viscosity ρ
decreasing
ρV fs ρV fs
a: pitch coefficient (geometrical)

Vfs
b: bearing friction coefficient
c: fluid friction coefficient
Threshold (+) + threshold (-)
ρ: fluid density
μ: fluid viscosity
Typical threshold Fullbore

Liquid 3-6 ft/min (1-2m/min)
Gas 10-20 ft/min (3-6m/min)

PLT Interpretation : Effect of fluid type
NOTE:
In reality both slope
and threshold
change with fluid
RPS type
Increase in threshold from liquids to gas.
PLT Interpretation - Principles
rps
20
10
-CS (UP) Vfs+CS (DOWN)
Positive
Threshold
Reporting Spinner velocity at different cable speed allow us to do a straight line
Interception between This line and X axis - positive threshold give us the total fluid velocity

Spinner Calibration Data
Calibration Intervals
1. Steady spinner
2. Steady Cable speed

3. Constant fluid type
Simple Spinner Interpretation
In case of monophasic fluid (unique threshold

and slope),one spinner response ,normalized to
surface flowrate, is enough to have a production
allocation.
Can work in simple single-phase flow (water

injector)
Does not work in multiphase flow, or in changing

fluid properties (viscosity)
To get the flow associated to each perforation,

select a zone between each producing zone
,called “Spinner calibration zone”, and compute
the calibration slope
Treshold has to be defined in no flow section

Î Necessity to have Shut-In passes (especially in a gas
column)

Spinner summary
Depth Z CS SPIN
ft -200 ft/ min 200 -10 rps 22
• Spinner data
8200
• In-situ Calibration
• Vapp at each selected zone
8300
• Computer interpretation:continuous
fluid Vapp channel
8400
VAPP
VAPP P1,I1 [ft/ min]
20
10
0
-1 0 0 0 100
-1 0
-2 0
Flowmeters: What Is Measured
The spinner is centered in the casing, hence measures the flow in

the centre portion of the pipe, (usually the maximum).
A correction must be applied to get the average flowrate.
LAMINAR FLOW
TURBULENT FLOW

Flow in Pipes
Relate Vapp to Vm,
function of the velocity profile
Vm = VPCF.Vapp
The velocity profile correction factor

depends on Reynolds number
Nre = Area.Velocity.Density/Viscosity
The velocity profile correction factor,

VPCF, is often taken as 0.83
Realistic values for Vpcf range from about

The spinner, centered in the 0.75 to about 0.92
borehole, sees only the middle
part of this flow since the blade VPCF depends on the Reynolds
does not cover the full casing number
diameter
VPCF Experimental Basis

Flowmeters: Velocity Correction
1.0
Spinner Blade Diameter/Pipe Internal Diameter 0.8
0.2
Ratio
0.8
TURBULENT FLOW Blade Diam
Pipe ID
0.6
LAMINAR FLOW
0.4
The correction depends on whether there is laminar or turbulent

flow which is determined by the Reynolds number.
PLT Interpretation Workflow
Threshold Estimation is done thanks to shut-in passes

For liquid threshold, flowing passes may be used if no flow is coming from bottom hole
Once, you have one slope with a correct threshold estimation for each zone
Select the passes for a fluid velocity computation using the previous calibration
slopes and thresholds
Do not consider not stabilized passes
Correct your average Spinner velocity with the Vpcf factor
Based on Caliper data or/and detailed completion sketch, computation of Fluid

rates in down hole conditions
PVT data (Bg) then allow us to compute fron downhole conditions to Separator
conditions

Shut In passes
Shut in passes are mandatory to get a good spinner calibration (threshold estimation)
Main information from shut in passes are cross flow observation

Direct impact on perforation strategy
Best data to have a pressure estimation
All the wells are shut for a certain duration during a PLT job
Liquid level in the wells can also give indications on possible water source if pressure
regime known
PLT Operations : Examples

TN-Ix24 PLT recorded 09-10 Oct. 2010, Qmax + Q1/2 -Well closed during 10 hours for dummy run
PK-B15 : Well closed fron 8h00 to 20h00 Î 12h00
SNB Data : 4 SRPL in January : Average Closure duration 8h50 mn
IF YOU DON’T WANT TO CLOSE YOUR WELL DO NOT RECORD ANY PLT
Emeraude Data Structure

Document (*.Ke2)
Well information General well data Doc unit system (*.eun)

Survey #3
Survey #2
Survey #1
Pass #4 Interpretation #3
Pass #3
Interpretation #2
Pass #2
Screen Captures
Interpretation #1
Pass #1
channel
Data store channel
channel Reference Capture #1
channel
channel channel channel
Datachannel
store
channel
channel
channel
channelchannel
channel Calibration
channel channel
Datachannel
store
channel
channel
channel PVT (*.epv)
channelchannel
channel User Views
channel channel
channel
channel Zone rates
channel
channel
channel
channel
channel channel Log rates

PLT Interpretation – Practical Session
Exercice 1
Reference, date, place

PLT Interpretation Exercice 1 : Shut In Interpretation
1. DESCRIPTION -
Single Shut In survey + Stationary data
Gradio already corrected for deviation
Define Treshold in gas, Water
Evaluate different crossflows Tool Diameter : 1 11/16 inch
Full Bore Spinner : Turbine
2. EXAMPLE OBJECTIVES In-line Spinner : PILS
Interpret Shut In data
PVT
3. DATA FILES
Gas SG = 0.7
Shut in LAS Files
Deviation data
Units.eun file
4. Oilfield units.. (except for depth = metres & Cable Speed m/min)
LOAD Unit file
5. General well data

Casing ID : 2.99”
Use Absolute rougness default for new steel
Perforations
3192.000 3194.000
3215.300 3216.600
3341.000 3342.000
3344.000 3346.000
3375.500 3377.000
3383.000 3384.500
3390.000 3392.000
3420.500 3424.000
3428.500 3430.500
3687.500 3692.000
3803.500 3806.000
PLT Interpretation Exercice 1 : Emeraude Workflow

Enter Document Information
Load Unit File Enter Calculation zones
Where Emeraude is going to compute the rates : Select
Top of Perforation Interval (2 m)
Document Menu (manually or Imported) Zone rates
Enter General well data (Data independent of PLT) : Single phase : Emeraude Regression
Deviation (Excel File) QAQC
Diameter Velocity Match
Roughness
Perforations Include Density in the reference channels
Load Open Hole Gamma ray
Recompute Zone rate
Survey : SHUT-IN
Information : Enter Survey Name & Production Data
Load LAS File (Click on Field view Mode to note Log
Names)
3 Passes Up + 3 passes down
Define Mnemonic if necessary
Load Stations
Tool Info
Tool Diameter (1” 11/16 = 1.6875 inch)
Spinner blade for both spinners from Schlumberger Table (next
slide)
QA/QC Data
Shift passes to match Open Hole Gamma Ray
Explain Spinner behavior
PL Interpretation
Create One Interpretation
Interpretation name
Reference Channel for PVT computation
Define Spinner Calibration Zone
Proceed to calibration
Try to evaluate threshold (if possible)
Select the valid passes for Apparent velocity computation
Load PVT file (select Dry gas only)
Exercice 2

PLT Interpretation Exercice 2 : Single phase producer
1. DESCRIPTION -
One survey in a gas producer
Identify the source of the gas production
GR, FBS, TEMP, GRADIO, CS Blade Diameter CFSR 1.731”
2. EXAMPLE OBJECTIVES Blade Diameter ILSR 1.2205”

Perform a complete interpretation from LAS files
PVT
3. DATA FILES Water Salinity = 500ppm
P1 Producing Survey LAS Files Gas SG = 0.7
MD-TVD Spreadsheet
Single Phase Gas Producer Units.eun file Unrecognised mnemonics CFSR, CWHR, DCCL,
GRAY, ILSR, DTEM
4. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Qmax
Qwater = 10bwpd Qgas = 19.985MMscf/D
LOAD eun file
General well data

Vertical well
Casing ID : 3.958”
Use Absolute rougness default for new steel
Perforations
3874.5 – 3888.5
3909.5 – 3921.5
PLT Interpretation Exercice 2 : Emeraude Workflow

QAQC Data
Enter Document Information Create a Pseudo density channel
Load Unit File
Proceed to spinner calibration
Try to evaluate threshold (if possible) or use
Document Menu (manually or Imported)
expected treshhold
Enter General well data (Data independent of PLT) :
Select the valid passes for Apparent velocity
Deviation (Excel File)
computation
Diameter
Station depth to include in calibration plot
Roughness
Unselect Uncorrect passes for calibration
Perforations
Apparent velocity computation
Unselect uncorrect passes
PL Interpretation
Information : Enter Survey Name,Short name & Production Data Load PVT file
Load LAS File (Click on Field view Mode to note Log Names) Zone rates
3 Passes Up + 3 passes down Select Liquid-Gas Flow Model (Duckler Correlation)
Define Mnemonic Enter Calculation zones
1 Station (excel file) 3825 m. : Convert to ascii file (text Delimited) Where Emeraude is going to compute the rates : Select
Tool Info Top of Perforation Interval
same as spinner
Spinner blade for both spinners
Capacitance Calibration
Enter Capacitance Calibration (water 1310 cps, Gas 5150
cps)
Select CWH Water-Hydrocarbon Plot
Comment on anomaly 3920 m.

PLT Interpretation validation
Check the surface rates
Check the reporting
Check the PVT

Check also the reference channel (pressure, temperature) for PVT computation
Check the diameter

Caliper vs Completion sketch
Need to check the Pressure to evaluate the stabilisation

Passes recorded in early time may not ne in-line with the ones recorded by the end of the job
Possibility to revise carefully the calibration plot

Check the threshold
Discard passes if justified
Passes not stabilised
Inconstant Cable speed
High tension
Noisy data
Changes has to be done, but must not affect the global repartition
Exercice 2 - Results

PLT Interpretation : Exercice 3
GENERAL WELL DATA
Internal diameter: 2.992 inches
Compute Roughness
Load deviation file
log data in LIS file

3 down passes
3 Up passes
Perfos (m):
2146 2147
2184 2187
PRODUCTION SURVEY
Q surf = 1500 STBD
TOOL STRING
O.D. = 1.6875 in
FBS Spinner O.D. = 1.3125 in
In-line Spinner = 1.1 in
Emeraude Workflow : Exercice 3

Load Unit file

Enter General well data
Deviation
Diameter
Roughness
Perforations
Survey : Flowing
Information : Enter Survey Name
Load LIS File)
Tool Info
Spinner blade
Comment on Data ?
Compute DP/DZ : Comment ?
PL Interpretation
Interpretation name
Proceed to calibration taking into account

Good spinner data
Stable cable speed

Exo 3 Water Injector : results
Flowmeters – Spinner Reversal

By the past, many spinner were
unsigned
Necessity to correct manualy the

spinner
Emeraude software allow us to

correct the spinner
Survey Module : Spinner reversal
Select the pass
Click on spinner reversal icon
Click in the spinner track at the
depth you want to reverse the
spinner
Spinner data
after reversed
spinner operation
Signed responses

Exercise 4 : Multiphasic Interpretation
PLT Interpretation – Exercice 4 MultiPhase

EXAMPLE Exercice 3
4.ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Multiphase Oil & Gas Producer Oilfield units
Vertical well 9000 ft
Casing ID 6.184”
1. - DESCRIPTION Use Absolute rougness default for new steel
Single survey in an oil gas well Perfs
8170 – 8220
Identify the source of the gas and oil split 8350 – 8390
GR, FBS, TEMP, GRADIO, CS 8450 – 8480
Set Top perfs as Markers A
Set Bottom perfs as Markers B
Qo = 2700bopd
Qg = 4.5MMscfd
2. - EXAMPLE OBJECTIVES
Perform a complete interpretation from LAS files
through to interpreted report
3. - DATA FILES
LAS files can be located with the EMERAUDE Flowmeter Blade size = 3”
installation
B01d1-B01d4 PVT
B01u1-B01u4 Rs = 1100cuft/bl
Gas SG = 0.7
Oil = 38API

Emeraude Workflow
Choose Unit Display

Enter General well data (Data independent of PLT) : Deviation, Diameter, Roughness, Perforations
Survey
Load LAS files
Tool Info
Spinner blade
Type of tool (Density measurement)
PL Interpretation
Interpretation name
Reference Channel for PVT computation and for Density Match
Click on the Calibrate Icon
Pressure stabilization
Stable cable speed
Possible high tension
Select the valid passes for Apparent velocity computation
PVT set Up
Enter Oil, gas properties
Calculation
Enter depth interval where Emeraude is going to compute the rates : Select Top of Perforation Interval
Sensitivities to Correlations
Correlation Sensitivity
Liquid Gas correlation
Petalas Aziz Duckler
Water - Hydrocarbon correlation

•Small difference between Liquid Gas correlation
•But Major difference with the Water Hydrocarbon Model for oil
•Which one is the better One ?
Correlations have to be carefully evaluated

Exercise 5 : Multiprobe Interpretation

Exercice 5
2. EXAMPLE OBJECTIVES
Perform a complete interpretation using all available data
Multiphase Water Oil & Gas Producer
3.DATA FILES
1.DESCRIPTION -
LAS pass and station files
Single survey in an water/oil/gas well B05d1-B05d2
B05u1-B02u2
Identify the source of the water entry and oil and gas entries B05_sta_8071.las
B05_sta_8325.las
Classic monophasic flow sensors with Array Tool PFCS
4.ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
and DEFT sondes and WFL stations
Oilfield units
PASS DATA Deviated well (in B05_gwd.las file)
D1RB.° :Tool bearing Casing ID : use caliper
D1RB2.° :Second DEFT Use Absolute rougness default for new steel
DFB1.to DFB8 : Bubble Count per probe Perforations (ft)
DFBM. :Average Bubble Count PFCS
8248 8314
DFBM2. : Average Bubble Count PFCS
8461 8530
DFH1 to DFH8 : Hold Up per probe
8615 8734
DFHM. : Average Hold Up
DFHM2. : Average DEFT 9009 9068
GR.GAPI :curve 24
PFC1.in :curve 25 Reservoir zones (ft)
PFC2.in :curve 26 8232 8317 A
SCVL.F/MN :curve 27 8447 8535 B
SPIN.rps :curve 28
8581 8737 C
WPRE.psia :curve 29
8995 9074 D
STATION DATA
TIME.hr :curve 1 Flowmeter Blade size = 1.2205”
DEPT.m :curve 2
VW.M/MN :curve 3 Approx surface rates: Qwsc 15000STBd Qosc 3000STBd Qgsc
4000MSCFd
PVT
Load file B05.epv
Emeraude Workflow Select the valid passes for Apparent velocity computation
Enter Document Information PVT set Up

Load PVT file
Choose Unit Display
Document Menu (manually or Imported) Calculation
Enter General well data : Enter depth interval where Emeraude is going to compute the rates :
Select Same as spinner calibration
Load Deviation survey Reduce the sample interval to match spinner variation
Load caliper data for Diameter
Evaluate Roughness Sensitivities to Correlations
Enter Perforations
Use the Water-Hydrocarbon Flow Model Correlation – Why ?
Enter Reservoir zones
Use Deviated ABB Correlation
Survey Comment on results (Surface rate match)
Gas – Oil repartition
Load LAS files (Down and Up passes only) Select reference channel DP/DZ density for Match
Tool Info Lauch Zone Rate computation to observe the density match
Tool Diameter (1” 11/16 = 1.6875 inch) Good overall match Î use as reference for #Phase computation
Spinner blade Comment on the results ?
QAQC Load Additional data : Stations
Data Water flowlog (Water velocity)
Create Pseudo Density channel : Comment ?
Comment on spinner data fluctuations ? Use 3 Phase L-G
Comment on spinner below Zone C Gas-Liquid : Kaya at Al
Oil-Water : ABB deviated
PL Interpretation
Comment on results ?
Interpretation name
No Density Match
Check spinner stability
Click on the Calibrate Icon
Pressure stabilization
Stable cable speed

Exercise 6 : Standard PLT in Total E&P Indonesia
Exercice 6 (1/2)
Multiphase Water Oil & Gas Producer

Production data
DESCRIPTION Cf PLT report
Unit : Oilfield Unit
Gas Rate : Use MMscfd instead of Mscfd
Shut In
LAS pass and station files
MRPL survey on Tunu field Load : Total_Tunu_TN-xxx_PL_Q0…..
2 Rates + 1 shut In
6 passes per survey (3 Up, 3 Down) Comments on Shut In Data
Stations recorded for each survey Spinner
Water Hold Up
Objectives Others
Perform a complete interpretation using all available data
Identify the source of the water entry and oil and gas entries
IPR and Pressure estimation Flowmeter Blade size
Check in PLT report
General well data SLB table
Use Oildfiel Units
Open Hole GR
Casing ID : 2.992 Inch Calibration
Roughness default from Steel Evaluate Treshold in Gas column and in Water column
Estimate Production profile
Perforations (meter)
2971 2974
3359 3360 Load Station file
3460.5 3461.5 Why Negative spinner at Station 6 ?
3544 3545
3547 3548
Markers
Y39 2971.5 m.
Y82 3359.05 m
Y09 3460.5 m
Z116 3547.2 m

Exercice 6 – (2/2)
PVT
Zone rate calculation using
Condensate
3 Phase Model
Dew point pressure & temperature : shut in Conditions
Gas gravity 0.75 Water Hydrocarbon Model
Oil gravity 0.797 sp. gr.
GOR = 40000 cf/bbl (Standard)
Water salinity : 18 000 ppm
Zone Rates
Calculation zone 10 m. above perforations
Water Hydrocarbon Model
Load Flow 1 Survey

LAS File : Q1/2 + Stations
Clean Spinner data for stations
Comment on Data
Spinner
Water Hold Up
Density
Temperature
Calibration
Perform calibration taking intio account Shut-in data
Exo 6
Qmax
Production data from PLT report
Zone Rates
Calculation zone 10 m. above perforations
Water Hydrocarbon Model
Load Qmax Survey
LAS File : Qmax + Stations
Clean Spinner data for stations
Comment on Data
Spinner
Water Hold Up
Density
Temperature
Calibration
Perform calibration
Rate calculation
using Water Hydrocarbon Model
Comment on the match
Load All data in Excel Template for IPR/Pressure Estimation

MRPL
Multi rate Production Logging in TEPI

Since 2001, MRPL is the common acquisition on our gas wells, why ?
Gas productivity for gas wells is not linear, turbulences has to be taken into account
Several rates are necessary to evaluate the turbulences
Gas productivity equation : Pres - Pflow = AQ + BQ2
As gas compressibility,viscosity are not linear with the pressure, Pseudo pressure are used to get a linear
behavior
Usually, IPR estimation is not very accurate (very sensitive to rates) but gives a good pressure estimation
NB : the reservoir pressure is not the Static reservoir pressure, it corresponds to the average reservoir pressure in the drainage area
For non/low compressible fluids qo = PI × p − p ( )

p= calculated average pressure
PI = Productivity Index
p
∫
p dp
For gas m( p ) = 2
Ψ − Ψf
2
= A×q + B×q
2
μz
p0
Ψ = calculated average pressure
A = turbulence term , ≥ 0
LIT or Jones (A&B)
B = Darcy flow term , ≥ 0

Methodology for Multi Rate Production Logging
Memory PLT: 3 rates + Shut-in passes

Completion 4 1/2”
monobore
Ψ
Qg = 15 MMscf/d Ψres – Ψf = A Q + BQ2
Pav layer 1
Pav layer 2
Layer 1 Qg per layer

5 MMscf/d
0 5 10
Layer 2
10 MMscf/d
Obtain Pressure and Productivity per layer
Very good understanding of well behavior

MRPL Interpretation – Practical Exercise
Use PLT Interpretation from Exercise 1 to evaluate reservoir pressure

and IPR for the 2 perforated reservoirs
Use Excel template used by RSV to evaluate both pressures & IPR
MRPL REPORT : Exo1
Interpretator : Training
Interpretation Date : 28/03/2011
I. GENERAL DATA
POP Date : Test Date: Zone

FIELD Tunu Closed:
Gp (Bcf) : Zone Open:
II. OBJECTIVE OF THE MRPL
Assess flow distribution, reservoir pressure layerwise and water sources
IV. FLOW PERIOD DATA
P1 P2 P3 SI
Choke ../64 "
Duration hrs
Well Head Flowing Pressure psia
Well Head Flowing Temperature °F
Separator pressure psia
Separator Temperature °F
Qgas MMscf/d 20.0 14.3 6.2
Qcondensate stb/d
Qwater stb/d 10 19 2.2
SG gas (air = 1 ) 0.700

Condensate density g/cm³ 0.800 Testing barge
45 °API water salinity ppm
MRPL Interpretation
Extract Data from Emeraude software
Output Module Î Summary table
Click here to
select all
MRPL Data
Copy in the Excel template in The “Emeraude Sheet”
Copy in the appropriate Colored cell data coming from Emeraude “Summary table”

Main Conclusions
PLT Interpretation in TEPI wells is not so straight forward
Water source are identified by qualitative interpretation

Temperature, density increase
Water hold Up
A particular attention/selection has to be done for calibration

Different fluids leads to different calibration slopes
High importance of a well stability
Limitations for some tools

Gradio manometer of Schlumberger needs accurate friction estimation unless density increase could be
interpreted as liquid source
Flowview probes are limited at high velocity
MRPL data allowed us to estimate a pressure or at least a pressure range
Recommandations
Density increase only can not be a proof of liquid source for gradio manometer
Bubble count increase does not mean water increase (depends on standing columns)
Temperature is probably the best liquid indicator
In case of pressure estimation, Quantitative Temperature analysis could give additional informations (PLATO)
PLT are easier to interpret when recorded at high rates
PLT supervision is recommanded to ensure the program will fullfill the question

Optional Exercice : Spinner Manipulation
PLT Interpretation : Optional Exercice

All log data in Ascii files of type "exo2s1d1.asc" where:
"d1" means down 1
"s1" stands for shut-in 1
GENERALWELL DATA
Internal diameter: 6.184 inches
Roughness: use 6e-4
Perfos (ft):
14210 14270
14310 14380
14400 14440
PRODUCTION SURVEY
Q surf = - 29000 STBD
SHUT-IN SURVEY
TOOL STRING
O.D. = 1.6875 in
SPIN O.D. = 3 in

Emeraude Workflow : Exercice 2
Choose Unit Display : Oilfield Units

Enter General well data
Vertical Well TVD 15 000 ft
Diameter
Roughness
Perforations
Survey : Shut In
Load Ascii data (Click on Field view Mode to note Log Names)
1st Column : DEPTH
2nd Flow meter
3rd Pressure (psia)
4th Temperature (Deg C)
5th Gamma ray
6th Cable Velocity (ft/mn)
Tool Info
Spinner blade (3”)
PL Interpretation
Interpretation name
Create Pseudo density Channel on either 4 Up or 4 down pass
Good spinner data
Stable cable speed
Comment on Spinner data ?
Emeraude Workflow - Exercice 2

Before Proceed to calibration
Looks at different fluids
Try to evaluate possible crossflow
Survey : Flowing 1
Information : Enter Survey Name,Short name & Surface Data
Load LAS files
4 Passes Up + 3 passes down
Create a Pseudo density channel
Calibration
Explain the behavior
Why the line are not as usual ? Down pass spinner < Up pass spinner ?
spinner reversal
What ‘s happen ?
Change the Survey rates

Change 29000 bpd of Oil in Water (do not forget minus sign)
PVT Water
Water properties: Salinity: 35000 ppm


Multiphase Interpretation
Multiple Phase Conditions
Two phase flow:

Oil plus water - liquid + liquid
Oil plus gas - liquid + gas
Water plus gas - liquid + gas
The questions are:

what is flowing from which perforations
is free gas being produced
Three phase flow there is:

Oil and gas plus water - liquid + liquid + gas
The questions are the same but the problem has an added unknown

Multiphase Solutions
As with the single phase case the spinner will give an average total velocity,
which will give an average total flow rate
Additional measurements are need to differentiate between the fluids
Here the fluid density and/or hold-up is used
In 3 phase both the density and hold-up are needed
An interpretation scheme making some asumptions can also be used, which

is provided whithin Emeraude, with “Flow Models” and Correlations
Bubble Model
Vo
Vw
Vo=Vw+Vs The bubble flow model used to
Vw be assumed in order to simplify
the calculations as a quick look.
A single slippage velocity Vs
was required.
y A
w (1-yw )A
In computer based solutions a

Water Oil correlation is used takes the flow
regime into account.

Definitions
Hold-up, Y:
This is fraction of the pipe cross-sectional area occupied by the phase of
interest. The hold-ups must sum to unity
Yw + Yo + Yg = 1
Average velocities :
Fluid velocity of the given phase : (A : pipe area)
Qh Ql
Vh = Vl =
A . Yh A . Yl
Water Cut:
This is the ratio of the flowrate of the phase to the total flowrate. If there is no
slip, then cut and hold-up are equal.
Water Cut = Qwater / Qtotal
Hold Up From Density

The solution for the rates needs an input of the hold up of any
phase or the density
ρ m = ρ h .Yh + ρ l .Yl
But Yl + Yh = 1 Therefore Yl = 1 – Yh
ρm = ρh.Yh + ρl (1-Yh)
( ρ m − ρl )
Yh =
( ρ h − ρl )
ρl = light phase density
ρh = heavy phase density
ρm = mixture density
PS : ρl and ρh come from PVT data

2 Phase equal Velocities
With the two phases flowing at the same velocity it would be sufficient to have a bulk
rate and a way of measuring the holdups
Spinner Data gives a total rate estimation
Hold Up are deduced from previous Hh formula

( ρ m − ρl )
Yh =
( ρ h − ρl )
Qh and Ql can be computed
NB: Vpcf and the friction correction (gradio) would require an iterative solution method
Slippage velocity correlations
Slippage velocity depends on the type of flow Annular Mist

regime.
In Liquid-Gas a wide variety of regimes can

Froth
occur
In Liquid-Liquid bubble flow is usually Slug

encountered (not near horizontal …) Gas
Oil
A number of correlations exist, empirical or
mechanistic, to determine the flow regime and
calculate the slippage velocity Vs
Single phase fluid

Flow regimes
2 Phase unequal Velocities
For two phases flowing at different velocity, a slippage velocity has to be

taken into account.

Superficial Velocities
Superficial velocity concept is introduced
The superficial velocity of a given phase is the rate of the phase divided by the
pipe area. ( as if flowing in 100% of the pipe area!)
Superficial heavy phase velocity
Superficial light phase velocity
The superfical velocities respect the relation : Vsh + Vsl = Vm

Vm represents the average mixture velocity
(Q h + Q l )
As mixture velocity is expressed Vm =
A
Qh
Considering the Hold Up, actual heavy phase velocity Vh =
A . Yh
Ql
And actual light phase velocity Vl =
A . Yl
Therefore, average fluid velocity can be expressed in terms of superficial velocity
Superficial Velocities
Yh=1 ρh
Yh=0 ρl
Vsl
Vsh Vm
From this relation, if the hold up (e.g. The same plot can be made when
Yh) is known, the superficial velocity are applied to density measurement
deduced from the graphic
NB : No slippage Velocity or flow regimes considered on this plot

Slippage Velocities
In the general case there is a difference between the two phases
The Slippage Velocity is the absolute velocity difference between phases

flowing together. No tool currently available to directly measure slip velocity
Vslip = Vlight - Vheavy
The light phase is moving faster than the heavy phase

For a given rate ratio, the volume ratio of the light phase will be less than the no slip
situation. Conversely, the heavier phase hold up will be bigger
The slippage velocity implies that there will be less of

the light phase seen in the pipe
ρh
The heavy phase hold up (Yh) is larger, than would
be predicted with no slip between the light and heavy
phases.
ρ The relationship becomes non-linear due to slippage
and the changing nature of the flow regimes between the
phases.
Emeraude uses “Correlations” to assist in providing

ρl slip velocity
Liquid Gas Correlations

Correlations
Choice of correlations
Correlations can be selected based on a number of justifications:
Based on a correlation used in pipe lift calculations. Eg. PROSPER
Chosen on local empirical experience
Whether the well is deviated or not
Based on the scientific principles the correlation was founded on
Used to match rate ratios of the surface rate measurements. (Choice of correlations does not
change the total flowrate.. Only the ratio of the heavy and light flowrates)
A particular correlation may be chosen because of failure of certain other correlations, say for
example in low velocity regions where some correlations break down, predicting Vs > Vm
A constant slippage correlation option can be selected where the slippage velocity is known in
certain situations
NOTE: Correlations were not designed specifically for PL intepretation

Emeraude Process
Simulation Measurements
Emeraude use a non-linear -ZONE RATES

MODEL Yw Yw*
regression to solve the
problem Qw - Slippage/correlation Y0 Y0*
- Liquid Model
Q0 - Vapp / Vm - VPCF
Given some data Yg Yg*
Qg - Frictions
Relevant measurement : - PVT
Mixture density, Hold Up, V0 V0*
-Tool Calibrations
Apparent Velocity
Correlations : Flow Models, Vw Vw*
Slippage velocity
Vg Vg*
Residual between measured
data and simulated data will Vm Vm*
Direct
be minimised
Weighting factor can be applied p p*
on parameters
Few constraints can be added Vapp Vapp*
E = ∑(Simulation-Measurement)2
Inverse
Non linear
Regression
Kaya et Al

Dukler - 1
• Based on experiments with air

and water in 2.5 cm and 5.0 cm
pipes.
• Mechanistic approach for the

flow map determination.
• Only vertical flow is considered

by the flowmap, but slip
deviation correction is applied
in bubble flow (see next slide).
Dukler - 2
• Slug flow: The slippage correlation is given in the reference.
• Bubble flow: Slippage is based on (in ft/min)
• Vs = 60 x √( 0.95 - (1 - Yh)*(1 - Yh) ) + 1.50
• Pipe deviation: Taken into account by correcting the slippage velocity with a factor defined in the
Interpretation Settings dialog as either linear for all angles:
• Vs = Vs x ( 1 + 0.04 x deviation )… in bubble flow only.
• Or identical to the above until 45°

and decreasing above this value
(Ding et al.)
• The default setting is the linear

correction.
• Probably the most widely-used flow

correlation, although more-recent
authors have questioned the physics
of the correlation.

Petalas & Aziz
• Mechanistic correlation for all pipe inclinations, geometries, and fluid properties. Empirical correlations involved in
the model were developed based on the Multiphase Flow Database of Stanford University gathering 20,000
laboratory measurements and 1800 measurements from actual wells.
• This correlation distinguishes the following regimes:
• Froth (transition between dispersed bubble and annular-mist).
• Froth II (transition between slug flow and annular-mist).
• Elongated bubbles
• Bubble
• Stratified smooth
• Stratified wavy
• Slug
• Annular-Mist
• Dispersed bubble
• Stratified flow regimes are

restricted to horizontal flow.
Hagedorn and Brown

• Experiment realised in a 1,500 ft vertical well.
• Tubing I.D: 1 in, 1¼ in, 1½ in.
• Oil viscosities between 10 and 110 cp (@ 80°F)
• Oil gravity from 25-40 °API
• GOR<5000
• Only vertical upward flow is considered by the model.
• No flowmap.
• Single Holdup correlation provided for all conditions.
• Best choice for vertical wells with or without water cut.
• Poor in low rates
• Good in slug flows and high rate oil wells

Three Phases
Use of the 2-phase flow models for 3-phase interpretation
2-phase model extended to 3-phase assuming there is no slippage between

two of the three phases. (Version 2.00)
The mixed phase is either… oil and water,…. or oil and gas.
Introduction of additional parameters in order to split the superficial velocity

of this mixed phase into the two components.. “fo” & “fg”
3-Phase flow model introduced with Version 2.10 incorporating 2 slippage

velocities, and 2 correlations.
Liquid - Gas
Liquid - Liquid
3 Phases
In 3 phase flow, the problem is extended with one more holdup and one more
phase velocity
We now have 3 phase velocities so there will be 2 slippage velocities to be

considered
3-Phase flow is treated as the combination of two 2-phase situations.
With a bulk rate measurement and the use of slippage models, a 3 Phase
interpretation needs 2 independent holdup measurements
(e.g. density + water holdup, water holdup + gas holdup, etc)

Two Phase - Liquid/Gas
LIQUID-GAS MODELS
“LIQUID-GAS” “WATER-HYDROCARBON (G)”
Oil Water Gas Water Oil GAS
(Vsh) (Vsl)
fo (Vsw) (Vsl)
fg
(Vso + Vsw) (Vsg)
(Vsh) (Vso + Vsg)
(No slippage between oil and water)
(No slippage between oil and gas)
fo = volume fraction of oil fg = volume fraction of gas
(from surface WOR) (from PVT – CGR)
Note: fo can be determined by non-linear regression if Hydrocarbons mainly gas
sufficient inputs are available. This model only available when Condensate in PVT
Two Phase – Liquid/Liquid
LIQUID-LIQUID MODEL
“WATER-HYDROCARBON (L)”
Water OIL Gas
(Vsh) (Vsl)
fg
(Vsw) (Vso Vsg)
(No slippage between oil and gas)

fg = volume fraction of gas (from PVT – Rs)
Mainly oil (gas from solution)
Three Phase - Water/Oil/Gas
LIQUID-LIQUID-GAS MODEL
“3 PHASE L-G”
Water Oil Gas
(fo = rate fraction of oil)
Vslippage O-W
Liquid Gas
Vslippage L-G
(Three Phase L-G model is combination of Liquid/Liquid and Liquid/Gas Models)
E03–15 Technical Reference
Page E03-15 Technical Reference

Technical Reading
SPE MONOGRAPH SERIES

Production Logging – Theoretical and Interpretive Elements, Vol.14 (A.D.Hill)
Cased Hole and Production Log Evaluation by James Smolen

Pennwell ISBN: 087814465X
SPE Technical papers - 1
Date SPE No. Title Subject Company Authors

Practical use of recent research in multiphase vertical and Hagedorn & Hagedorn &
Apr-66 1245 horizontal flow Brown Brown
A comparison of existing multiphase flow methods for the Espanol &
Oct-69 2553 calculation of pressure drop in vertical wells Holmes &
Nicolas &
Oct-72 4023 Measurements of multiphase fluid flow Nicolas Schlumberger Witterholt
Research on Simultaneous Production Logging instruments in Davarzani &
Sep-85 14431 Multiphase Flow Loops Basic PL Tools Dresser Atlas Roesner
A new model for two-phase oil/water flow: Production log
Oct-88 18216 interpretation and tubular calculations Hasan & Kabir
A comprehensive mechanistic model for upward two-phase flow Ansari &
May-94 20630 in wellbores Sylvester
A unified Model for predicting flowing temperature distribution
Sep-92 20632 in wellbores and pipelines Ramey Enthalpy Alves & Alhanati
Production logging in horizontal wells: Applications and Horizontal
Oct-90 21094 experience to date conventional PL Schlumberger Chauvel
An evaluation of recent mechanistic models of multiphase flow Pucknell &
Sep-93 26682 for predicting pressure drops in oil and gas wells BP Mason
Aug-94 27959 Advances in two-phase flow modelling Taitel
Oct-96 36560 Stratified flow model and interpretation in horizontal wells Stratflo Schlumberger Theron & Unwin
Three phase hold up determination in horizontal wells using a RST 3phase
Nov-96 37147 pulsed neutron source holdup Schlumberger Roscoe
Oil and water velocity logging in horizontal wells using chemical
Nov-96 37153 markers PVL Schlumberger Roscoe
Characterisation of oil-water flow patterns in vertical and
Oct-97 38810 deviated wells Flores & Brill
Horizontal well performance evaluation and fluid entry PVL, DEFT, RST
Sep-98 49089 mechanisms Horizontal Schlumberger Lenn
Note: Indicates Kappa “Zone Rates Correlation” Reference

SPE Technical papers - 2
Date SPE No. Title Subject Company Authors

Wireline tractor production logging experience in Australian Locul &
Oct-98 51612 horizontal wells Tractor Sondex Searight
Advanced horizontal well production logging - an Australian Flagship
Apr-99 54326 offshore example - Carnegie A Horizontal Schlumberger
Evaluating high angle wells with advanced production logging
Oct-99 57690 technology DEFT Schlumberger Hupp & Scnorr
Applications of a new multiple sensor production logging Chace, Wang,
Oct-00 63141 system for horizontal and highly deviated multiphase producers MCFM Polaris Baker Atlas Trycka
Oct-00 63188 Interpreting spinner response in multiphase bubble flow Spinner Baker Atlas Chace & Giorgi
A mechanistic model based approach to evaluate oil/water slip
Oct-00 63262 at horizontal or highly deviated wells Horizontal slip Chevron Ouyang
Use of flow pattern based models for interpreting oil-water flow
Mar-01 68468 in production Chevron Kabir & Hoadley
Potapieff & De
Oct-01 72114 Reservoir monitoring methodology for a giant gas field SIP Total Witt
Mechanistic and simplified models for oil water countercurrent Apparent
Oct-02 77501 flow in deviated and multilateral wells downflow Chevron Ouyang
A case history on the use of downhole sensors in a field
Oct-02 77521 producing from long horizontal/multilateral wells DTS
Oct-02 77710 Installation of in-well fibre optic monitoring systems DTS Weatherford Pruett
Interpreting wellbore flow images with a conventional
Oct-02 77782 production log interpretation method CAT Halliburton Frisch
Advanced production logging technology for more accurate
Oct-02 77839 flow profiling - Case studies from the Gulf of Suez RST/DEFT Schlumberger
Horizontal production logging using tractor technology - a first Schlum tools &
Apr-03 81118 for Trinidad tractor BP Allabar
Brunei Field trial of a fibre optic distributed temperature sensor
Oct-03 84324 DTS system in a 1000m open hole horizontal oil producer DTS Sensa Lauer & Brown
Monitoring horizontal producers and injectors during cleanup
Oct-03 84379 and production using fibre optic distributed temperature DTS Sensa
Production and injection profiling: a novel application of
Oct-03 84399 permanent downhole pressure gauges Pressure gauges Chevron Ouyang

Production Logging Interpretation

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Production Logging Interpretation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Production Logging Interpretation

Purpose of this course is:

By the end of these session :

But this course won’t speak about

2 Balikpapan – March 2011

Additional loggings are available to help in well behavior understanding

PL can give unique information, unobtainable via any other method

3 Balikpapan – March 2011

MRPL allow the reservoir engineer to get access to many data

To have a good diagnostic, Don’t wait the

Types of logging strings and methods:

Horizontal or highly deviated wells

5 Balikpapan – March 2011

Disadvantages BOP Logging unit

PL sensor data recorded in the

Power sent down the cable

8 Balikpapan – March 2011

Coiled Tubing Logging

* Recently, tractors are available that can be run in open

1 - Reference, date, place

Tool Summary : Main Measurements

The selection of the tool depends on the purpose of the PLT

Each tool has its role

2. Flowrate computation , Completion integrity (scales)

3. Single phase profiles (i.e. injector)

4. For a Multi-phase production

2 - Reference, date, place

3 - Reference, date, place

PLT Tools – Standard tools

4 - Reference, date, place

Full bore Flowmeters

In line Fullbore Petal Basket

5 - Reference, date, place

PLT Tools – Flowmeter types

Fullbore Spinner Fullbore Spinner Continuous In-line Spinner Diverter

6 - Reference, date, place

In addition, it will detect very small fluid entries:

7 - Reference, date, place

PLT Tools - Density

Density is used to determine liquid source entry

Three technology are available on the market :

Derivative of pressure data gives another density log

8 - Reference, date, place

In gas wells, frictions are very important as dependant of fluid velocity

Despite friction gradient is supposed to be corrected, by experience, frictions are not

Deviation will also affect the accuracy of measurement

SCHLUMBERGER - Gradiomanometer Issues

f = friction factor (Re, roughness)

Gradiomanometer is very sensitive to frictions, deviation and jetting

Give a true fluid mixture density value

Based on TEPI experience, success ratio very good

Main disadvantage is the presence of nuclear source

Direct density measurement

Some RA Density tools measure the density in a cavity,

11 - Reference, date, place

PLT tools - Pseudo-density

dp/dZ calculated from p vs Z

12 - Reference, date, place

SPECIFICATION RANGE SPECIFICATION RANGE

13 - Reference, date, place

PLT Tools - Density

To confirm the validity of data, uses the derivative of pressure as a second

Look for changes which will indicate entries of different fluids.

The sump may give confusing readings due to completion fluid

Good for vertical well

POSITIVE cable velocity is going down