SPE 78532
Waterflood Saturation Measurement with Carbon-Oxygen Tools In a Middle-East
Carbonate
T.P.R. Chandran *, Kuwait Oil Company, Edwin Vervest * and Matt Brown *, BP, Mubarak Al Hajeri *, Ealian Al-Anzi*,
Hamad Najeh and Ravula Chakravarthi *, Kuwait Oil Company
* SPE members
Copyright 2002, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the Abu Dhabi International Petroleum
th
Exhibition & Conference, 13-16 October 2002.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Programme Committee following
review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the
paper, as presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not
necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc., its officers, or
members. Papers presented at SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial
Committees of the Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc. Electronic reproduction, distribution,
or storage of any part of this paper for commercial purposes without the written consent of
the Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc. is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is
restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The
abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was
presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax
01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
This paper details a program to test saturation logging in a
Middle East carbonate reservoir that recently began a
secondary recovery project. The ability to measure oil and
water saturations in the target flood zones is critical for
optimizing recovery and finding unswept zones. Water
saturation is typically determined using a pulsed neutron
capture logging tool (PNC). The PNC differentiates
between the neutron capture cross-section of high salinity
water and hydrocarbon. In the case of this waterflood,
seawater is injected, with a salinity of 25,000 ppm. This
seawater has a similar neutron capture cross-section to the
oil in the formation, making PNC tools unsuitable for
determining water saturation in break through zones.
A test program was developed to determine the
reservoir fluid saturation using carbon-oxygen (C/O)
logging techniques. The new generation through- tubing
C/O tools with higher measurement resolution enables
detection of low salinity seawater. The test program
consisted of a log-off between three logging service
companies providing C/O tools. The C/O derived
saturations were compared to the open hole log saturations
and to PNC saturations in two wells in the waterflood pilot
area – a comparison that was possible since the injected
fluid in the pilot was high salinity formation water.
Most of the wells in the waterflood area are completed
with dual tubing strings. The saturation logging target
interval is generally in the short string of the dual
completion, making wireline surveillance difficult. The test
program also evaluated the ability of the contractors to log
in a dual environment. This paper details the results of the
C/O test logging program and provides recommendations on
future saturation logging requirements for this type of
reservoir.
Introduction
The Sabiriyah field was first brought on production in the
1950’s and produced intermittently on primary recovery up
through the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. Many of the wells in
the field were sabotaged and were redrilled or recompleted.
The Mauddud carbonate is the shallowest horizon under
development in the field. Beginning in late 2000, a
secondary project was initiated in the Mauddud using
inverted 9 spot patterns of approximately 1000 acres.
Twelve patterns cover the crest of the field for the first
phase of secondary development (Figure 1).
The Mauddud is a limestone reservoir with a gross
thickness of about 365 feet. The reservoir is divided up into
stratigraphic layers 1 through 11, with the main target of the
waterflood consisting of layers 2 through 7. Porosities in
the pay intervals vary from 8% to 30% with low (<10%)
initial water saturation. Matrix permeability ranges from 10
to 80 mD, with high permeability streaks measuring 5 to 10
times matrix. Fractures and vuggy zones are distributed in
thin layers in the Mauddud but primarily in the uppermost C
zone. Virtually all of the water in the crestal area of the
field is immobile. Formation water salinity is approximately
230,000 ppm.
2 T.P.R. CHANDRAN, E.G. VERVEST, M.J. BROWN, M. AL HAJERI, H. NAJEH, R. CHAKRAVARTHI
Prior to full field waterflooding startup, a 90-acre 5-
spot pilot was conducted for two years. Formation water
from a lower reservoir was injected into the pilot well.
Rates, pressures and saturations were monitored during the
pilot duration. Saturation was monitored using time-lapse
PNC logs in the injector and an observation well located 440
ft from the injector. Despite the presence of high
permeability intervals, the logging indicates that reasonably
uniform sweep occurred.
After evaluation of the waterflood pilot, water injection
into the 12 pattern injectors commenced in 11/2000 using
seawater. The seawater salinity is approximately 25,000
ppm. To date, approximately 30 MMBW have been
injected into the Mauddud.
Problem statement
Monitoring water saturation progression throughout the life
of the waterflood is a key surveillance and performance
measure for determining vertical sweep efficiency. Pulsed-
neutron logs differentiate well between high salinity water
and oil but cannot distinguish oil from the low salinity
seawater. Therefore, an alternative to PNC monitoring was
needed. A test program was developed to test carbon-
oxygen logging. The program had three main objectives:
1. Determine if C/O logs could match open hole (OH)
and PNC-derived saturation
2. Test logging through two strings of pipe in the dual
completions
3. Determine if the three C/O vendors’ tools could be
used interchangeably for monitoring saturation
Test Program
To meet the objectives of the test program, two wells were
selected and all three vendors ran C/O and PNC tools in
each well. The first well logged, Well A, is a single
completion completed in a zone below the Mauddud
waterflood target. The logging program included C/O and
PNC passes across the Mauddud and the Upper Burgan. To
measure Mauddud saturations, the tools must read through
the tubing and the casing to the formation (see Figure 2).
Well A is the waterflood pilot observation well and has an
extensive history of PNC’s. Well A was thought to
represent logging through two strings of pipe in the long
string of dual completions.
The second well, Well B, was the waterflood pilot
injector. This well is a single completion with the tubing
run to the top of the Mauddud (Figure 2). A series of PNC’s
were run in Well B over the past six years to monitor water
saturation before and during the waterflood pilot (WFP)
operation. Logs were run in 1996, 1997 and 2000 and water
saturation was computed based on the sigma from each of
these runs. The baseline 1996 sigma indicates connate water
saturation on the order of 5 to 15% prior to waterflood start-
up. Water injection was started in Well B and by 1997 the
SPE 78532
water saturation had increased to 50-60%. Subsequent
logging in 2000 showed only minimal increases in water
saturation. Virtually no change in saturation was noted
below the perforated intervals other than a small sigma
increase about 10’ below the bottom perforations. Well B
represented a good environment to compare C/O saturation
with PNC saturation and to compare the different vendors’
tools.
Saturation Measurements
The two main proven logging options available for cased-
hole saturation monitoring are pulsed neutron capture (PNC)
logging and carbon-oxygen (C/O) logging. PNC logging
relies on the different neutron absorbing properties of saline
waters and hydrocarbons. The quantitative interpretation of
PNC measurements requires knowledge of the hydrocarbon
and water cross-sections, which in general means knowing
the water salinity. This requirement makes the
interpretation of the measurement more difficult in areas of
unknown or variable salinity (e.g. mixed formation and
injection waters). In addition there are a number of other
factors that affect the measurement and can complicate the
interpretation (e.g. changes in borehole fluid, workovers,
near wellbore porosity changes from acidizing).
PNC tools work by emitting short pulses of high-
energy neutrons, which are rapidly slowed to thermal
energies. A cloud of slow neutrons is formed around the
source, which subsequently grows in extent by diffusion and
reduces in intensity by a fraction of the neutrons being
captured by the formation matrix, saturating fluids, casing,
cement, etc. Gamma rays are emitted as a result of the
capture and are measured by the tool detectors. The rate of
decay of the gamma ray counts is related to the rate of
thermal neutron capture in the media surrounding the tool.
This decay rate can be transformed into an intrinsic neutron
absorption cross-section (sigma) using a variety of methods
with each logging contractor usually having its own
preferred method.
C/O logging does not rely on salinity differences and
can be used when formation salinities are unknown. C/O
logging involves a gamma ray spectrometer measuring the
energy spectrum of gamma rays produced by neutrons from
a pulsed neutron source. C/O tools measure both inelastic
and capture gamma ray spectra. Elemental ratios are
calculated from the recorded data - C/O and Ca/Si ratios
from the inelastic spectra and Si/Ca ratio from the capture
spectra. Yield ratios are used to determine formation oil
saturation and borehole oil fraction.
The saturation from C/O measurements is not based on
a direct calculation but from an empirical relationship
derived from numerous laboratory measurements; each C/O
provider has built an extensive database of C/O response
SPE 78532 WATERFLOOD SATURATION MEASUREMENT WITH CARBON-OXYGEN TOOLS IN A MIDDLE-EAST CARBONATE
that reflects the various conditions that can exist downhole
for a whole range of casing sizes, fluid and rock types and
porosities. C/O tools are most accurate in small diameter
holes with oil in the wellbore in high porosity formations.
Figure 3 shows the relationship between C/O reading,
porosity and wellbore fluid. In the case of the Mauddud
logging program where the wellbore fluid was water and
porosity was low, the whole range of potential C/O readings
was very narrow such that small changes in C/O resulted in
large changes in saturation, i.e., the difference between 0%
So and 100% So was a small change in C/O. Hole size has a
similar effect; Figure 4 shows the difference between a 9-
5/8” cased hole (the Mauddud case) and a 6” open hole.
Large holes yield a comparatively narrower range of C/O
readings which again increases uncertainty in So.
Interpreting C/O measurements usually involves cross-
plotting the near and far C/O yield ratios. The
measurements should lie within a bounding parallelogram
defined by the four conditions of fluids:
- Formation oil + borehole oil
- Formation oil + borehole water
- Formation water + borehole oil
- Formation water + borehole water
The shape of the parallelogram will be a function of
many parameters such as lithology, porosity, hole size,
casing size + weight and carbon density of downhole fluids.
Example parallelograms are shown in Figure 5 and Figure 6.
A narrow parallelogram generally indicates intervals with
higher uncertainty in C/O derived saturation since small
changes in C/O measurement result in large So changes.
After processing the raw data, near and far C/O ratios
at each depth level are entered into the corresponding
parallelogram that reflects the conditions at that particular
depth level. Given the reservoir conditions in the Mauddud
carbonate interval it becomes clear that C/O logging will
pose a challenge – medium porosity results in a narrowly
shaped parallelogram where small changes/uncertainties in
input parameters can lead to significant errors in formation
and borehole saturation.
The following tools were used for the two-well program:
Company Halliburton Baker Atlas Schlumberger
Tool RMT Elite RPM RST-C/D
Size 2.125” 1.688” 1.688”/2.5”
Depth of 6” inelastic 6” 8-10”
investigation 12” capture
Resolution 30” 42” 18”
Source 14-MeV 14-MeV 14-MeV
Detector Dual BGO Dual NaI Dual GSO
3
Note: tool specifications supplied by service
companies. All tools recorded C/O and PNC measurements.
In addition, measurements were taken in Well A Upper
Burgan to determine the potential crossflow and perforations
contributions. Well B was logged for saturation only.
Each company designed their own logging procedure
to give the best results according to their tool
design/recommendations.
Both Well A and Well B had been shut in for over a
year and were completely stabilized. C/O and PNC tool
strings were run in each well by each vendor. Multiple
passes of the C/O tool were done in order to improve the
tool statistics. Since there was a good saturation history
from previous PNC’s run, saturations were matched by
accounting for wellbore fluid variations and completion
geometry. Pressure, temperature, spinners and fluid gradient
tools were also run for wellbore fluid identification.
Results
The results of the test logging program are presented in log
sections in Figures 7 through 14, with four log Figures per
well. The following description of the Figures applies to
both test wells. Figures 7 through 9 show log sections from
each company with saturations from sigma and C/O.
Starting from the left track of Figure 7, the log section
shows gamma ray, zonation and perforations. The next
track is an overlay of the sigma saturation and the C/O
saturation. Track three is an overlay of the PNC of 2001
(Well A) / 2000 (Well B) and the current sigma saturation.
Figures 8 - 9 show the same information for companies 2
and 3. Figure 10 is an overlay of all three companies sigma
saturations in one track and all three companies C/O
saturations in another.
Well A. Figure 7 clearly shows a generally poor match
between sigma and C/O interpretations in the Mauddud
reservoir. This can largely be explained by the challenging
conditions for the Mauddud in which this well was logged.
The tools had to read through tubing, annulus fluids and
casing. The large casing means that some of the tools were
reading near the end range of their depth of investigation.
Logging inside tubing, coupled with uncertainty in shale
values and medium porosities at best makes interpretation
difficult and hence a large spread in predicted saturations
can be expected.
Overall company 2 (Figure 7) gives good results in the
Mauddud for the sigma-derived saturations when compared
to the most recent PDK log run in early 2001. All three
companies struggle to get a reasonable match between sigma
and C/O-derived saturations, especially in the lower (<15-18
%) porosity range. Company 3 seems to have the worst
comparison between PNC and C/O saturations.
It should be noted that company 1 (Figure 7) re-
interpreted the 2001 run using a recalculated Vshale log.
4 T.P.R. CHANDRAN, E.G. VERVEST, M.J. BROWN, M. AL HAJERI, H. NAJEH, R. CHAKRAVARTHI
Therefore, the PNC-derived water saturations cannot be
compared with the other companies; the PNC run was
interpreted by them in the same way. The PNL2001 log in
Figures 7-9 is based on the original interpretation by KOC.
Most important observation however is that the C/O
saturations from the three companies show significant
differences in many places and cannot be used as a base log
unless the same company would run all time-lapse logs in
one particular well.
In the Upper Burgan, logging conditions were more
favorable and should have resulted in better results.
However unplanned events affected the interpretation for
company 2. The oil-water interface in the wellbore dropped
during the C/O logging passes and made a reliable
interpretation extremely difficult. Water may have been
pushed back into the formation leading to too high water
saturations. Companies 1 and 3 both indicate water influx
around -600 ft., also indicated by waterflow/oxygen
activation measurements.
Well B. Well B is the injector for the waterflood pilot.
Time-lapse PNC logging shows that most of the saturation
changes occurred very shortly after the well was put on
injection, indicating the near wellbore area was swept, as
would be anticipated. Well B is a simple, single completion
and thus posed far less challenging C/O logging conditions
than Well A. The various comparisons between PNC and
C/O saturations, and between companies are shown in
Figures 11-14.
The lower zones have had no injection and PNC results
should agree with previous runs. This is generally achieved
by all three companies, except for company 3 in the lower
part of Zone 9 where too low water saturations are
calculated. In the injected zones (Zone 2- Zone 5), company
1 gives the best results when compared with the 2000 PNC
run. However, this might well be due to the fact that their
PNC interpretation was based on a time-lapse technique
comparing it to the 2000 run whilst the other two used a
stand-alone calculation. The other two interpretations are
reasonable at best and again stress the importance of
consistent approach when evaluating consecutive PNC logs.
However, it was already known from the three
previous PNC runs in this well that they could be used for
monitoring formation water influx so it is far more
interesting to look at the comparison between PNC and C/O
results.
The comparison between PNC and C/O saturations in
the injected zones is much better than in Well A, with
company 1 giving the best results. Lower porosities in Zone
6 and top of Zone 7 again highlight the problem when
interpreting C/O logs in a lower porosity environment. An
overlay of all three C/O interpretations shows that results
SPE 78532
between companies cannot be used when trying to identify
small (<10 s.u.) saturation changes.
The most interesting feature on Figure 14 is the
comparison in the Zone 7 layer. This layer has taken no
water and should be at initial water saturation (no
surrounding wells have injected into this layer either, nor
does this layer exhibit a lower pressure which could led to
cross-flow). However, all three companies predict much
higher water saturations based on C/O logs. This could be
due to changes in lithology to which the PNC logs are
relatively far less sensitive (e.g. limestone/dolomite mix, or
a clastic influence in the carbonate section). Alternatively a
poor cement bond due to channeling could have an adverse
effect on the C/O response. Tool position might also be a
cause but it is unlikely that all three companies would suffer
from the same problem. No changes in borehole fluids were
observed.
Discussion of Results
Well B represents the most straightforward environment for
determining saturation. With the single completion,
questions regarding effects of completion are eliminated and
the history of PNC’s run allowed a good starting point to
match. The wellbore fluids were also single-phase
formation water with known properties. Well A represents
the more challenging environment for saturation
determination. Logging through the 3-1/2” tubing which is
centralized in the straight hole and through the 9-5/8” casing
introduced uncertainty regarding wellbore and annulus
fluids and was at the limits of C/O tool depth of
investigation.
One of the primary objectives of the test program was
to determine how well C/O saturations matched PNC
saturations, and, where there was no injection, how well C/O
and PNC saturation matched OH log saturation. As can be
seen on the sigma log comparison plot of all three vendors,
there is scatter among the three different vendor sigma
saturations. A match is considered good if the saturation
was within 10 s.u. of each other. The original time lapse
PNC logging was performed by a single vendor, reducing
the statistical and tool variations that are bound to occur
between different vendors’ tools. The sigma saturations
acceptably matched the OH saturation in the intervals where
no water was injected and the formation was at Swi. Sigma
saturation in the swept zones was considered to be
representative of actual formation saturation as the water in
the pilot was high salinity formation water.
As each vendor matched C/O saturation to their
respective sigma saturation (with +/- 20 s.u. scatter in the
vendors’ sigma), it is not surprising that there is
considerable scatter in C/O saturation between vendors.
Figure 14 shows the three vendors’ C/O saturation overlaid.
The degree of scatter in the C/O curves is roughly the same
SPE 78532 WATERFLOOD SATURATION MEASUREMENT WITH CARBON-OXYGEN TOOLS IN A MIDDLE-EAST CARBONATE 5

as the sigma saturation. All three vendors matched sigma 1. Develop a plan of observation wells with single
saturation reasonably well in the upper Mauddud. However, completions
below the perforations in Well B, C/O saturations with all 2. Run a baseline C/O log in observation wells shortly
three companies was significantly higher than the sigma. after completion, if possible, to calibrate saturations
Two main causes for this exist. First, the rathole fluids of against open-hole data.
Well B may be somewhat different in character than the 3. Run time-lapse C/O logs in observation wells using
formation water injected. Density logs run in conjunction the same vendor for each logging run
with the C/O and sigma show similar fluid density but there 4. Test CT-conveyed logging in short string & see
could be some difference in composition. Secondly, there effects of long string
may be some lithology changes that are unaccounted for that 5. Always run sigma & compare to C/O results to
yield differences; C/O tools are extremely sensitive to help identify seawater presence
Vshale and porosity. 6. Ensure wellbore fluids are known by running a
production logging string with the C/O and sigma
Dual Completions tools
As most of the pattern wells are dual completions with the 7. Displace long string with crude or known fluid
short string accessing the Mauddud (see Figure 2), 8. The use of observer wells should be further
developing a method for performing surveillance in the short investigated to eliminate borehole fluid/completion
string is important. A recent development in the field has effects
been logging out the short string of the dual completion
using coiled tubing (CT) conveyed-logs. Vendors have Acknowledgements
historically been reluctant to run tools out the short string for The authors would like to thank Kuwait Oil Company and
fear of tangling the coiled tubing in the long string. To date, BP for permission to publish this paper. Also the
CT pumping jobs and CT-conveyed production logs have contributions from Halliburton, Baker Atlas and
been successfully run out the short string. Schlumberger are appreciated.

No CT-conveyed C/O logs have been run to date. Nomenclature

Scope exists for testing C/O saturation logging out the short PNC = Pulsed Neutron Capture
string, although there will be uncertainties involved due to C/O = Carbon/Oxygen
the presence of the long string and uncertain fluids in the CT = Coiled Tubing
long string. s.u. = saturation units
A number of old, non-pattern producers exist in the
crestal areas of the field. Most of these wells are single
completions and may be used for observation wells.

Conclusions
Based on the results of the test program, the following
conclusions were reached.
1. C/O tools can adequately measure saturation for the
main Mauddud waterflood target in single
completion strings
2. Time-lapse C/O runs should eliminate unknowns in
lithology
3. There is limited scope for accurately measuring
saturation with C/O tools in dual completions
4. Vendor to vendor comparisons of C/O and sigma
saturation show acceptable scatter but time-lapse
logging should be completed by the same vendor in
the same well to ensure small changes in saturation
profiles can be detected.

Recommendations
To progress the saturation logging of the waterflood, the
following are recommended:
6 T.P.R. CHANDRAN, E.G. VERVEST, M.J. BROWN, M. AL HAJERI, H. NAJEH, R. CHAKRAVARTHI SPE 78532

Figure 1 Field Development Pattern

Waterflood Pilot
Area

Well B

Well A
SPE 78532 WATERFLOOD SATURATION MEASUREMENT WITH CARBON-OXYGEN TOOLS IN A MIDDLE-EAST CARBONATE 7

Figure 2 Completion schematics for Mauddud wells.

Mauddud
Interval Logged

Carbonate

Upper Burgan
Sandstone

Well A Well B Typical Dual Completion

8 T.P.R. CHANDRAN, E.G. VERVEST, M.J. BROWN, M. AL HAJERI, H. NAJEH, R. CHAKRAVARTHI SPE 78532

Figure 3. C/O Tool Response as a function of borehole fluid and porosity (courtesy of Baker Atlas).

C/O Readings by Borehole Fluid

2.6
So=1
2.4
2.2
So=0
2
Oil Borehole
C/O

1.8
Water Borehole
1.6
So=1
1.4 So=0
1.2
1
0 10 20 30 40 50
Porosity

Figure 4. C/O Tool Response as a function of hole size and porosity (courtesy of Baker Atlas).

C/O Readings by Hole Size

Water in Borehole

1.6

So=1

1.4
So=0 9-5/8" Cased Hole
C/O

6" Open Hole

1.2 So=0

1
0 10 20 30 40 50
Porosity
SPE 78532 WATERFLOOD SATURATION MEASUREMENT WITH CARBON-OXYGEN TOOLS IN A MIDDLE-EAST CARBONATE 9

Figure 5. Example C/O Tool Response in low porosity carbonate (courtesy of Schlumberger).

Oil Borehole / Oil Formation

Oil Borehole / Water Formation

Water Borehole /
Oil Formation

Water Borehole / Water Formation

Figure 6. Example C/O Tool Response in high porosity carbonate (courtesy of Schlumberger).

Oil Borehole / Oil Formation

Water Borehole /
Oil Formation

Oil Borehole / Water Formation

Water Borehole / Water Formation

10 T.P.R. CHANDRAN, E.G. VERVEST, M.J. BROWN, M. AL HAJERI, H. NAJEH, R. CHAKRAVARTHI SPE 78532
ZONES

ZONES
SWSIGMA SWSIGMA SWSIGMA SWSIGMA
1 V/V 0 1 V/V 0 1 V/V 0 1 V/V 0

GR SWCOR PNL2001 GR SWCOR PNL2001

0 GAPI 100 1 V/V 0 1 V/V 0 0 GAPI 100 1 V/V 0 1 V/V 0

100 100
1

1
2

2
150 150
3

3
200 200
4

4
250 250
5

5
300 300
6

6
7

350 350
8

400 400
9

450 450
10

10
11

11

500 500
12

12

550 550
13

13
14

14

600 600

650 650
15

15

Figure 7. Well A, Company 1 Sigma & C/O Overlays Figure 8. Well A, Company 2 Sigma & C/O Overlays
SPE 78532 WATERFLOOD SATURATION MEASUREMENT WITH CARBON-OXYGEN TOOLS IN A MIDDLE-EAST CARBONATE 11
ZONES

ZONES
COMPANY3.SWCOR COMPANY3.SWSIGMA
SWSIGMA SWSIGMA 1 V/V 0 1 V/V 0

1 V/V 0 1 V/V 0
COMPANY2.SWCOR COMPANY2.SWSIGMA
1 V/V 0 1 V/V 0
GR SWCOR PNL2001 GR COMPANY1.SWCOR COMPANY1.SWSIGMA
0 GAPI 100 1 V/V 0 1 V/V 0 0 GAPI 100 1 V/V 0 1 V/V 0

100 100
1

1
2

2
150 150
3

3
200 200
4

4
250 250
5

5
300 300
6

6
7

350 350
8

400 400
9

450 450
10

10
11

11

500 500
12

12

550 550
13

13
14

14

600 600

650 650
15

15

Figure 9. Well A, Company 3 Sigma & C/O Overlays Figure 10. Well A, All Companies Sigma & C/O Overlays
12 T.P.R. CHANDRAN, E.G. VERVEST, M.J. BROWN, M. AL HAJERI, H. NAJEH, R. CHAKRAVARTHI SPE 78532

PERFORATIONS

PERFORATIONS
SWSIGMA SWSIGMA SWSIGMA SWSIGMA
ZONES

ZONES
1 V/V 0 1 V/V 0 1 V/V 0 1 V/V 0

GR SWCOR PNL2000 GR SWCOR PNL2000

0 GAPI 100 1 V/V 0 1 V/V 0 0 GAPI 100 1 V/V 0 1 V/V 0
1

1
100 100
2

2
3

3
150 150
4

4
200 200
5

250 250
6

300 300
7

350 350
8

400 400
9

9
10

10

450 450
11

11

Figure 11. Well B, Company 1 Sigma & C/O Overlays Figure 12. Well B, Company 2 Sigma & C/O
Overlays
SPE 78532 WATERFLOOD SATURATION MEASUREMENT WITH CARBON-OXYGEN TOOLS IN A MIDDLE-EAST CARBONATE 13

PERFORATIONS

PERFORATIONS
COMPANY3.SWCOR COMPANY3.SWSIGMA
SWSIGMA SWSIGMA 1 V/V 0 1 V/V 0
ZONES

ZONES
COMPANY2.SWCOR COMPANY2.SWSIGMA
1 V/V 0 1 V/V 0
1 V/V 0 1 V/V 0
GR SWCOR PNL2000 GR COMPANY1.SWCOR COMPANY1.SWSIGMA
0 GAPI 100 1 V/V 0 1 V/V 0 0 GAPI 100 1 V/V 0 1 V/V 0

1
1

100 100
2

2
3

3
150 150

4
4

200 200

5
5

250 250
6
6

300 300
7
7

350 350
8
8

400 400
9
9

10
10

450 450
11
11

Figure 13. Well B, Company 3 Sigma & C/O Overlays Figure 14. Well B, All Companies Sigma & C/O Overlays