Conformance Technology: What Is Conformance Technology? The Conformance Control Process

HALLIBURTON ENERGY SERVICES
Introduction 1
Introduction
What Is Conformance
Technology?
Conformance Technology is the applica-
tion of processes to reservoirs and
boreholes to reduce water production,
enhance recovery efficiency, or satisfy
a broad range of reservoir manage-
ment and environmental objectives.
Although the use of conformance
processes may not result in increased
production, such processes can often
improve an operators profitability as a
result of the following benefits:
longer productive well life
reduced lifting costs
reduced environmental
concerns and costs
minimized treatment and
disposal of water
reduced well maintenance costs
Ideally, conformance control should
be performed before a condition can
result in serious damage. As with
personal health, treating potential
problems before they become serious
is considerably less costly than
allowing a condition to deteriorate
until drastic actions must be taken.
For example, just as changing lifestyle
habits can reduce a persons risk of
heart disease, treating a wells poten-
tial coning problem may prevent it
from bottoming out in the future.
The Conformance
Control Process
The first step in effective conform-
ance control is understanding
potential conformance problems.
Chapter 1 of this book reviews the
characteristics of correct reservoir
behavior and identifies both near-
wellbore and reservoir-related
conformance problems.
Historically, operators assessed the
production of unwanted fluids based
on individual wells. Recent experi-
ence, however, suggests that reservoir
descriptions and reservoir evaluations
can often provide valuable informa-
tion that may result in more effective
conformance control. Chapter 2
explains the principles of reservoir
description and reservoir evaluation
and provides information regarding
static and dynamic reservoir proper-
ties and how these properties can
affect the design of typical conform-
ance treatments.
Before an effective conformance
treatment can be designed, the
conformance problem must be
thoroughly examined. Chapter 3
provides information regarding the
production logs, cement logs,
reservoir monitoring tools, downhole
video equipment, and tracer surveys
used for problem prediction, problem
identification, and treatment evalua-
tion.
Conformance
Technology
HELP CONTENTS MAP DATA MANUAL VIDEO PRESENTATIONS TECH. PAPERS
CONFORMANCE TECHNOLOGY
2 Introduction
One tool that can provide assistance during the diagnosis
and treatment selection phases is Halliburtons XERO
water-control expert system. This PC-based program uses
artificial intelligence techniques to identify the problem,
select the proper fluid system for treating the problem,
and recommend treatment designs based on the identi-
fied problem and built-in engineering calculations.
Chapter 4 provides a detailed description of the XERO
system.
Once a conformance problem is identified, engineers
must choose an appropriate chemical system to treat the
problem. Chapter 5 provides more specific information
about water-based polymer systems and diesel systems.
When a chemical system has been selected, designers
must focus their attention on selecting the appropriate
placement techniques and equipment. Chapter 6
describes various placement techniques as well as the
pumping, mixing, monitoring, and filtering systems
typically used for conformance control. This chapter also
provides information regarding the use of coiled tubing,
which is becoming a popular alternative to the traditional
workover rig.
After a treatment has been performed, engineers can
perform several different tests to monitor the treatments
success. Chapter 7 briefly summarizes treatment evalua-
tion methods.
Conformance Problems 3
Chapter 1
By understanding correct reservoir
behavior, engineers can better
determine if current gas or water
production is excessive or whether it
could potentially become excessive in
the future. The production rates and
ultimate recoveries of hydrocarbons
and other unwanted fluids from a
reservoir depend highly on drive
mechanisms, rock properties, fluid
properties, structural relief, well
locations, and reservoir management
techniques. This chapter explains
primary and secondary recovery
mechanisms and describes common
near-wellbore and reservoir-related
problems.
Recovery Mechanisms
Primary Recovery
The principal mechanisms driving
hydrocarbon recovery are depletion,
water, segregation, and gravity
processes. Solution gas drives result in
the lowest recoveries (15 to 27%) and
natural waterdrives result in the
highest recoveries (35 to 70%), as
shown in Figure 1.1 (Page 4).
Between these two extremes are
combination mechanisms involving
limited water- or gas-cap drives,
segregation conditions, and gravity
drainage processes. The following
paragraphs discuss each drive mecha-
nism.
Depletion
(Solution Gas) Drive
The depletion drive mechanism
depends on gas and oil expansion as
its source of energy to move fluids. In
an undersaturated reservoir, the
expansion of oil and dissolved gas is
responsible for fluid production. As
the pressure drops below the bubble
point, the reservoir becomes satu-
rated, and the liberated gas initially
replaces the produced oil on an
equal-volume basis. Once the
saturation of the gas reaches the
point where it can flow, the gas is
produced with the oil, which
depletes the gas as a source of
energy. As a result, more gas expan-
sion is necessary per unit volume of
oil produced. The relative permeabil-
ity to oil is reduced, and the pro-
duced gas-oil ratio (GOR) increases
rapidly.
Segregation Drive
without Counterflow
In high-relief geologic structures
containing reservoirs with both oil
and gas, the oil and gas may exist as
stratified or segregated phases; for
example, an oil zone may be overlain
by a gas cap. In this type of reservoir,
low vertical permeability or the
presence of shale stringers or other
impermeable zones suppresses the
counterflow of oil and gas associated
with gravity drainage processes. The
primary drive mechanism is gas-cap
expansion. Although gas-cap deple-
tion through coning or other means
is harmful, this type of reservoir is
often a candidate for pressure
maintenance through gas injection
into the gas cap.
Chapter 1
Conformance
Problems
4 Conformance Problems Chapter 1
Gravity Drainage
(Segregation Drive with Counterflow)
The development and expansion of a gas cap over an oil
zone can result from an active fluid segregation process
in which oil migrates downward because of gravity, and
gas migrates upward from buoyancy effects. In this type
of reservoir, the vertical permeability must favor hydro-
carbon movement, and the volume of gas moving up
must be equal to the amount of oil moving down. The
rate of fluid segregation increases as the mobility of oil
approaches that of gas. Depletion of the gas cap through
coning or other means is especially detrimental to
reservoir performance because this type of reservoir is
not a candidate for gas injection into the gas cap.
Waterdrive
Natural waterdrive reservoirs occur when an oil-bearing
stratum is embedded into an aquifer or when a hydraulic
connection exists between the reservoir and an outcrop
that allows water infiltration. When enough water
volume exists to replace the produced oil volume, the
reservoir has an active waterdrive. If the primary movement
of water is from the edge inward, approximately parallel
to the bedding plane, the reservoir has an edgewater drive. If
the primary water movement is upward from below, the
reservoir has a bottomwater drive.
Water usually provides a strong energy support mecha-
nism, but it does so at a cost. Often, depending on the
(1) completion length of the interval, (2) oil viscosity, (3)
vertical permeability, (4) density difference between the
oil and water, (5) distance between the perforations, and
(6) water-oil contact, the water underlying the oil can
eventually move into the well.
Vertical water encroachment (bottomwater drive) occurs
when water from an underlying aquifer, possibly con-
nected to an outcrop, replaces the produced hydrocarbon
volume. The upward moving water-oil contact resulting
from reservoir depletion can eventually reach the
perforations, causing water production.
Horizontal water encroachment (edgewater drive) into an
oil reservoir results from a hydraulic connection with an
outcrop, which can conduct large amounts of water.
Generally, this effect appears as a constant-pressure
boundary in the solution of the diffusivity equation for oil
or gas. If permeability is heterogeneous, the drive water
can channel through the higher-permeability streaks,
bypassing much of the oil contained in the lower-
permeability layers. If the water is more mobile than the
Solution Gas Drive
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Percent of Original Oil Produced
P
e
r
c
e
n
t

o
f

O
r
i
g
i
n
a
l

R
e
s
e
r
v
o
i
r

P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Waterdrive
Gas-Cap Drive
Figure 1.1Solution gas drives result in the lowest recoveries. Natural waterdrives result in highest recoveries.
Chapter 1
gas (the water-oil mobility ratio is greater than one), the
water can finger through the oil, again reducing sweep
efficiency and bypassing oil.
Secondary Recovery
In primary recovery, natural reservoir energy displaces oil
to the production well. Any method that improves oil
production beyond primary recovery is referred to as
improved oil recovery (IOR).

IOR processes that do not
involve chemical reaction between the injected fluid and
the oil in place are called secondary recovery methods.
Pressure maintenance techniques such as water or gas
injection are among the most widely applied secondary
processes.
Water-Injection Pressure Maintenance
During waterflooding, operators inject water into an oil
reservoir to enhance recovery during the final stages of
the primary recovery operation. When waterflooding is
used, early breakthrough at the production well may
occur if the water channels through high-permeability
streaks. If the water is more mobile than the oil, fingering
may also occur.
Waterflood performance can be predicted based on the
same techniques used to predict natural water influx, but
additional calculations are required for the prediction of
flood patterns and sweep efficiencies.
Gas-Injection Pressure Maintenance
Operators use gas injection either to maintain reservoir
pressure at a selected level or to supplement natural
reservoir energy by reinjecting the produced gas.
Complete or partial pressure-maintenance operations can
result in increased hydrocarbon recovery and improved
reservoir performance. However, gas-injection methods
and mechanisms are generally similar to those of water
injection; therefore, early gas breakthrough caused by
channeling or fingering is still a concern. By including
the effects of gas solution in the reservoir oil and vapor-
ization of lighter hydrocarbons, engineers can model gas-
injection reservoirs as water-injection reservoirs.
Although many conformance problems are exclusive to a
production well or an injection well, such a clear delinea-
tion does not always exist. Therefore, engineers must
accurately determine the source of the problem before
they can design the proper treatment for the proper well.
Engineers must also determine if fluid breakthrough is
indeed premature. In reservoirs with various natural
drives and in enhanced recovery operations, an unwanted
fluid is expected to break through eventually, even if the
reservoir is ideal.
Part of problem identification is determining if a prob-
lem, in fact, exists or if everything has proceeded as
planned. Engineers use such methods as reservoir
simulation, volumetric analysis, decline curve analysis,
and data comparisons to determine if the reservoir is
depleted. They may also use a pressure-volume-tempera-
ture (PVT) analysis of the reservoir oil to determine if the
produced gas is from a gas cap or dissolved gas.
Conformance Problem Sources
Conformance problems are classified as either near-
wellbore problems or reservoir-related problems. Some
problems, however, could easily be placed in both
categories. For example, barrier breakdown is related to
fracturing out of zone and could be considered reservoir-
related, but it is considered a near-wellbore problem.
Similarly, although coning and cresting occur in the near-
wellbore region and can result from a completion too
near the water or gas zone, they are considered reservoir-
related.
Near-Wellbore Problems
Near-wellbore conformance problems include
casing leaks
channels behind casing
barrier breakdowns
debris, scale, and bacteria deposits
completions into or near water or gas
Casing Leaks
An unexpected increase in water or gas production could
be the result of a casing leak. Production logs, such as
temperature, fluid density, Hydro, and flowmeter
(spinner), can help, individually or in combination, locate
where various fluids are entering the wellbore. Thermal
multigate decay (TMD) and pulsed spectral gamma test
(PSGT) logs can also be used. These tools detect water
entry and water flow into casing.
Casing evaluation logs are used to find holes, splits, and
deformities that could allow unwanted fluid entry. The
logs also detect corrosion conditions that could eventu-
ally cause leaks. Downhole video can also show engineers
the condition of the wellbore and where various fluids
enter the wellbore. Engineers can also compare water
analyses between the produced water and those of nearby
formations to locate the source of the leak.
Channels Behind Casing
Channels can develop behind the casing throughout the
life of the well, but such channels are most likely to occur
immediately after the well is completed or after the well
is stimulated. Unexpected water production at these
times strongly indicates that a channel may exist.
Channels in the casing-formation annulus result from
poor cement/casing bonds or cement/formation bonds.
Fluid influx can only be prevented if proper displacement
techniques are used. The factors affecting displacement
efficiency are listed below.
Condition of the Drilling FluidMaximum circulatable
hole should be achieved, and the mobility of the drilling
fluid should be increased through the control of filter-
cake buildup. In vertical applications, these practices will
result in low gel strength and viscosity. In deviated
wellbores, the drilling fluid should be conditioned to
prevent the dynamic settling of solids to the low side of
the wellbore.
Pipe MovementRotating or reciprocating the casing
provides a mechanical means of controlling gel strength
buildup. Pipe movement can eliminate a solids-settled
channel.
Pipe CentralizationCentralizers can be used to
improve pipe standoff and to equalize the forces in the
annulus. The result is uniform fluid flow around the
casing. In deviated wellbores, a standoff of at least 70% is
preferred.
Displacement Fluid VelocityFluids should be dis-
placed from the annulus at the highest rate possible while
wellbore control is still maintained.
Gas influx or fluid migration through the unset cement
column occurs because the slurry cannot maintain
overbalance pressure while the cement is in a gelled
phase, which allows gas percolation to form a gas
channel. Once a cement slurry is in place, it begins to
develop static gel strength. Gel strength development
inhibits the slurry from transmitting hydrostatic pressure,
and when combined with hydration/fluid-loss volume
reductions, the result is gas migration. Gas migration
during the initial phases of cement hydration has been
thoroughly researched and several control methods have
been developed. These methods include systems that
exhibit controlled fluid loss, modified static gel strength
development, and compressible systems.
Gas influx can also occur after the cement has set. This
type of long-term gas migration is thought to occur
because of poor displacement or the debonding of the
pipe/cement/formation sheath. In the case of poor
displacement, gas flow dehydrates the drilling fluid that
the cement bypasses and results in a highly permeable
flow path for gas migration. Drilling/production/
workover operations can break the cement/casing bond
or cause the cement sheath to fail, resulting in a path for
fluid migration. The use of good displacement practices
and expansive cements should help solve such long-
term gas migration problems.
Once a well has been cemented, Halliburton can use
diagnostic sonic tools (cement bond and pulse echo
tools) to determine the effectiveness of the cement job.
The logs these tools generate must be interpreted, and
this interpretation is historically used as the basis for
remedial work, such as squeezing off water and gas. Data
from these sonic tools provide information about cement-
to-pipe bonding and the quality of the cement-annulus
seal.
Temperature logs that exhibit deviation from the geother-
mal gradient when the well is shut in indicate fluid
migration behind the pipe. A zone having an abnormally
high temperature indicates that fluid is migrating upward.
Abnormally low temperatures indicate that fluid is
migrating downward. TMD and PSGT logs can detect
and quantify water flow in a channel behind the casing.
When the well is shut in, borehole audio tracer surveys
(BATS) help indicate possible fluid movement behind the
pipe.
Barrier Breakdown
Even if natural barriers, such as dense shale layers,
separate the different fluid zones and a good cement job
exists, the shales can heave and fracture near the
wellbore. As a result of production, the pressure differen-
tial across these shales allows fluid to migrate through the
wellbore (Figure 1.2). More often, this type of failure is
associated with stimulation attempts. Fractures can break
through the shale layer, or acids can dissolve channels
through it. Temperature logs, TMD logs, and PSGT logs
can be used to detect fluid migration as a result of barrier
breakdown.
Debris, Scale, and Bacteria
Debris, scale, or bacteria deposited on the perforations or
in the region around the wellbore of an injector can
restrict flow through perforations, decreasing injectivity
and possibly diverting fluid into unwanted regions. The
Chapter 1
presence of debris, scale, or bacteria may also indicate
that permeability streaks or crossflow exist.
Comparing the water analysis results of injection and
reservoir fluids is an excellent means of determining the
possibility of scale problems. All fluids injected into the
well should be evaluated for the possibility of introducing
bacteria to the formation face. In addition to water
analysis results, scale problems can also be detected with
downhole video.
Completion Into or Near Water or Gas
Completion into the unwanted fluid allows the fluid to be
produced immediately. Even if perforations are above the
original water-oil contact or below the gas-oil contact,
proximity to either of these interfaces allows production
of the unwanted fluid, through coning or cresting, to
occur much more easily and quickly.
Engineers should re-examine core data, the drillers daily
report, and openhole logs to determine the cutoff point
of moveable water. Data from resistivity and porosity
logs, for example, can be combined to determine the
location of water and pay zones.
Reservoir-Related Problems
Reservoir-related problems include
coning and cresting
channeling through higher-permeability zones
fingering
out-of-zone fractures
fracture communication between the injector and
producer
lack of communication between the injector and
producer
Coning and Cresting
Fluid coning in vertical wells and fluid cresting in
horizontal wells both result from reduced pressure near
the well completion. This reduced pressure draws water
or gas from an adjacent, connected zone toward the
completion (Figure 1.3). Eventually, the water or gas can
break through into the perforated section, replacing all or
part of the hydrocarbon production. Once breakthrough
occurs, the problem tends to get worse, as higher cuts of
the unwanted fluid are produced. Although reduced
production rates can curtail the problem, they cannot
cure it.
Fluid density, Hydro, PSGT, and TMD logs can help
engineers determine the point of water entry into the
wellbore. The PSGT and TMD logs can also indicate the
present location of the water-oil contact before break-
through. In addition to these logs, engineers can run
additional well tests to detect bottomwater encroach-
ment.
Channeling Through Higher Permeability
High-permeability streaks can allow the fluid that is
driving hydrocarbon production to break through
prematurely, bypassing potential production by leaving
Oil
Water
Shale Barrier
Figure 1.2Communication through a barrier
Oil
Water
Figure 1.3Coning
Figure 1.5Fingering
lower permeability zones unswept (Figure 1.4). As the
driving fluid sweeps the higher-permeability intervals,
permeability to subsequent flow of the fluid becomes
even higher, which results in increasing water-oil or gas-
oil ratios throughout the life of the project.
Tracer surveys, interference and pulse testing, reservoir
simulations of the field, reservoir descriptions, and
reservoir monitoring are used for channel detection.
Tracer surveys and interference and pulse tests verify
communication between wells and help engineers
determine the flow capacity of the channel. Reservoir
description and monitoring verify the location of fluids in
the various formations. The data available through
reservoir description (Chapter 2) allow engineers to
produce more accurate models of the formations and
then simulate fluid movement through the reservoir.
Permeability variations between zones can be revealed by
core test results or pressure transient test results of
individual zones.
Fingering
Unfavorable mobility ratios (>1) allow the more mobile
displacing fluid (from either primary or enhanced
recovery operations) to finger through and bypass large
amounts of oil. Once breakthrough occurs, very little
additional oil will be produced as the drive fluid contin-
ues to flow directly from the source to the production
well (Figure 1.5).
Reservoir- and drive-fluid mobilities derived from fluid
and core data are probably the most important factors for
determining whether fingering is a potential problem.
Engineers can use reservoir simulations or available
information on ideal systems to determine if sweep
efficiencies are within range of what would be expected if
fingering did not exist.
Fracturing Out of Zone
An improperly designed or poorly performed stimulation
treatment can allow a hydraulic fracture to enter a water
or gas zone. If the stimulation is performed on a produc-
tion well, an out-of-zone fracture can allow early break-
through of water or gas. If the fracturing treatment is
performed on an injection well, a fracture that connects
the flooded interval to an aquifer or other permeable
zone can divert the injected fluid to the aquifer, provid-
ing very little benefit in sweeping the oil zone. Engineers
can use temperature logs, tracer surveys, and detailed
reviews of the fracturing treatment to identify this
problem.
Microfrac treatments and long-spaced sonic logs, usually
performed before the fracturing treatment, help verify
the existence of vertical stress contrasts that might be
great enough to contain fracture height growth.
Fracture Communication
Between Injector and Producer
Natural fracture systems can provide a direct connection
between injection and production wells, allowing
injected fluid to move through these higher-permeability
channels, bypassing hydrocarbons within the rock matrix
(Figure 1.6). Even if natural fractures intersecting two
Higher Permeability
Low Permeability
Producer
Oil
Injection Water
Injector
Figure 1.4High-permeability streaks
Chapter 1
wells are not directly connected, fluid can preferentially
flow through one fracture until it is in close proximity to
another fracture or wellbore, crossing through and
sweeping only a small portion of the matrix.
Natural fractures serving as flow channels can be con-
firmed by chloride level comparisons and tracer surveys.
Reservoir description should locate the discontinuities,
and reservoir monitoring should detect the movement of
fluids through the fracture system. A combined analysis
of pressure buildup or drawdown data and interference
data allows engineers to estimate the properties for both
the matrix and the natural fracture system.
Poorly oriented hydraulic fractures can also provide
channels that allow injected fluids to bypass much of
hydrocarbon production. Although created fractures
rarely interconnect two wells, a hydraulic fracture still
provides a channel of higher conductivity that allows
much of the reservoir fluid to be bypassed. Preferred
fracture orientation and the possibility of enhanced
recovery operations should be considered during the
reservoirs initial development.
Various technologies, such as microfrac analysis and
anelastic strain recovery, allow engineers to determine
the expected direction of fracture growth. If engineers
know the lengths and directions of any hydraulic
fractures, they can use reservoir simulations to model
flow through the system and determine the expected
sweep efficiency.
Lack of Communication Between Injector
and Producer
If oil or gas production does not respond to injection, the
problem could be a lack of communication between the
injector and producer. A natural barrier, such as a sealing
fault, can separate the wells, or they can be perforated in
different zones.
Interference and pulse tests help determine if interwell
communication exists. Reservoir description reveals the
presence of major heterogeneities, such as faults.
Conclusions
With a basic knowledge of reservoir behavior and the
primary causes of conformance problems, a reservoir
description team can examine various wellbore and
reservoir parameters to pinpoint any conformance
problems that might exist in a given area. Chapter 2
presents detailed information regarding well testing,
reservoir descriptions, and reservoir monitoring.
Bibliography
Aguilera, R. et al.: Horizontal Wells, Gulf Publishing Co.,
Houston, TX (1991).
Arps, J. J., Brons, F., van Everdingen, A. F., Buchwald, R.
W., and Smith, A. E.: A Statistical Study of Recovery
Efficiency, API Bulletin D-14.
Arthur, M. G.: authors reply to discussion of Fingering
and Coning of Water and Gas in Homogeneous Oil
Sand, Trans., AIME, (1944) 45:200-01.
Bateman, R.M.: Building a Reservoir Description Team
A Case Study, The Log Analyst, (1993) 67-73; 34, 4.
Beterge, M. B. and Ertekin, T.: Development and Testing
of a Static/Dynamic Local Grid-Refinement Tech-
nique, JPT (April 1992) 487.
Bournazel, C. and Jeanson, B.: Fast Water-Coning
Evaluation Method, paper SPE 3628 presented at the
1971 SPE Annual Fall Meeting, New Orleans, Oct. 3-
6.
Bournazel, C. L. and Sonier, F.: Physical Models for the
Study of Oil Drainage with Cone Formation, ARTFP
3rd Meeting, Pau, France, Technip Editions, 1969.
Byrne, W. B. and Morse, R. A.: Waterconing May Not Be
Harmful1, OGJ (Sept. 3, 1973) 66-70.
Chaperon, I.: Theoretical Study of Coning Toward
Horizontal and Vertical Wells in Anisotropic Forma-
tions: Subcritical and Critical Rates, paper SPE 15377
presented at the 1986 SPE Annual Technical Confer-
ence and Exhibition, New Orleans, Oct. 5-8.
Chapplelear, J. E. and Hirasaki, G. J.: A Model of Oil-
Water Coning for Two-Dimensional, Areal Reservoir
Simulation, SPEJ (April 1976) 65-72.
Injection Well
Production Well
Open Fracture
Figure 1.6Fingering
Coats, K. H.: An Analysis for Simulating Reservoir
Performance Under Pressure Maintenance by Gas
and/or Water Injection, SPEJ (Dec. 1968) 331-40.
Collins, D. A., Ngheim, L. X., and Grabenstrotter, J. E.:
An Efficient Approach to Adaptive-Implicit Compo-
sitional Simulation with an Equation-of-State, paper
SPE 15133 presented at the 1986 California Regional
Meeting of SPE, Oakland, CA, April 2-4.
Cottin, R. H. and Ombret, R. L.: Application of a
Multiphase Coning Model to Optimize Completion
and Production of Thin Oil Columns Lying Between
Gas Cap and Water Zone, paper SPE 4632 presented
at the 1973 SPE Annual Fall Meeting, Las Vegas, Sept.
30-Oct. 3.
Dahl, J. A., Nguyen, P.D., Dalrymple, E. D., and Rahimi,
A. B.: Current Water-Control Treatment Designs,
paper SPE 25029 presented at the 1992 SPE European
Petroleum Conference, Cannes, France, Nov. 16-18.
Graig, F.F.: The Reservoir Engineering Aspects of Water-
flooding, Monograph Series, SPE, Richardson, TX
(1980) 3.
Giger, F. M.: Analytic 2-D Models of Water Cresting
Before Breakthrough for Horizontal Wells, SPE
Reservoir Engineering (Nov. 1989) 409-16.
Giger, F. M.: Horizontal Wells Production Techniques in
Heterogeneous Reservoirs, paper SPE 13710 pre-
sented at the 1985 SPE Middle East Oil Technical
Conference, Bahrain, March 11-14.
Hyland, L. A., Papatzacos, P., and Skjaeveland, S. M.:
Critical Rate for Water Coning: Correlation and
Analytical Solution, SPE Reservoir Engineering (Nov.
1989) 495-502.
Joshi S. D.: Augmentation of Well Productivity Using
Slant and Horizontal Wells, JPT (June 1988) 729-39.
Joshi, S. D.: Horizontal Well Technology, PennWell Publish-
ing Company, Tulsa, OK, 1991.
Kabir, C. S.: Predicting Gas Well Performance Coning
Water in Bottom-Water-Drive Reservoirs, paper SPE
12068 presented at the 1983 SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, San Francisco, Oct. 5-8.
Karp, J. C., Lowe, D. K., and Marusov, N.: Horizontal
Barriers for Controlling Water Coning, JPT (July
1962) 783-90.
Lake, L. W.: Enhanced Oil Recovery, Prentice Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ (1989) 223.
Meyer, H. I. and Garder, A. O.: Mechanics of Two
Immiscible Fluids in Porous Media, Journal of Applied
Physics, 25, No. 11, 1400.
Mungan, N.: A Theoretical and Experimental Coning
Study, SPEJ (June, 1975) 247-54.
Muskat, M.: The Flow of Homogeneous Fluids Through Porous
Media, IHRDC, Boston (1982) 454-476.
Papatzacos, P., Gustafson, S. A., and Skaeveland, S. M.:
Critical Time for Cone Breakthrough in Horizontal
Wells, presented at the 1988 Seminar on Recovery
from Thin Oil Zones, Norwegian Petroleum Director
ate, Stavanger, Norway, April 21-22.
Papatzacos, P., Herring, T. U. Martinson, R., Skaeveland,
S. M.: Cone Breakthrough Time for Horizontal
Wells, paper SPE 19822 presented at the 1989 SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San
Antonio, TX, Oct. 8-11.
Reed, R. N. and Wheatley, M. J.: Oil and Water Produc
tion in a Reservoir With Significant Capillary Transi-
tion Zone, paper SPE 12066 presented at the 1983
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
San Francisco, Oct. 5-9.
Slider, H. C.: Practical Petroleum Reservoir Engineering Methods,
Petroleum Publishing Company, Tulsa (1976) 353-
364.
Sobocinski, D. P. and Cornelius, A. J.: A Correlation for
Predicting Water Coning Time, JPT (May 1965)
594-600.
Weber, K.J.: How Heterogeneity Affects Oil Recovery,
Reservoir Characterization, Academic Press, Orlando, FL,
487-544.
Weber, K.J.: Reservoir Modeling for Simulation Pur-
poses, Development Geology Reference Manual (ed.),
American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Tulsa,
OK (1992) 531-535.
Wheatley M. J.: An Approximate Theory of Oil/Water
Coning, paper SPE 14210 presented at the 1985 SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Las
Vegas, Sept. 22-25.
Yang, W. and Wattenbarger, R. A.: Water Coning
Calculations for Vertical and Horizontal Wells, paper
SPE 22931 presented at the 1991 SPE Annual Techni-
cal Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Oct. 6-9.
Zhao, L.: Progress Report No. 16, Texas A&M University
Reservoir Modeling Consortium (1993).
Data Collection 11
Chapter 2
To understand the source or potential
source of a problem, conformance
control design teams must thoroughly
investigate all aspects of well and
reservoir parameters, including
geological, petrophysical, well
completion, and production/injection
log data. All of this information may
not be available, and some of the
available information may not
sufficiently identify the source of the
problem; therefore, additional tests
may have to be performed.
By fully understanding the different
mechanisms that contribute to a
conformance problem, engineers can
better evaluate the information
available, identify additional tests,
and perhaps better determine possible
problems. This chapter describes well
testing, reservoir descriptions, and
reservoir monitoring methods and
specifies how a design team can use
the data collected to identify con-
formance problems and plan treat-
ments.
Well Testing
Well tests provide information
regarding pertinent reservoir proper-
ties, such as horizontal and vertical
permeability. They can also reveal the
presence of heterogeneities and verify
interwell communication.
This section discusses the general
effects of reservoir nonidealities on
pressure-transient testing and how
well testing can be used to quantify
these nonidealities. In addition, the
application of multiple-well tests to
conformance technology is discussed.
Chapter 2
Data
Collection
Effect of Reservoir
Nonidealities
Reservoir nonidealities, such as
barriers, permeability anisotropy,
layered systems, and natural frac-
tures, play important roles in well
conformance. Researchers have
examined the effects of each
nonideality on pressure transient
behavior, and have developed
methods and tests to determine their
existence or magnitude. Such tests,
however, should be supported by
additional geologic, seismic, fluid
flow, and performance data. Engi-
neers should not infer heterogeneous
reservoir properties based solely on
transient testing.
Faults and Barriers
Barriers, such as sealing faults, can
prevent communication between
injection and production wells. If
faults are located near an injector,
they could cause rapid pressure
changes early in the wells life that
could be mistaken for indications of
other injector-related problems.
On an appropriate semilog plot, a
linear barrier, such as a sealing fault,
appears as a second straight-line
portion of double slope in drawdown,
two-rate pressure buildup, injectivity,
and pressure falloff testing. Log
analysts must be careful to ensure
that wellbore storage effects are not
causing the two apparent semilog
straight lines. The use of the intersec-
tion time of the two straight-line
segments allows analysts to deter-
mine the distance from the well to
12 Data Collection Chapter 2
the fault. The method for this determination depends, of
course, on the type of well test performed. Multiple faults
are not as easily analyzed as a single fault because their
relative angles and distances from the well affect transient
test-pressure behavior.
Permeability Anisotropy
The degree to which a reservoirs permeability is aniso-
tropic affects coning or cresting behavior near the well
and will factor into the degree of crossflow between
adjacent permeable layers. Typically, vertical permeabil-
ity is less than horizontal permeability in petroleum
reservoirs.
Because the response curve of an anisotropic reservoir is
the same as an isotropic reservoir, anisotropy cannot be
recognized from a single-well test; the permeability
determined from one test is considered an average
permeability. However, multiple-well transient tests are
available that allow engineers to recognize and quantify
anisotropic reservoir properties. Well tests are also
available for determining vertical permeability.
Well Tests for Vertical Permeability
Methods for estimating vertical permeability include
vertical interference testing, vertical pulse testing, and
the use of a formation tester.
Vertical Interference and Pulse Tests
To perform vertical interference and pulse tests, operators
must complete the well so that part of the completion
can be used for production or injection and another part
for observation. A favorable method is to separate the
active (injection or production) perforations from the
observation perforations with a packer. Theoretically,
either set of perforations can serve as the active or
observation perforations, but operators generally prefer
to use the upper set for the active perforations.
In general, operational considerations for these types of
tests are more demanding than other tests because
operators must (1) limit or eliminate wellbore storage
effects, which can mask the pressure response, and (2)
eliminate any communication between the two sets of
perforations, except through the matrix permeability.
In addition to the increased operational difficulty, the
analysis of vertical pulse tests is more complex than that
of horizontal tests because of the influence of upper and
lower formation boundaries on the test. Vertical interfer-
ence tests are also possible, but they can only be properly
analyzed with a computer.
Formation Testers
Formation testers measure pressures at individual points
within a wellbore as fluid samples are taken. As fluids are
withdrawn from the formation, a drawdown permeability
is calculated from the pressures measured. Spherical
buildup permeability is calculated from pressures mea-
sured while the formation relaxes to an undisturbed state.
Through mathematical relationships, horizontal and
vertical permeabilities are calculated from these two
values.
Layered Reservoirs
The pressure transient behavior of a layered system with
crossflow is the same as the behavior of a homogeneous
system. Therefore, normal pressure transient testing will
not reveal the layered nature of the reservoir. In these
systems, the effective permeability-thickness product will
be the arithmetic total of the permeability-thickness
products of the individual layers. Likewise, the effective
porosity-compressibility-thickness product will be the
arithmetic total of the porosity-compressibility-thickness
products of the individual layers.
For layered reservoirs separated by barriers that prevent
crossflow, early-time drawdown or buildup behaviors
cannot be distinguished from those of a single-layer
system. However, at later times, once boundary effects
occur, the presence of the boundary will be sensed at
different times in each layer if the layers have different
properties. The resulting behaviors can be analyzed
through the use of special techniques.
By isolating and testing each layer in a layered reservoir
with a straddle packer, analysts can estimate the
permeabilities, skin factors, and average pressures of all
layers.
Natural Fractures
Natural fracture systems, among the most common of
heterogeneities, can create flowpaths that allow injected
water or drive-water to bypass hydrocarbons within the
formation matrix.
If the natural fractures occur predominantly in a single
direction, the reservoir behaves as a system with anisotro-
pic permeability, and well testing methods developed for
anisotropic behavior can be applied.
Data Collection 13
Chapter 2
Natural fractures can also occur in an interconnected
system that exhibits two distinct porosity types: (1) the
fine, low-permeability pores of the matrix and (2) the
higher-permeability system of fractures, fissures, and
vugs. The existence of this dual porosity system manifests
itself in pressure transient testing behavior. For buildup
and drawdown tests, techniques are available for deter-
mining the total permeability-thickness product for the
system, as well as skin factor and average reservoir
pressure. A ratio of the porosity-compressibility product
of the fracture system to that of the total system is also
available. A combined analysis of pressure drawdown or
buildup data and interference data allows engineers to
estimate the properties of both the matrix and the
fracture system.
Multiple-Well Testing
As implied by the name, multiple-well transient tests
involve more than one well. They require at least one
active (producing or injecting) well and at least one
pressure-observation well. For practical rather than
theoretical reasons, the observation well is shut in for
pressure measurement. In addition to providing informa-
tion on interwell communication, multiple-well tests
allow engineers to investigate a larger portion of the
reservoir. The investigation area includes the region
between the wells and a radius of influence that depends
on the reservoir properties and the testing time.
Although multiple-well tests are designed to provide
information on the effective reservoir properties, they
can also indicate whether communication exists between
two or more wells. In a multiple-well test, the flow rate of
the active well is varied, while the bottomhole pressure
response at the observation wells is measured. A lack of
response at the observation well indicates little or no
communication. This condition suggests that either the
active and observation wells can be completed in
different zones or that a boundary, such as a sealing fault,
could exist between the wells.
If a response occurs at the observation well, it can usually
help engineers determine such parameters as permeability
and the porosity-compressibility product. In addition,
methods have been developed for estimating anisotropic
reservoir characteristics from interference testing.
Because multiple-well tests measure properties over a
region of influence, the variation in fluid properties (for
example, mobility) that exists with fluid-fluid contacts
can cause the results to be unreliable or meaningless
when they are applied to conformance control.
The two major types of multiple-well tests are the
interference test and the pulse test. Of the two tests, the
pulse test requires less time, but it is more difficult to
analyze.
Interference Tests
During an interference test, operators modify the long-
term rate, usually by shutting in the active well. Tech-
niques as simple as type-curve matching and semilog
plots are applied to the pressure responses measured at
the observation wells. In addition, permeability anisot-
ropy can be determined from interference tests that
involve multiple observation wells and more complex
analysis techniques.
If natural fractures exist, they may substantially affect
observation well behavior in interference tests. Because
early-time behavior is most greatly affected, type-curve
methods may not provide correct results in these in-
stances, but semilog methods should still apply.
Pulse Tests
During a pulse test, a number of short-duration rate
pulses are used at the active well. These production or
injection pulses are made at the same rate and duration,
and the pulses are separated by shut-in periods of the
same duration. The pressure responses measured at the
observation well can be small, sometimes less than 0.01
psi, requiring special pressure-measuring equipment.
When used on naturally fractured reservoirs, pulse tests
can provide erroneous results.
Reservoir Descriptions
Historically, engineers have assessed the condition of
unwanted fluid production on a well-by-well basis
without the benefit of reservoir understanding. While
many conformance problems can be traced to mechanical
(near-wellbore) problems, a significant number of
conformance problems are the result of reservoir-related
phenomena. By understanding a reservoirs characteris-
tics, engineers can more easily identify, control, and
sometimes predict a conformance problem.
To understand reservoir behavior, engineers must have a
description of a reservoirs static and dynamic properties.
Although reservoir information from a problem well may
provide valuable information that engineers can use to
create a treatment for that well, truly effective reservoir
understanding generally results from a multiple-well or
field-scale reservoir description.
Static Reservoir Properties
Dynamic Reservoir Properties
= porosity
h = thickness
k = permeability
P = pressure
Q = rate
Sw = water saturation
k
P
Q
Sw
h
Figure 2.1Static and dynamic reservoir properties
(modified after Bateman, 1993)
Figure 2.2Integrated approach to reservoir description
Reservoir description is the quantitative assessment of
both static and dynamic subsurface properties, both
spatially and temporally. Reservoir descriptions can be
performed at various scales, ranging from a broad basin
analysis to an individual reservoir unit analysis. Static
properties do not usually change with time and include
the size, shape, position, and storage capacity of the flow
units. Dynamic properties vary with time and include the
initial, current, and future distribution of fluids in the
flow units (Figure 2.1).
Ideally, a reservoir description should result in a concep-
tual 3D model that describes the spatial distribution of
fluid and rock properties within the gross thickness and
areal extent of the reservoir. However, a more limited or
problem-specific reservoir description such as a study of
natural fractures, may provide the reservoir engineer with
the information necessary to identify or treat a conform-
ance problem, such as channeling through natural
fractures.
Any reservoir description should be based on an inte-
grated dataset (geology, geophysics, petrophysics,
engineering) prepared by a multidisciplinary team
(Figure 2.2). A field-scale reservoir description allows
team members to quickly classify the primary production
mechanism, identify large-scale trends, and incorporate
reservoir heterogeneity when planning secondary or
improved oil recovery.
Reservoir Heterogeneity
and Conformance
Various heterogeneities control the distribution and
movement of fluids in a field and reservoir. These
heterogeneities include faults, stratigraphic surfaces,
flow-unit boundaries, and fractures (Figure 2.3). Because
Geophysics Geology Petrophysics Engineering
Structural
Configuration
Stratigraphic
Framework
Geologic
Model
Volumetric
Estimate
of Fluids
in Place
Reservoir
Simulator
Optimization of
Field Operations
Economic
Analysis
Production
Forecasts
Data Collection 15
Chapter 2
Oil
1. Faults:
Sealing fault
Semisealing fault
Nonsealing fault
2. Boundaries between genetic units
3. Permeability zonation within genetic units
4. Flow baffles within genetic units
5. Sedimentary structures
Lamination
Cross-bedding
Bioturbation
6. Microscopic heterogeneity
Textural types
Pore types
Cements
Clays
7. Fractures
Open
Partially cemented
Cemented
Healed
Figure 2.3Types of reservoir heterogeneity (modified after Weber, 1992)
Injector Producer
K
/

=

7
K
/

=

3
K
/

=

5
K
/

=

2
K
/

=

5
K
/

=

2
Cumulative Water Injection
Cumulative Oil Production
Figure 2.4Effect of reservoir heterogeneity on a water-
flood front (Movement of the water front is irregular from
areal, vertical, and intrareservoir [intralayer or intrazone]
perspectives.)
Figure 2.5Cumulative oil production and cumulative
water injection across a field (Distribution of both oil and
water volumes is generally heterogeneous; however, at
least two subtle trends in both the oil and water volumes
may be interpreted [dashed lines].)
of macroscopic and microscopic features, porosity and
permeability are also heterogeneously distributed
throughout a reservoir and field. Table 2.1 shows the
impact of various types of reservoir heterogeneity on
fluid distribution and movement.
Figures 2.4 and 2.5 provide schematics of the effects
that reservoir and field-scale heterogeneity have on fluid
distribution and movement on waterfloods and oil
production. Accurate descriptions and a thorough
understanding of field and reservoir heterogeneity allow
design teams to predict, manage, and even control the
movement of reservoir-related fluids (oil and water) and
gas.
A reservoirs static properties do not generally change
during the life of a field. Therefore, engineers can
delineate the structural features (faults and folds) and
determine stratigraphic surfaces and geometries by
interpreting 2D or 3D seismic data.
Wireline logs provide detailed views of near-wellbore
formation thickness, dip, natural and induced fractures,
and petrophysical properties, such as porosity, lithology,
and fluid saturations. Studies of cores and cuttings
provide details on sedimentary structures, rock texture/
fabric, mineralogy, pore types and networks, and other
microscopic heterogeneities. By integrating these
datasets, design teams can construct a stratigraphic
framework and develop structural, depositional, and
diagenetic models. The team can then use these models
to construct a 3D geologic model that represents the
distribution of the various types of reservoir heterogene-
ity throughout the field.
A well-defined geologic model provides the information
necessary for the next phases of field/reservoir develop-
ment. This model must be dynamic, it must be updated as
new data is acquired, and it must evolve with field
development.
Effective assessment of a reservoirs dynamic properties is
essential before and during the development phase. To
Data Collection 17
Chapter 2
Reservoir Heterogeneity
Type
Reservoir
Continuity
Horizontal
Sweep Efficiency
Vertical
Sweep Efficiency
ROS in
Swept Zones
Rock/Fluid
Interactions
Sealing fault
Semisealing fault
Nonsealing fault
Boundaries
as genetic units
Permeability zonation
within genetic units
Baffles within genetic units
Lamination,
Cross-bedding
Microscopic heterogeneity
Textural types
Mineralogy
Tight fracturing
Open fracturing
O
X
X
O
O
O
O
O
X
X
X
X
O
O
O
O
O
X
O
X
X
O
O
O
O
X
O
O
X = Major influence O = Minor influence = No influence
derive fluid types, properties, and distribution, team
members can examine petrophysical, well test, and
production data and use advanced reservoir simulators
based on the geologic model.
Simulation is a vital part of the reservoir management
decision-making process because it yields production
forecasts for a variety of production alternatives and
economic scenarios. In mature fields, where production
rates have declined and formation pressures have fallen,
the team may be required to evaluate existing secondary
recovery activity and model possible secondary recovery
options. Strategies for pressure maintenance, infill
drilling, workover, and conformance problems can be
improved if the results of a reservoir simulation are
available.
Existing geological, geophysical, petrophysical, and
engineering data may often seem sparse in comparison
with reservoir size and complexity, and acquiring new
data is frequently costly. Table 2.2 (Page 18) shows the
value of various data for identifying and quantifying
different types of reservoir heterogeneity.
Table 2.1Types of Reservoir Heterogeneity
Finally, the spatial and temporal relationships that exist in
a reservoir are difficult to perceive. Reservoir engineers
have found 3D displays to be powerful tools for inter-
preting faulting and fluid regimes that may remain hidden
or be obscure in traditional 2D displays, such as maps
and cross sections.
Solutions for Reservoir-Related
Conformance Problems
A reservoir description solution can be developed for
each of the following reservoir-related nonconformance
phenomena identified in Chapter 1:
coning and cresting
high-permeability channeling
fingering
induced fractures
natural fractures
permeability barriers
Table 2.2 (1 of 2)Value of Data for the Identification and Qualification of Heterogeneity
Reservoir
Heterogeneity
Type
Detailed
Seismic
Horizontal
Reservoir
Pressure
Distribution
Vertical
Reservoir
Pressure
Distribution
Pulse
Tests
Production
History
Sealing fault
Semisealing fault
Nonsealing fault
Boundaries
as genetic units
Lamination,
Cross-bedding
Textural types
Mineralogy
Tight fracturing
Open fracturing
O
O
O
X
X
X = Major value O = Minor value = No value
Tracer
Tests
Production
Tests
O
O
X
O
O
X
X
X
O
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O
O
O
X
X
X
X
O
X
X
X
X
O
X
X
X
O
O
Table 2.2 (2 of 2)Value of Data for the Identification and Qualification of Heterogeneity
Reservoir
Heterogeneity
Type
Production
Logs
Standard
Well
Logging
Special
Well
Logging Cores
Outcrop or
Analog
Reservoir
Sealing fault
Semisealing fault
Nonsealing fault
Boundaries
as genetic units
Lamination,
Cross-bedding
Textural types
Mineralogy
Tight fracturing
Open fracturing
X
X
X
O
X = Major value O = Minor value = No value
SWS
Cuttings
ROS
Well
Logging
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
X
X
X
O
X
X
X
X
X
O
X
X
X
X
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O
O
O
O
X
X
X
Data Collection 19
Chapter 2
Coning and Cresting
As mentioned in Chapter 1, whenever a well is produc-
ing from an oil zone overlaying a water layer (aquifer),
the near-wellbore pressure gradients may deform the
horizontal oil-water contact into a cone or crest. The
height or vertical reach of the cone or crest above the
oil-water contact depends on the pressure gradient
around the wellbore.
The tendency for water or gas to cone is inversely related
to the density difference between existing oil and gas or
water and directly proportional to the viscosity and the
pressure drawdown near the wellbore. The density
difference between gas and oil is higher than the density
difference between gas and water, but gas has a lower
viscosity than water. However, formation permeability
and thickness generally dictate the extent of coning that
occurs because higher-permeability rock has higher flow
rates and requires less drawdown. In practice, most wells
are perforated closer to the oil-water contact than the
gas-oil contact; therefore, water coning is a common
conformance issue.
Before team members can treat a coning problem, they
must characterize fluids and reservoir-fluid interactions.
To determine the coning or cresting tendencies of
different parts of the reservoir, engineers must measure
the density, gravity, and viscosity of the hydrocarbon
fluids and establish the relative permeability of the
reservoir rocks. For example, homogeneous reservoirs
with active drives are more prone to coning. To under-
stand the distribution of variations in reservoir thickness
and permeability, the team must model the reservoirs
static properties. In this way, they can evaluate the
coning tendencies of different parts of the field and/or
reservoir. By understanding the reservoirs and/or fields
static and dynamic properties, the team can anticipate
potential coning problems.
To set production limits that should limit or preclude
coning problems in oil or gas reservoirs, team members
can calculate a critical production rate based on available
reservoir parameters. A reservoir description that includes
the distribution and magnitude of permeability heteroge-
neities and variations in reservoir thickness allows such
calculations to be refined to more accurately represent
the actual fluid dynamics of the reservoir.
High-Permeability Channeling
Reservoirs containing fractures or high-permeability
streaks may suffer from early water breakthrough and
poor sweep efficiency. As fluids are produced from a
reservoir, zones of higher permeability and correspond-
ingly higher flow rates create channels for the preferen-
tial movement of fluids. In the case of water, this condi-
tion can result in premature communication between a
reservoir and an aquifer or premature communication
between an injector and a producer. In either case, sweep
efficiency is diminished.
To eliminate or inhibit channeling, engineers may
recommend placing gels in the high-permeability zones
at the injection wells. These gels plug the high-
permeability zones and force the injected water to sweep
the oil-saturated, low-permeability zones. For such gel
placements to be successful, engineers must understand
the lateral and vertical distribution of the permeability
zones to identify interwell flow regimes.
To reduce or prevent the effects of high-permeability
channeling, engineers can map the lateral and vertical
distribution of permeability during reservoir description.
By knowing the distribution of high-permeability zones
(potential channels) across the field and/or reservoir, the
operations engineer can more easily avoid or control
channeling-related nonconformance.
Fingering
Viscous fingering is significant in a waterflood environ-
ment, especially when high oil-water viscosity ratios
exist. Under these conditions, discrete streamers or
fingers of displacing water may move through the
reservoir or field. When high oil-water viscosity ratios
exist, instabilities occur at the oil-water interface because
of the driving fluids higher mobility. The mobility ratio
compares the driving fluid (water or gas) mobility to the
driven fluid (oil) mobility. In some instances, the mobility
ratio may be expressed as the comparison of permeability
to viscosity (k/). Ideally, the mobility ratio should be
less than one; otherwise, fingering could result.
In a field of several types of reservoirs, the hydrocarbons
trapped in each reservoir may not be the same. In some
cases, oil gravities may vary substantially from one
reservoir to another, even in the same part of the field.
Therefore, the mobility of some hydrocarbons relative to
water, for instance, may be different in different parts of a
field. In addition, static reservoir properties and hetero-
geneities may dictate the preferential flow of oil, gas, or
water, depending on the placement and number of these
fluids.
During reservoir description, engineers can estimate the
fractional flow of fluid phases based on laboratory tests
on core samples to determine relative permeabilities and
capillary pressures of the wetting phase. During these
tests, the variation and distribution of fluid types and
fluid properties are characterized and modeled, as well as
the static reservoir properties. By integrating the static
and dynamic properties into a reservoir model, engineers
can predict and plan for zones and scenarios in which
fingering is likely to occur.
Induced Fractures
Injection above the formation parting pressure inadvert-
ently creates stresses in the reservoir zone that exceed
the tolerance of the reservoir rock. These stresses can
induce fractures that can modify expected fluid flow
patterns. If the induced fractures do not extend beyond
the reservoir pay zone, the effect is generally positive
(similar to hydraulic fracture stimulation). However, if
the induced fractures extend into a gas or water zone,
they become high-permeability conduits that allow
communication (channeling) between the reservoir and
these zones, resulting in diminished sweep efficiency and
oil recovery.
In-situ reservoir stresses and rock strength control the
initiation, opening, and propagation direction of the
induced fractures. By understanding the in-situ stress field
and the mechanical strength of the rock at reservoir
conditions, engineers can accurately determine!tCe
formation parting pressure and the probable intensity,
spacing, length, and orientation of any induced fractures.
With this information, the design team can plan or
modify injection activities to minimize or prevent
nonconformance problems.
Natural Fractures
Natural fractures are common components of many
reservoirs and can provide significant flow paths for fluid
movement. Natural fractures can connect oil and water
zones and define flow patterns or trends for subsurface
fluids. Fractures can also provide a significant portion of
reservoir quality by contributing permeability, porosity,
or both.
When planning production and injection activities,
engineers must consider the influence and effects that the
fracture system has on hydrocarbon and water distribu-
tion and movement. To understand the nature of natural
fractures, engineers must determine fracture geometry,
intensity, and distribution in 3D space.
The reservoir properties of the fracture system (fluid flow
interaction or crossflow related to the fracture system,
and the fracture systems contribution to total reservoir
quality) must be qualitatively or quantitatively deter-
mined. Rocks that have a multistage history of deforma-
tion may contain several sets of fractures, each with
different characteristics and effects on reservoir perfor-
mance.
Permeability Barriers
The assumption that no horizontal or vertical permeabil-
ity barriers exist in a typical reservoir is generally wrong.
Intrareservoir heterogeneities, such as depositional
boundaries (unconformities), facies changes, diagenetic
effects, sedimentary structures, and irregular pore
networks can all produce permeability barriers.
These barriers disrupt predicted fluid flow, resulting in
diminished sweep efficiency and nonconformance
problems. For example, horizontal permeability barriers
may halt or redirect waterflood fronts, while vertical
permeability barriers have a direct effect on water coning
and could, in some cases, promote a more uniform flood
front or prevent gravity segregation.
Production tests and production/injection profiles often
show the influence and effects of permeability barriers.
Field maps of production and injection data (histories)
also often reflect the influence of reservoir permeability
barriers (dead zones). However, in most cases, a
detailed geologic study is required before permeability
barriers can be identified, quantified, and mapped.
If the design team chooses to inject fluid to stabilize or
repressure a reservoir, they must carefully consider the
distribution and geometry of the permeability barriers in
the interwell space; otherwise, the production plan will
likely contain inefficient production and injection
designs.
Development Planning
In addition to identifying and providing solutions to
reservoir-related conformance problems, the reservoir
description can provide valuable information for field
development and production planning. Specifically,
reservoir description can significantly enhance the
quality and accuracy of performance predictions for the
following:
waterflooding
infill drilling
horizontal/highly deviated wells
improved/enhanced oil-recovery schemes
stimulation applications
Data Collection 21
Chapter 2
Field Development
During reservoir description, team members characterize
and model the fluid types, fluid properties, and field-scale
heterogeneities. This information can then be applied to
well-pattern planning. For example, reservoir conditions
quantified by the reservoir description model can be used
to simulate the results of various injection schemes based
on a variety of common patterns for injection and
producing wells. In addition, special features of the
reservoir and/or field, such as natural fracture distribution
and orientation and permeability trends, can be included
in the evaluation of optimal well patterns.
By identifying, understanding, and mapping both the
permeability barriers and reservoir continuity, designers
can determine effective well spacing and assess sweep
efficiency based on their understanding of the static and
dynamic properties of the reservoir provided in the
reservoir description.
If the reservoir is not well understood, fluid movements
may occur outside modeled predictions and unexpected
heterogeneity may occur in production and injection
volumes across the field. Poor reservoir understanding
will fail to uncover reservoir heterogeneities that can
significantly impact the fluid distribution and movement
in the field or reservoir, limit options for field develop-
ment, and negatively impact the sweep efficiency and
ultimate oil recovery.
Production Planning
When wells are completed too near the fluid contacts, in
the transition zones, or out of zone, expensive conform-
ance problems may result early in the life of the well. For
example, an early high gas-oil ratio (GOR) may result in
the loss of reservoir pressure, or high water cuts could
force premature revisions of the lift equipment. Both
problems could have been avoided with better reservoir
understanding.
In addition to identifying and mapping fluid contacts,
engineers can use reservoir description to determine
reservoir thickness and distribution, which allows them
to delineate zones for completion (and stimulation). By
understanding in-situ reservoir stresses, pressures, and
rock fabric and strength, engineers can help eliminate
wellbore and near-wellbore damage.
When a truly effective reservoir description exists, the
design team can better understand reservoir behavior and
develop more effective development strategies. Ideally,
reservoir descriptions should be updated throughout the
life of the field, from the exploration phase through
abandonment. The underlying objective of reservoir
description is effective reservoir management, which can
increase production, maximize economic value, and
minimize capital investments and operating expenses.
Reservoir Monitoring
Reservoir monitoring integrates reservoir description and
reservoir simulation with multiple-reflection seismic
surveys. Reservoir monitoring allows engineers to track
the movement of fluid saturations in a reservoir and
predict how the fluids will move in the future.
Engineers can achieve better well conformance (1) by
observing the detailed 3D horizontal and vertical
movement of oil-water, oil-gas, gas-water, and thermal
interfaces, and (2) by being able to predict the break-
through of injected fluids or the coning of reservoir fluids
under the current scenario or alternate scenarios. With
this information, they can delay or prevent breakthrough.
If breakthrough has already occurred, and a 3D seismic
baseline survey is available, engineers may be able to
determine whether lateral heterogeneity, vertical hetero-
geneity, or coning was the cause. By identifying the cause
of breakthrough and observing fluid movement patterns,
engineers can identify, design, and accurately place the
proper conformance treatment to optimize the produc-
tion of reservoir fluids.
Reservoir monitoring does not replace reservoir descrip-
tion or reservoir simulation. Instead, it integrates both
technologies to allow engineers to more accurately
describe a reservoir and predict its future performance. In
other words, the purpose of reservoir monitoring is not
merely to obtain a better reservoir description by
integrating more focused surface reflection seismic data
with well log, well test, and well performance informa-
tion. Instead, it results in an overall integrated reservoir
monitoring process that combines this description with
fluid-front measurement and simulation.
If fluid movement in a producing hydrocarbon reservoir
is accurately monitored, improved recovery may result.
For example, reservoir monitoring may lead to better
reservoir management, better placement of infill wells,
and breakthrough deferral. Reservoir monitoring may
also result in lower costs as a result of fewer wells being
drilled and reduced water and gas handling. As long as
formation thicknesses are sufficient for seismic detection,
reservoir monitoring is applicable onshore and offshore
to depths of more than 10,000 ft for both sandstones and
carbonates.
The success of reservoir monitoring is based on two
fundamental principles: the seismic principle and the
simulation principle. The fundamental seismic principle is
that a change in fluid saturations within a reservoir will
change the reservoirs seismic response. The fundamental
simulation principle is that the additional data points in
space and time provided by a direct measurement of fluid
saturation within a reservoir add substantially to the data
set used for history-matching; therefore, the data
substantially improve the accuracy of the results.
The Reservoir Monitoring Process
Figure 2.6 shows the steps in a reservoir monitoring
study from seismic data acquisition through final integra-
tion. Each step focuses on the reservoir and integrates
with the other steps to allow reservoir monitoring teams
to obtain the most accurate solution possible.
Seismic Data Acquisition
In this first step, members of the monitoring team design
a seismic data-acquisition program to greatly enhance
their ability to monitor fluid-contact movement. Their
primary focus is on maximized resolution and repeatabil-
ity.
Seismic Processing
During the seismic processing phase, team members
perform normalizations, both between successive surveys
and to well logs. These surveys consist of information
regarding positioning, amplitudes, two-way times, and
wavelets. The normalizations are based on the known
invariance of subsurface geology over calendar time.
Least-squared-error cross-equalization filters as well as
temporal and spatial shifting filters are used.
Seismic Data Interpretation
During the interpretation stage, team members use
conventional seismic data to begin developing a detailed
reservoir description.
Well Log Analysis
During this phase, a standard field development or
reservoir exploitation log analysis should be performed.
This study includes data preparation, data editing, depth
shifting, environmental correction, normalization or
Seismic
Processing
Seismic Data
Acquisition
Seismic Data
Interpretation
Geological
Model
Seismic Model
Building
Well Test
Analysis
Seismic
Verification
Simulation
Model Building
Simulation
Verification
Final Integration
and Verification
Reservoir Fluid
Saturation Distribution
Well Log
Analysis
Figure 2.6Reservoir monitoring process flowchart
recalibration of log traces, log analysis, and generation of
the final database and displays.
The log analysis should include complex lithology
determination and a log model of rock faces in addition
to the standard results such as porosity, saturation, and
estimates of permeability.
During this analysis, logging analysts should edit and
correct sonic and density logs for synthetic seismograph
generation and plot the corrected logs in two-way time
for display on seismic sections. The lithologic results
must be tied to the seismic signature of each well.
Well Test Analysis
During this phase, team members should analyze well
tests as they would for a normal reservoir description
study. Specifically, members should determine permeabil-
ity and barrier locations to situate geologic changes
within the reservoir.
Data Collection 23
Chapter 2
Geologic Model
A geologic model that best exemplifies the initial
conclusions regarding deposition environment and
structural modification can then be constructed. This
model allows engineers to integrate all seismic, well log
analysis, production engineering, and geologic informa-
tion.
The resulting reservoir description would normally be
used in reservoir simulation projects. During the simula-
tion portion of the project, engineers would modify the
description as necessary to match actual reservoir
performance, based on measured pressure and production
data at each well as the matching criteria.
Seismic Verification
The initial seismic model honors both the structure
contained in the seismic data and the high vertical
resolution from the wells. However, it need not tie
exactly to the seismic amplitudes at each trace nor to the
observed values of the optimal seismic indicators derived
from the seismic interpretation. Engineers use these
seismic amplitudes and indicators to update the model so
that its fine structure not only ties together at the wells,
but also ensures that the model predicts the seismic
attributes at each trace location.
Fluid movements in the reservoir are not expected to
change structural characteristics, but the different fluids
in that structure will change its seismic response. As a
result, the detailed structural model derived from the base
survey also applies to the monitor surveys.
Simulation Model-Building
After completing the previously described phases, team
members develop a complete, detailed reservoir descrip-
tion, which includes the integration of all seismic data,
well log data, and pressure transient test results with a
geologic model. The combination of these data forms the
reservoir model that the team uses to simulate fluid flow
throughout the reservoir.
During this phase, engineers verify the simulation by
history-matching all the time-dependent data through
the changes in the reservoir description within geologic
bounds. This step is similar to the normal history-
matching process except, in addition to production and
pressure information at well points, the information to be
matched includes saturation profiles obtained from the
surface-reflection seismic portion of the reservoir
monitoring process. Therefore, a great deal more data are
available for the reservoir simulation verification process,
making the results of the process more detailed than the
results for a standard history match.
The result is a match of all of the production and
monitoring information and a final reservoir description
as expressed by the data in the reservoir simulator.
Reservoir Fluid Saturation Distribution
The resulting reservoir simulation is as accurate and
detailed as possible from available data. Engineers can use
the simulation to generate saturation maps describing the
current distribution of fluids or to predict future reservoir
response to various production and development sce-
narios.
Example
Figure 2.7 (Page 24) shows a single-layer map of a
reservoir. The increases in gas saturation from the first
time interval to the second time interval are in the
highlighted area that was swept by gas during the
interval. The white areas on the map indicate areas where
displacement and gas saturation were unchanged. The
simulation does not include seismic time-lapse data.
Figure 2.8 (Page 25) is a seismic amplitude difference
map for the same reservoir, showing the difference in
seismic data values from surveys taken 16 months apart.
Because seismic reflections from formation interfaces, etc.
should not change, the map shows the difference in gas
saturations between the two points. However, since
conditions cannot be exactly duplicated from one survey
to the next, noise, in the form of colored areas, also
appears on the map. The area considered to show actual
gas movement is the magenta and red band east of Well
20. (Note the resemblance to the band in Figure 2.7.)
This band shows how the gas front has moved in the
time interval between surveys.
Because they are relatively small compared to the
reflections at formation interfaces, etc., the seismic
reflections at changes in fluid saturations cannot be
readily seen from a single seismic survey. However, since
difference maps subtract the features of the reservoir that
do not change, engineers can use these maps to locate a
fluid front and determine how it is moving through a
reservoir. Although this particular example is for a single
horizontal slice, vertical fluid positions and movement
can also be determined from these maps.
Conclusions
Through the use of well testing, reservoir descriptions,
and reservoir monitoring, engineers can more effectively
plan and implement a successful conformance control
treatment. Chapter 3 provides specific information
regarding the methods and equipment available for
reservoir evaluation and problem identification.
Bibliography
Archer, S. H. and Martinez, R. D.: A Comparison of
Petrophysical Equations for Extrapolation of Lithol-
ogy Beyond Well Locations Using Seismic Data,
presented at the 1991 53rd Meeting of the European
Association of Exploration Geophysicists, Florence,
May.
Archer, S. H., King, G. A., and Uden, R. C.: An Inte-
grated Approach to Reservoir Characterization Using
Seismic and Well Data, paper F03 presented at the
1993 Meeting of the European Association of Explo-
ration Geophysicists, Stavanger, Norway, June 7-11.
Archer, S. H., King, G.A., Seymour, R.H., and Uden, R.
C.: Seismic Reservoir Monitoring - The Potential,
First Break (Sept. 1993) 11 No. 9, 391-97.
N
900 850 800 750 700 650 600 550 500 450
23
4
24
20
Wells shown at Base Brent positions
Sg Difference, OSEBERG 3
100
50
0
0.05
0.20
0.35
0.50
0.65
0.80
0.95
Meters
M
e
t
e
r
s
Figure 2.7Gas saturation difference map showing gas-displaced area estimated by simulation (Courtesy Norsk Hydro,
Bergen, Norway)
Data Collection 25
Chapter 2
Breitenbach, E.A.: President Breitenbach Defines
Challenges for SPE, Industry, JPT (Oct. 1993) 918.
Clark, V.A.: The Effect of Oil Under In-situ Conditions
on the Seismic Properties of Rocks, Geophysics (July
1992) 57 No. 7, 894-901.
Cornish, B. E. and King, G.A.: Combined Interactive
Analysis and Stochastic Inversion for High-Resolution
Reservoir Modelling, presented at the 1988 50th
Meeting of the European Association of Exploration
Geophysicists, The Hague, June.
Domenico, S.N.: Effect of Water Saturation on Seismic
Reflectivity of Sand Reservoirs Encased in Shale,
Geophysics (Dec. 1974) 39 No. 6, 759-69.
20
4
24
Wells shown at Base Brent positions
1989-1991 Difference 12-40 Hz 2356
100
50
0
0.04
0.08
0.12
0.16
0.20
0.24
0.28
23
900 850 800 750 700 650 600 550 500 450
Meters
M
e
t
e
r
s
Figure 2.8Gas saturation difference map showing actual gas-front position (Courtesy Norsk Hydro, Bergen, Norway)
Dunlop, K.N.B., King, G.A., and Breitenbach, E.A.:
Authors Reply to Discussion of Monitoring Oil/
Water Fronts by Direct Measurement, JPT (Dec.
1991) 1525.
Dunlop, K.N.B., King, G.A., and Breitenbach, E.A.:
Monitoring of Oil/Water Fronts by Direct Measure-
ment, JPT (May 1991) 596.
Dussan, E. B. and Sharma, Y.: Analysis of the Pressure
Response of a Single-Probe Formation Tester, SPEFE
(June 1992) 151.
Earlougher, R. C. Jr.: Advances in Well Test Analysis, Society
of Petroleum Engineers of AIME (1977) New York,
105-122.
Earlougher, R.C. Jr.: Advances in Well Test Analysis, Society
of Petroleum Engineers of AIME (1977) New York,
123-146.
Greaves, R.J., Beydoun, W.B., and Spies, B.R.: New
Dimensions in Geophysics for Reservoir Monitoring,
SPE Formation Evaluation (June 1991) 141-50.
Hao Zhi-xing and Shen Lian-di: Mechanism of Transit
Time Increase and Its Interpretation After Water
Injection Into Reservoir M in the Lao Jun Miao Oil
Field, SPE Formation Evaluation (June 1988) 471-79.
Johnstad, S. E., Seymour, R.H., and Dunlop, K.N.B.:
The Feasibility of Monitoring Fluid Movements
During Production from a Norwegian Oilfield Using
Repeated Seismic Surveys, presented at the 52nd
Meeting of the European Association of Exploration
Geophysicists, Copenhagen (May 1990).
Johnstad, S. E., Uden, R. C., and Dunlop, K.N.B.:
Seismic Reservoir Monitoring Over the Oseberg
Field, First Break (May 1993) 11 No. 5, 177-85.
King, G.A.: The Application of Seismic Methods for
Reservoir Description and Monitoring, presented at
the 1988 SEG/CPS Production Geophysics Meeting,
Daqing, Sept.
Maritvold, R.: Frigg Field Reservoir Management, North
Sea Oil and Gas Reservoirs II, Norwegian Institute of
Technology, Graham and Trotman (1990) 155-63.
Martinez, R. D., Cornish, B. E., and Seymour, R.H.: An
Integrated Approach for Reservoir Description Using
Seismic, Borehole, and Geologic Data, paper SPE
19581 presented at the 1989 SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Oct. 8-11.
Martinez, R. D., Cornish, B. E., Rebec, A. J., and Curtis,
M. P.: Complex Reservoir Characterization by
Multiparameter Constrained Inversion, presented at
the 1988 SEG/EAEG Research Workshop on Reser-
voir Geophysics, Dallas, Aug.
Revoy, M.: Frigg Field Production History and Seismic
Response, presented at the Offshore North Sea
Conference, Stavanger (1984).
Seymour, R. H.: personal communication.
Seymour, R.H. and Archer, J. S.: Some Requirements
from Seismic Methods for Use in Reservoir Simula-
tion Models, North Sea Oil and Gas Reservoirs II,
Norwegian Institute of Technology, Graham and
Trotman (1990) 139-46.
Seymour, R.H., King, G.A., Dunlop, K.N.B., and Uden
R. C.: The Potential Contribution of Surface Seismic
Surveys to Monitoring Offshore Oilfields, presented
at the 1989 51st Meeting of the European Association
of Exploration Geophysicists, Berlin, May.
Shell: Science & Technology, Brochure, SIPM Group
Public Affairs, ref. PAC/223, Shell Centre London
(Dec. 1990).
Wayland, J.R. and Lee, D.: Seismic Mapping of EOR
Processes, Geophysics: The Leading Edge (Dec. 1986) 36-
40.
Testing Methods and Equipment 27
Chapter 3
Chapter 3
Testing
Methods
and
Equipment
Many different technologies can help
engineers determine the source of a
conformance problem, foresee a
potential conformance problem, or
evaluate a conformance treatment.
This chapter describes three of these
technologies: tracer surveys, logging
services, and downhole video services.
Waterflood Tracers
As the need for improved oil recovery
(IOR) processes increases, the need
for better reservoir and fluid-flow
description also increases. IOR
processes often require the use of
expensive chemicals, such as poly-
mers, surfactants, and cosurfactants.
By knowing the path the chemicals
will traverse in the reservoir, engi-
neers can use these chemicals more
effectively and economically. One
means of determining the reservoir
flow path is to trace injected water
with a chemical and observe when
and where that chemical is produced.
The information from a well-planned
and executed tracer test allows
engineers to
indicate directional flow trends
identify rapid interwell
communication
estimate volumetric sweep
delineate flow barriers
compare flow and sweep
patterns
Directional Flow Trends
When a chemical tracer is injected
into an injection well and the sur-
rounding producing wells are moni-
tored, different arrival times for the
tracer could indicate preferred flow
paths or directional flow trends.
These preferred flow paths would be
from the injector to the specific
producers that receive the most
tracer at the earliest time. By adjust-
ing injection and withdrawal rates,
operators can alter the directional
flow trends, resulting in an improved
sweep efficiency.
Identification of Rapid
Interwell Communication
If a channel or high-permeability
streak exists between an injector and
a producing well, a tracer experiences
a very early breakthrough. This early
breakthrough identifies problem
injection wells that could require a
treatment to alter permeability. By
detecting water flow communication
between wells, engineers can confirm
the presence of channels and help
size and plan corrective treatments.
Volumetric Sweep
By knowing injection and production
rates, pattern layout, and the pore
volume in the reservoir, engineers
can use the breakthrough time of
tracers to estimate the volumetric
sweep efficiency. Very small volumes
of floodwater injected before
breakthrough indicate the existence
of a channel or high-permeability
streak and provide engineers with an
estimate for the volume of that zone.
Larger volumes injected before
breakthrough indicate a more
uniform permeability distribution,
and again, the volume of the swept
zone can be estimated.
28 Testing Methods and Equipment Chapter 3
Delineation of Flow Barriers
If a fault or some other barrier to fluid flow exists near a
producing well, tracers can be injected into the injection
wells surrounding the producing well. The failure to
observe one or more tracers in the producing well could
be the result of a flow barrier.
Flow and Sweep Comparisons
Tracers can also be used for evaluating sweep improve-
ment techniques and evaluating the relative flow of two
different fluids, such as brine and polymer. To evaluate
sweep improvement techniques, analysts must compare
tracer studies performed before and after a sweep
improvement process has been applied. To evaluate the
relative flow of two different fluids, operators must inject
a different tracer in each fluid of interest. If the measured
breakthrough times are different for the tracers, then the
fluids could be assumed to have contacted different
portions of the reservoir and thus have different flow
characteristics.
Tracer Types
The four general types of tracers for use in aqueous
systems are radioisotopes, fluorescent dyes, water-soluble
alcohols, and water-soluble salts.
Radioisotopes
Radioisotopes are easily detectable in small concentra-
tions and have insignificant adsorption losses in the
reservoir. Tritium as tritiated water is one of the most
widely used tracers in the field. However, a firm licensed
by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is required to
handle and inject all radioisotope materials. Frequently,
when radioactive materials are used, state agencies may
also be required to participate.
Fluorescent Dyes
In cases where very rapid communication (about 5 days)
is thought to exist between an injector and a producer,
fluorescent dyes are considered excellent tracer materials.
Although these dyes may be highly adsorbed by typical
reservoir rocks, even trace amounts of the dye can be
visually detected in the produced water without elaborate
chemical analysis.
The two most readily available fluorescent tracers are
sodium fluorescein (uranine), which is yellow-green, and
Rhodamine B, which is red fluorescence.
The dye can be dissolved in water and placed into an
injection well by any convenient method. If the well will
go on vacuum, the dye solution can be dumped in. It can
also be added through a lubricator or injected with the
waterflood pump. After the dye is placed, the well is
returned to normal injection, which displaces the tracer.
The tracer typically spreads out in the formation and
continues to show up for some time after initial break-
through. The initial appearance, however, is the piece of
data that allows observers to estimate the shortest path
between the injector and offset producers.
Water-Soluble Alcohols
The four most common water-soluble alcohol tracers are
1-propanol
2-propanol (IPA)
methanol (MeOH)
ethanol (EtOH)
With the possible exception of 2-propanol, water-soluble
alcohols are susceptible to biodegradation and therefore
should always be used with a bactericide concentration of
approximately 50 ppm. Although produced samples
should also be treated with the bactericide to prevent
alcohol degradation before the samples are analyzed, 2-
propanol does have a limited solubility in some crude
oils, which could cause retention of the alcohol in the
reservoir. All of these factors should be considered before
a water-soluble alcohol tracer is selected.
Water-Soluble Salts
Various inorganic salts have been used to trace the flow
of water. The most common are listed below:
ammonium thiocyanate (NH
4
SCN)
ammonium nitrate (NH
4
NO
3
)
sodium or potassium bromide (NaBr or KBr)
sodium or potassium iodide (NaI or KI)
sodium chloride (NaCl)
A salt is made up of two parts: a cation and an anion. For
example, sodium chloride dissolves in water to give
sodium cations and chloride anions. Each ion is a tracer.
Although the chloride anion can be determined easily,
the sodium cation is not as easy to detect. However,
chloride anions can be used as a tracer with cations other
than sodium. For example, potassium or ammonium
Chapter 3
chloride could be substituted for sodium chloride when
chloride is used as the tracer.
Information Necessary
to Plan a Tracer Test
Ideally, a tracer should follow the fluid of interest exactly
as the fluid front, but such a situation is highly unlikely
because adsorption/desorption effects cause the tracer to
lag behind the front, and diffusion/dispersion effects
cause the tracer front to spread out more than the fluid
front. Therefore, before they can design a tracer test,
engineers must define a pilot or pattern area. After
choosing a pilot area and collecting well pattern and
isopach maps, engineers analyze the available reservoir
data to determine reservoir permeability, pore volume,
water saturation, and formation thickness. By combining
these data with production data, including injection and
withdrawal-rate information, engineers can calculate the
required amounts of tracers and can model tracer break-
through. Information pertaining to the effectiveness of a
waterflood that may have been conducted in the pilot
area is also useful for designing and analyzing a tracer
test.
Good records of all production and injection data and
workover information must be available for each well in
the pilot area; the production rate for the entire field or
pattern area alone does not provide enough information.
The well rates of each production well should be tested
and recorded once or twice a month. These individual
well production and injection rates are used in material-
balance calculations and also provide input data for the
mathematical treatment of the data. The material balance
calculation is useful in determining expected break-
through times and places.
Before any tracers are injected, the reservoir must be
pressured up. Therefore, the reservoir must be on
waterflood long enough to fill any void space, which
minimizes potential loss of tracer material.
Another major consideration in designing a tracer test is
the information obtained from the analysis of field brines
and supply waters used in injection wells. Background
levels should be determined for all chemicals being
considered as tracers. Often, a chemical analysis has been
conducted on a water sample. This analysis usually
provides concentrations of Na
+
and Cl
-
ions, bivalent
ions, such as Ba
2+
, Ca
2+
, and SO
4
2-
, and the amount of
total dissolved solids, as well as the density, viscosity, and
turbidity of the water sample. Based on the compositions
determined from the water analysis, a synthetic brine can
be made. Synthetic brines are usually easier to work with
than actual field brines, and as a result, tracer analysis
techniques are typically developed in the synthetic brine.
However, before choosing a specific tracer, researchers
must determine the background level and test the analysis
procedure for the tracer in the actual field brine and/or
supply water. If a tracer is not compatible with the field
brine, or the field brine contains ions that interfere with
the tracer analysis test, another tracer should be used.
Knowing whether chemicals are being used as treating
agents is also useful in the design of a tracer test. For
example, oxygen scavengers or bactericides are fre-
quently used to minimize corrosion. If bactericides are
used, the water-soluble alcohols become prime candi-
dates for use as tracers.
Tracer Injection and Sampling
Tracers are injected into the reservoir as rapidly as
possible. Alcohols and other liquid tracers should be
diluted at least 50% with the injection water before
injection. Solid tracers, usually obtainable in 50- to
100-lb bags, must be mixed with the injection water, and
special care should be taken to stay well below the
solubility of the tracers in the brine water. Table 3.1
(Page 30) lists solubility data for several common tracers
in distilled water.
The solubility of the tracers in actual field brines is less
than the solubilities listed in Table 3.1. Once a concen-
tration is determined, it should always be tested in the
actual field brine. This test indicates how much mixing
time will be required to dissolve the tracer and confirms
that it will be soluble. The third column in Table 3.1
provides recommended concentrations that can be used
as starting points for specific applications.
Figure 3.1 (Page 30) is a schematic representation of an
injection system. The system consists of a pumping unit,
a 10-bbl mixing tank, and a 2-bbl lubricator. The pump
recirculates the water in the mixing tank as the water-
soluble solution is prepared. While the water is circu-
lated, the tracer is added to the system. This circulation
action usually provides enough agitation to make the
tracer soluble.
Sampling the produced water in the surrounding produc-
ing wells is a very important part of the tracer program.
The service provider should take samples frequently
enough to detect the initial breakthrough of the tracer,
but not so frequently that the analytical work adds
unnecessary expense to the program. General guidelines
for sampling frequency based on expected breakthroughs
are shown in Table 3.2 (Page 30).
Table 3.2Sampling Frequency
in Terms of Expected Breakthrough
Tracer
Solubility in Distilled Water
lb/bbl
Ammonium thiocyanate
Ammonium nitrate
Sodium bromide
Potassium bromide
Sodium iodide
Potassium iodide
Sodium chloride
Recommended Injection Concentration
lb/bbl
420
1,280
278
187
556
446
125
200
200
100
100
100
200
50
Logging Services
A variety of logging services are available for detecting
and predicting potential conformance problems. The
primary logging systems available are listed below:
openhole logs
cement evaluation logs
casing evaluation logs
pulsed neutron logs
production logs
Table 3.3 provides a general overview of how each of the
logging types can be used for conformance control.
Openhole Logs
Openhole logs allow analysts to determine the possible
causes or contributors to unwanted water or gas produc-
tion. Caliper logs reveal areas where a severe borehole
washout has occurred that can contribute to poor cement
bonding. Gamma ray and SP logs can help delineate
shale beds from possible water- or hydrocarbon-produc-
ing reservoirs. When they are combined, resistivity and
porosity logs (sonic, density, and neutron) can help
analysts determine water and pay zones. These zones can
later be compared to cased hole logs, allowing analysts to
monitor changing water levels of coning in producing
reservoirs.
Pump
Mixing Tank
Pump
Lubricator
Breakthrough
1 day
2 days
3 days
4 to 7 days
1 to 2 weeks
2 to 4 weeks
1 or more months
1 to 2 hours
2 to 3 hours
4 to 8 hours
8 to 16 hours
once a day
every other day
once a week
Sampling Interval
Table 3.1Solubilities and Recommended Injection Concentrations
Figure 3.1Typical injection system
Chapter 3
Figure 3.2 (Page 32) is an example of a typical openhole
logging suite. Figure 3.3 (Page 33) is a computer-
processed interpretation that provides information on the
potential of the various reservoirs.
Most openhole logging tools have an outside diameter
(OD) of 3 5/8 in. and are rated to 400F and 20,000 psi.
Hostile-environment (small borehole-diameter and high-
temperature or high-pressure) tools are also available for
more difficult applications.
Cement Evaluation Logs
The primary reason for cementing casing into a wellbore
is to achieve hydraulic isolation between formations.
Often, because of improper cementing procedures, bad
borehole conditions, well age, or workover operations,
unwanted fluids flow into the casing. Cement bond logs
(CBLs) help analysts determine the current condition of
the cement annulus and diagnose potential fluid-flow
paths.
Cement evaluation logs are produced by conventional
CBL tools or ultrasonic bonding tools. Most of these
tools have a 3 5/8-in. OD and are rated for at least 350F
and 20,000 psi. A few of the tools are available in
1 11/16-in. diameters for through-tubing applications.
Problems
Openhole
Logs
Cement Evaluation
Logs
Casing Evaluation
Logs
Pulsed Neutron
Logs
Production
Logs
Acid job went to water
Bottomwater coning
Bottomwater shutoff
Casing leaks
Channel behind casing
Channel from injector
Early water breakthrough
Frac job went to water
High-permeability streak
No shale barrier
Plugging well
Injection out of zone
Lost circulation
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Table 3.3Areas of Application for Well Logs
Conventional Bond Logging Tools
Conventional bond logging tools have a single acoustic
transmitter and two receivers. The receivers are typically
spaced approximately 3 ft and 5 ft from the transmitter.
The acoustic signals generated during each transmitter
pulse travel to the receivers along various paths through
the borehole fluid, casing, cement, and formation. The
logging system records the waveforms and determines
travel times and amplitudes of signals reaching the
receivers.
The first signal that arrives at the near receiver generally
corresponds to the first acoustic signal that traveled from
the transmitter, through the borehole fluid, the casing,
through the borehole fluid again, and back to the
receiver. This signal is often called the pipe arrival. The
associated transmitter-to-receiver travel time is recorded
on the log as the travel-time curve.
In free pipe, the travel-time curve can be used to indicate
tool centralization. In a particular size of unbonded
casing containing a particular fluid, the travel time should
be constant, except when collars are encountered. A
varying travel time can indicate that the tool is not
centered in the casing; therefore, the signal amplitude
measurements may not be accurate.
Figure 3.2Openhole logging suite
Chapter 3
Figure 3.3Computer-processed interpretation of openhole log
If a sufficient bond exists between the pipe, cement, and
formation, formation signals appear in the wave train.
These signals traveled through a portion of the formation
(and through cement, casing, and borehole fluid) before
returning to the receiver. In slow formations, such as
sandstones, the acoustic wave travels more slowly
through the formation than through the casing. As a
result, the first formation signal or formation arrival,
arrives at the receiver after the pipe arrival.
In fast formations, such as low-porosity limestones and
dolomites, the acoustic wave travels more quickly
through the formation than through casing. As a result,
the formation arrival can occur before pipe arrival. If such
circumstances exist, variations in the travel-time curve
can correspond to variations in the formation and do not
necessarily indicate whether the tool is centered in the
borehole.
The far receiver indicates the amplitude of the pipe
signal. This signal is displayed on the log as the pipe
amplitude curve. This receiver records the entire acoustic
waveform. Analysts can qualitatively analyze waveform
displays to determine if the following conditions exist:
free pipe
no cement bond to formation
partial cement bond to formation
good cement bond to formation
Figure 3.4 shows conventional bond log response to
some of those conditions, and the general waveform
appearance is illustrated for each of the conditions
shown.
Free pipe is not firmly bonded to the cement sheath. It
vibrates freely with little signal attenuation. Both the pipe
amplitude curve and the X-Z display show high-ampli-
tude pipe signals in a free-pipe zone. The alternating dark
and light streaks on the X-Z display appear as straight
traces. Casing collars appear as w patterns.
When cement is bonded to the pipe but not the forma-
tion, the pipe cannot vibrate freely, and poor acoustic
coupling occurs between the cement and the formation.
Because the cement is bonded to the pipe but not the
formation, the signal does not effectively travel from the
transmitter, through the formation, and back to the
receiver. As a result, the log records low-amplitude pipe
and formation signals, which appear on the X-Z display
as a lack of well-defined traces.
S
t
r
o
n
g

F
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
S
i
g
n
a
l
U
n
d
e
f
i
n
e
d
P
a
t
t
e
r
n
s
P
i
p
e

S
i
g
n
a
l
s
F
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
S
i
g
n
a
l
s
W300
W400
X950
Y800
Z300
Travel Time
seconds 400
30
0
300
100
10
Gamma
API Counts
Collar Locator
Feet
Pipe Amplitude
0
0
100
10
Amp Amplitude
Micro-Seismogram
seconds 200 1200
T
r
a
v
e
l

T
i
m
e
F
r
e
e

P
i
p
e
P
a
t
t
e
r
n
C
o
l
l
a
r
F
r
e
e

P
i
p
e
N
o

B
o
n
d

t
o

F
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
P
o
s
s
i
b
l
e

M
i
c
r
o
a
n
n
u
l
u
s
G
o
o
d

B
o
n
d
L
o
w

P
i
p
e
A
m
p
l
i
t
u
d
e
S
t
r
o
n
g

F
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
S
i
g
n
a
l
U
n
d
e
f
i
n
e
d
P
a
t
t
e
r
n
s
P
i
p
e

S
i
g
n
a
l
s
F
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
S
i
g
n
a
l
s
Figure 3.4Conventional bond log responses to various
bond conditions
Chapter 3
A partial bonding of cement and pipe can result from
channels in the cement or from a microannulus between
pipe and cement. This condition is indicated on the X-Z
display by pipe and collar signals accompanied by strong
formation signals. The pipe amplitude curve is also high.
If a microannulus is suspected, the logger can verify its
existence by increasing the wellhead pressure and
relogging across the zone of interest. If the X-Z display
on the relogged interval indicates a good bond, a
microannulus exists. If a good bond does not exist, the
cement may contain a channel.
A strong, identifiable formation signal with no pipe signal
suggests effective zone isolation and a good bond
between both the cement and the pipe and the cement
and the formation. Under these conditions, the pipe
amplitude curve should be low.
Normal CBL interpretation assumes that changes in pipe-
signal amplitude are caused by changes in bonding only,
but other factors can cause variations in pipe signal
amplitude. If they are not recognized, bonding condi-
tions could be misinterpreted. These factors include
changes in the following:
pipe diameter, weight, and thickness
borehole fluid density
cement thickness and compressive strength
transmitter signal strength
receiver sensitivity
Several of these factors can be eliminated. For example,
the depths where pipe size changes exist are usually
known. For cement sheath thicknesses greater than 3/4
in., changes in cement thickness have little effect on
signal attenuation.
Instantaneous Waveform Characteristics
Analysts can further evaluate cement bond log (CBL)
data by using instantaneous waveform characteristics
(IWC) information, as shown in Figure 3.5 (Page 36).
This information is particularly helpful for interpreting
CBL results in fast formations or poorly consolidated
formations.
In fast formations where the travel time of an acoustic
signal through the formation is shorter than the travel
time of an acoustic signal through the casing, analysts
may have difficulty evaluating the cement-to-casing bond
if they use the amplitude of the first acoustic arrival. IWC
data more clearly differentiate
casing arrivals from fast-formation arrivals. Although the
acoustic characteristics of a formation can vary consider-
ably, the characteristics of free pipe are relatively
constant. Therefore, the acoustic frequency and phase-
shift seen on IWC presentations display noticeably
different behavior when the pipe is bonded to a fast
formation than when the pipe is free.
In poorly consolidated formations, the acoustic signal is
attenuated. In a well-bonded interval through such a
formation, the CBL may have characteristics very similar
to those found over an interval in which there is good
casing-to-cement bond but no cement-to-formation
bond. In either case, extremely low acoustic energy
reaches the CBL tools receiver because of the high
attenuation of either the poorly unconsolidated forma-
tion or the mud-filled annulus surrounding the cement
sheath.
IWC acoustic transmissivity information can help
analysts differentiate the lack of cement-to-formation
bond from good cement-to-formation bond in a poorly
consolidated interval. Transmissivity is the instantaneous
magnitude of acoustic amplitude. The acoustic amplitude
is the portion of the signal emitted by the CBL tools
transmitter that propagates through the formation to
reach the receiver.
When the geology is uniform and acoustically homoge-
neous, transmissivity shows no changes with depth;
however, transmissivity is affected by any structural
changes that cause absorption or dispersion of acoustic
energy. In CBL applications, a constant low-transmissiv-
ity value indicates good casing-to-cement bond but no
cement-to-formation bond. Conversely, varying low-
transmissivity values signify that casing-to-cement and
cement-to-formation bonds are both good.
Ultrasonic Bond Logging
For all practical purposes, conventional bond logging
tools are omnidirectional. The acoustic signals that their
transmitters generate travel away from the tool in all
directions, and their receivers are sensitive to acoustic
waves arriving from all directions. At a particular instant,
the signal amplitude at a receiver is the result of all the
acoustic signals arriving at the receiver at that instant. As
a result, the bond quality determined from these tools is a
circumferential average of the bonding around the casing.
Because circumferentially averaged amplitude and
attenuation can be the same for high-strength cement
containing a channel and for evenly distributed low-
strength cement, these two cases are difficult to distin-
guish.
Figure 3.5Instantaneous waveform characteristics of CBL data
Chapter 3
For annular cement to attenuate the signal, a good shear
mechanical bond must exist between the cement and the
casing outer wall. If a gap exists, such as a microannulus
between cement and casing, the log can indicate poor
bonding even if the gap is so thin that it prevents fluids
from flowing.
To overcome these limitations of conventional bond
logging tools, Halliburton developed the ultrasonic Pulse
Echo Tool (PET). Current PETs contain eight ultrasonic
transducers equally spaced in a helical pattern around the
main tool body. Each transducer generates an acoustic
wave that travels toward the casing, perpendicular to the
casing wall. Most of the energy arriving at the inner wall
reflects back and forth within the casing. Some energy is
transferred outside the casing at each reflection, so the
amplitude of the reflected wave is reduced at each
reflection. For a casing of a specified size and weight
containing a specified fluid, the rate at which the
amplitude decreases depends on the acoustic impedance
of the annular material.
The acoustic impedance of a material is the product of its
density and acoustic compressional velocity. The train of
reflected waves returning to the transducer provides
information about the annular material, which allows
analysts to distinguish cement, liquid, and gas in the
annular space and estimate cement compressive strength.
Furthermore, these waves can indicate reflections from
additional interfaces, such as the formation or a second
string of casing.
The PET also contains a ninth transducer and a reflector
that measures borehole fluid velocity. By combining this
information with the two-way travel time from each of
the other transducers to the casing inner wall, analysts
can determine the distance from each transducer to the
casing wall. From this information, log curves indicating
mean casing ID, casing ellipticity, and tool eccentering
are generated.
The output frequency of the ultrasonic tool ranges from
approximately 300 to 600 kHz. In this range, the
thickness of most microannuli is small compared to the
acoustic wavelength. For this reason, the tool is relatively
insensitive to liquid-filled microannuli. However, in the
region of a gas-filled microannulus (or in cement contain-
ing gas bubbles), the ultrasonic bond log may indicate
free pipe.
The preferred cement evaluation program combines the
CBL and the PET logs. As illustrated in Figure 3.6 (Page
38) the combined data from both logs provides a more
complete and reliable evaluation.
Casing Evaluation Logs
Many water-entry problems are caused by poor mechani-
cal integrity of the casing. Holes caused by corrosion or
wear and splits caused by flaws, excessive pressure, or
formation deformation can allow unwanted reservoir
fluids to enter the casing. Halliburton uses the following
mechanical, electromagnetic, and ultrasonic logging tools
to inspect casing:
Multi-Arm Caliper tool
Casing Inspection tool (CIT)
Flux Leakage/Eddy Current (FL/EC) tool
Circumferential Acoustic Scanning tool (CAST)
Pulse Echo tool (PET)
Mechanical Logging Devices
Mechanical devices use independent, spring-loaded feeler
arms or fingers to measure the internal radius of the
casing. The number of arms can vary from 15 to 80,
depending on casing size and tool type. Mechanical
calipers only provide information about internal casing
condition. Their major deficiency is that they inspect
only a small circumferential fraction of the casing. The
size of this fraction depends on the number of feeler
arms, the width of the arms, and the casing size and
weight. For example, a tool with 40 arms inspecting a 7-
in., 35-lb/ft casing (6.004-in. ID) would cover only
17.0% of the wall (using a feeler width of 0.08 in.). In a
5.5-in., 17-lb/ft casing, the fractional wall coverage is
approximately 21.0%. As a result, locating small holes or
splits with a mechanical caliper requires multiple passes
with the tool.
The logs produced by most mechanical calipers present
minimum diameter (MINID), maximum diameter
(MAXID), and remaining wall thickness (REMWAL)
curves, as shown in Figure 3.7 (Page 39). To compute
the remaining wall thickness, analysts subtract the
measured internal radius of the casing from the casings
nominal outside radius.
Electromagnetic Phase-Shift Devices
Electromagnetic phase-shift devices measure the attenua-
tion and phase shift of a transmitted electromagnetic
signal to determine circumferential averages of casing
thickness and diameter.
Figure 3.6Combined CBL and PET logs for cement evaluation
Chapter 3
Casing Inspection Tool (CIT)
The Casing Inspection Tool (CIT) is an electromagnetic
phase-shift device. The CIT casing-thickness measure-
ment is made by the transmitter and the near receiver on
a one-transmitter, two-receiver coil array. A 30-Hz pulsed
electromagnetic field from the transmitter induces eddy
currents in the casing. The eddy currents generate an
electromagnetic field that is sensed by the near receiver.
Analysts can determine the casing thickness by examin-
ing the phase shift between the transmitter and near-
receiver signals.
On the standard raw-data CIT log presentation shown in
Figure 3.8 (Page 40), the resulting curve is designated as
the thickness index. The measurement has a vertical
resolution of approximately 18 in. Because this measure-
ment is omnidirectional and has a somewhat coarse
resolution, it cannot clearly detect small anomalies.
A second phase-shift is measured between the near and
far receivers. This measurement detects casing anomalies
over a short length of the casing. It has a vertical resolu-
tion of about 2.5 in., and the associated curve on the CIT
log is designated as the differential index. On this curve,
a large deflection to the right followed by a large
deflection to the left indicates an increase in metal. A
large deflection to the left followed by a large deflection
to the right indicates a decrease in metal.
The CIT also measures casing ID but with another coil
array consisting of one transmitter and one receiver. The
transmitter coil is driven by a continuous 30-kHz source.
The resulting electromagnetic field induces eddy currents
on the inside surface of the casing. The eddy currents, in
turn, generate an electromagnetic field that the receiver
coil detects. The phase shift between the transmitted and
received signals is a function of the casings ID. This
measurement is presented on the log as the caliper index
curve.
One limitation of the CIT is that it cannot clearly
distinguish perforations because perforation diameters are
significantly smaller than the measurements vertical
resolution. If perforation diameters are small and shot
densities are low, the volume of metal over a perforated
section of casing is not much different from the volume
of metal over an unperforated section. Therefore, the
differential readings are small, and perforations are
Figure 3.7Multi-Arm Caliper log for casing inspection
REMWAL
Inch 0 .5
MAXID
Inch 8
8
10
10
MINID
Inch
Figure 3.8Electromagnetic casing inspection log
Chapter 3
difficult to identify. The CIT can, however, distinguish
intervals perforated at high shot densities.
Flux Leakage/Eddy Current (FL/EC) Devices
Flux leakage/eddy current devices are widely accepted
methods for evaluating metal loss. These FL-EC logging
tools provide 360 wall coverage with high vertical
resolution by using an array of pad-mounted coils. FL-EC
tools identify flaws in casing or tubular goods and then
discriminate between flaws on the external or internal
surface of the pipe.
Flux Leakage. The flux leakage (FL) measurement is
made by an induction coil near the pipe surface that is
positioned between the north and south poles of a DC
electromagnet. Current through the electromagnet causes
lines of magnetic flux in the pipe wall. Normally, this flux
is contained within the walls of the casing, but when
holes, pitting, or other defects exist in the wall of the
pipe, perturbations in the flux lines cause some flux to
spill out of the confines of the wall. When the inductive
sensor is passed over these perturbations, at some
velocity, a voltage is generated in the coil. The FL coil
responds to holes and inner and outer wall defects.
Eddy Current. An eddy current (EC) excitation coil is
driven by an AC source. The sensor is designed so that in
clean pipe, any signal induced into one receiver coil is
canceled by an equal signal in the other receiver coil.
Several factors control the depth that the current travels
into the pipe wall, although current frequency is the
primary factor. Normally, the depth of penetration is very
shallow.
When the tool passes a defect on the inner wall, the
receiver coils become unbalanced, first in one direction,
then the other. In this manner, a characteristic signature
is produced for the defect on the inner wall, but no
response occurs for flaws on the outer wall or internal
flaws beyond the skin depth of penetration of the
excitation current.
By comparing the response of the FL and EC signals,
analysts can determine whether the defect is on the outer
wall only, the inner wall only, or is a through-hole defect.
FL curves can reveal holes with diameters as small as
0.1 in. The EC measurements detect defects with
diameters as small as 0.25 in. To help analysts visualize
the pipe condition, FL/EC logs provide plots of the raw
FL/EC curves from each pad as well as detailed 360 maps
of the flux leakage and eddy current.
Ultrasonic Casing Tools
Two types of ultrasonic tools are commonly used for
casing inspection: (1) the Circumferential Acoustic
Scanning Tool (CAST) and (2) the Pulse Echo Tool
(PET).
Circumferential Acoustic Scanning Tool (CAST)
The CAST has a rotating ultrasonic transducer that can
accurately measure casing ID, casing ovality, and tool
centralization. When the transducer is pulsed or fired in
the transmit mode, a narrow acoustic beam propagates
through borehole fluids toward the borehole wall. This
beam reflects off the borehole wall and travels back
through the borehole fluids to the transducer. The
transducer then acts as a receiver to record the travel
time and amplitude of the reflected signal. The travel
time (or time of flight) is the elapsed time between the
transducers firing and the instant when the highest
amount of reflected energy arrives back at the transducer.
Amplitude is a measure of that peak amount of returning
ultrasonic energy.
The CAST fires 200 to 500 acoustic bursts per transducer
revolution. Therefore, wall coverage is virtually continu-
ous. Log images are produced in both time-of-flight and
amplitude modes. Figure 3.9 (Page 42) shows a standard
two-dimensional presentation.
Before deciding to log with a CAST, engineers must
consider the wellbore fluid and the casing wall condition.
If the wellbore fluid contains large quantities of solids,
the solids attenuate and disperse the transmitted and
reflected signals. If the casing wall contains scale,
paraffin, or other disruptive materials, the reflected signal
can be attenuated and scattered even more. Both of these
conditions can more than likely render the tools data
useless.
Another major consideration in CAST logging is the
distance from the transducer head to the casings inner
wall. If the transducer head is too close to the wall, a
near-field phenomenon occurs that makes the data
difficult to interpret. Under these conditions, the
acoustic wave is unable to travel a sufficient distance
from the transducer to produce a wave front that is planar
when it impacts the casing wall. This planar condition is
necessary for good data. If the distance is too great, the
acoustic amplitude of the received signal is greatly
reduced. Therefore, the proper transducer head size must
be used to ensure optimal standoff distance.
Figure 3.9CAST image used for inner casing inspection
Pulse Echo Tool (PET)
Although it is primarily a cement evaluation tool, the
Pulse Echo Tool (PET) can also determine casing ID and
thickness. The PET has a helical array of eight transduc-
ers, each acting as both a transmitter and a receiver,
evaluating the adjacent segment of casing. The transduc-
ers emit a short pressure pulse with a center frequency
close to the resonant frequency of the casing (approxi-
mately 400 kHz). Once the pulse arrives at the casing, it
generates both a large reflected wave and casing reso-
nance waves, all of which are sensed by the transducer,
which measures the reflected waves time of flight (t) and
the frequency of the resonance waves.
A ninth transducer and a reference reflective surface are
mounted in a tool cavity that is exposed to the borehole
fluid. To determine the boreholes acoustic interval transit
time (t
f
), analysts must first measure the acoustic signals
time of flight from the transducer to the reflective surface
Perforations
CAST 2D
N E S W N DEPTH
(Feet)
1:1 ASPECT
RAW AMPLITUDE
XX88
XX89
XX90
XX91
XX92
XX93
XX94
XX95
XX96
XX97
XX98
XX99
XX00
XX01
XX02
XX03
XX04
XX05
XX06
XX07
XX08
XX09
XX10
Chapter 3
and back before determining the known distance from
the transducer to the reflective surface. The casing ID is
derived from t and t
f
, while casing thickness is calcu-
lated from resonant-wave frequency.
To determine casing ovality and tool eccentralization,
analysts compare the interval transit times of each
transducer. If diagonally opposing pairs of transducers
have the same transit time and adjacent pairs have
different times, the casing is oval. If all eight transit times
are different, the tool is eccentered.
Figure 3.10 (Page 44) is a PET casing profile plot with
casing ovality, eccentricity, average thickness, and other
standard curves plotted in Track 1. In Track 4, the
nominal thickness of the casing is displayed as the
distance between two adjacent vertical gridlines. The
actual thickness that each transducer measures is plotted
as a solid black trace inset between the nominal-thickness
grid lines. Each transducer curve is plotted next to its
opposing transducer.
Pulsed Neutron Logs
Two types of pulsed neutron logs are available: (1) pulsed
neutron capture (PNC) logs, which are usually run in
areas having high-salinity formation waters, and (2)
pulsed neutron spectrometry (PNS) logs, which are
usually run in waters in which the salinity is low or
unknown. These cased-hole logs can sometimes be used
in openhole applications. When these logs are combined
with either openhole or earlier pulsed neutron logs,
changes in water level or coning can be evaluated.
Pulsed neutron tools can detect and quantify water
flowing past the tool during logging. When water moves
past the generator, oxygen is activated by the high-
energy neutrons and forms a radioactive isotope of
nitrogen. This isotope is unstable and decays with a 7.35-
second half-life. As water flows past the logging tool, the
tools detectors register the gamma rays emitted during
the decay. This technique detects (1) channels outside
the casing, (2) leaking tubulars, and (3) water production,
particularly in highly deviated wells.
Thermal Multigate Decay (TMD) Logs
The Thermal Multigate Decay (TMD) log is
Halliburtons PNC log. The TMD is a dual-detector tool
that can help detect water flow by identifying increased
background count rates on the quality log. To quantify
flow rates, the logging service makes several passes with
the tool over the flowing interval. Analysts can then
determine flow rates by noting the depth changes where
the activation appears on the background curves. TMD
tools have a 1 11/16-in. OD and are rated for at least
300F and 15,000 psi.
The example TMD log in Figures 3.11 (Page 45) and
3.12 (Page 46) is from a well involved in a log-inject-log
project that will determine the residual oil saturation in a
reservoir before a waterflood. The log was run during the
early injections of brine. Note the large increase in the
LS-BKG curve on the quality log above the packer at
X490 ft. This background increase (together with an
absence of high natural gamma activity) indicates water
flowing upward in the casing-tubing annulus because of a
leak in the packer assembly. The increased LS-BKG
response from X640 ft to X625 ft indicates a channel
outside the casing. The count rates are much lower and
more variable for channels than for flow inside the casing
because of the smaller, more variable volume.
Pulsed Spectral Gamma (PSG) Logs
The Pulsed Spectral Gamma (PSG) log is a PNS logging
device. The single-detector PSG tool detects water by
measuring the activated oxygen in a spectral window
placed around the main oxygen peak in the capture
gamma ray spectrum. Because of its single-detector
design, only qualitative interpretation is available. If
water is flowing past the tool, the log registers an
increase in the count rate of the oxygen-activation curve.
PSG tools usually have a 3 3/8-in. OD and are rated for
at least 300F and 15,000 psi.
The example PSG log in Figure 3.13 (Page 47) is from a
well that analysts logged to monitor reservoir depletion
by comparing open- and cased-hole saturation interpreta-
tions. The oxygen-activation curves (OAI) from the field
log were placed on the computing center analysis in
Track 1 to aid in the interpretation. The activation
increases at each of the two bottom sets of perforations,
X400 to X408 ft and X352 to X356 ft. The activation
returns to near-zero at the top perforations at X326 to
X332 ft. These activation increases indicate water flowing
upward past the logging tool and entering the upper set
of perforations because of reservoir pressure differentials.
The presence of flowing water under shut-in conditions
helps explain the overly pessimistic oil-depletion calcula-
tions over this interval. The inelastic gamma ray measure-
ments from the PSG log used to calculate oil saturation
have a very shallow depth of investigation and were
heavily influenced by the flowing water.
Figure 3.10Ultrasonic pulse echo log used for casing inspection
Chapter 3
Figure 3.11TMD log showing water movement from packer leak and a channel outside pipe
Figure 3.12PSG log showing oil/water contact and leaking squeezed perforations
Chapter 3
Figure 3.13PSG log showing water crossflow between reservoirs
Production Logging Tools
The normal production logging string consists of the
following five tools:
fluid-density tool
Hydro tool
spinner tool
pressure tool
temperature tool
These 1 11/16-in. tools are rated for 350F and 15,000
psi. Either individually or in combination with each
other, these tools can indicate the presence of water or
gas influx. Fluid-density and Hydro devices indicate the
type and amount of fluid present in the wellbore.
Flowmeters indicate both the rate and direction of flow.
Temperature and pressure tools provide valuable reservoir
parameters for additional analysis. All these measure-
ments can be combined in Halliburtons production
logging analysis (PLA) program, which provides a
complete analysis of fluid flow. This analysis consists of
both fluid identification and flow rate for the well.
Fluid-Density Logs
The fluid-density tool continuously measures wellbore
fluid densities. Changes in density can indicate either
contact of two different fluids or fluid entry into a well.
In the latter case, the tool can locate perforations or
verify leaks in the casing or tubing.
The fluid-density tool consists of a collimated gamma
source and a collimated gamma detector mounted at
opposite ends of a sample chamber. The gamma rays
emitted by the source are absorbed at a rate proportional
to the density of the fluids passing through the sample
chamber. The detector counts the gamma rays that are
not absorbed. The fluid density is inversely proportional
to the number of gamma rays reaching the detector. This
tool allows users to determine the density of wellbore
fluid, locate zones where fluids are entering the well,
locate tubing or casing leaks, determine the depth of
contact between different fluids, and determine fluid
holdups.
Hydro Logs
The Hydro tool is sensitive to the dielectric constant of
fluid mixtures in the wellbore, which enables it to detect
water and hydrocarbons. The sensor section of the
Hydro tool consists of two concentric plates. The
annular area is designed to minimize effects of fluid flow
and its characteristics. As fluids with differing dielectric
constants pass through the annular area, the probe
capacitance changes, subsequently changing the output
frequency of the tools oscillator circuit. The response is
sensitive to the presence and amount of water in the
flowstream because of the considerable difference
between the dielectric constants of water (80) and
hydrocarbons (2 to 4). The tool allows users to determine
hydrocarbon-water ratios, fluid holdups, and fluid entry.
Flowmeter Logs
Continuous, fullbore, and basket flowmeter tools accu-
rately measure velocity and direction of flow in the
wellbore.
The continuous flowmeter consists of an impeller
mounted on sapphire jewels and surrounded by a cage
that is mounted on the bottom of the logging tool. The
sapphire jewel mountings of the impeller minimize
friction, allowing the tool to make accurate low-velocity
measurements. The impeller turns at a rate proportional
to the speed of the borehole fluid in the center of the
pipe.
The fullbore flowmeter consists of multibladed spinners
that extend in casing to encompass the entire wellbore.
This tool is designed for specific casing sizes and must be
chosen accordingly. The design allows for fluid-velocity
measurement across the entire wellbore and is efficient in
both deviated and low-velocity wells.
The basket flowmeter is a stationary measurement tool
that funnels the wellbore fluids to a small spinner. This
tool is designed for deviated wells and segregated flow.
The maximum flow rate for this tool is approximately
2,000 B/D.
Pressure Logs
Pressure tools continuously measure pressure in the
borehole. Two types of tools are available: the strain-
gauge pressure tool (SPT) and the quartz pressure tool
(QPT).The SPT uses a strain gauge to measure the
downhole pressure, and the tool is specially designed to
minimize the effects of temperature. The QPT uses
quartz sensors specifically designed for gas and oil wells.
The high-resolution measuring capability and rugged
design of the quartz sensor make it ideally suited for
these uses. A temperature sensor built into the quartz
sensor section accurately compensates for temperature
effects.
Chapter 3
Temperature Logs
Temperature logging tools continuously measure tem-
perature in the borehole and can detect liquid or gas
movement behind pipe. A highly sensitive resistance
thermometer in the tool provides reliable temperature
measurements.
Since the temperature tool detects changes in borehole
temperature, it can locate cement tops and gas-entry
points. When it is near curing cement, the tool senses the
increased temperature caused by the heat of hydration.
At gas-entry points, the tool detects reduced tempera-
tures caused by the gas expanding as it enters the
wellbore.
Depending on the temperature of fluid entering the
wellbore, the tool may be capable of indicating whether
the fluid is from the adjacent formation or if it has
channeled from above or below. A temperature that is
cooler than expected may indicate channeling from a
cooler formation, which is normally higher in the
wellbore. Similarly, a temperature that is warmer than
expected can indicate a channel from below the forma-
tion.
Temperature abnormalities can also indicate possible flow
behind casing or tubing. These abnormalities are high-
lighted when the temperature gradient is compared to
the normal temperature gradient that was observed with
the well shut in. Increased temperatures indicate flow
from below the formation. Reduced temperatures indicate
either flow from above the formation or the presence of
gas.
Examples
Well 1
Well 1 was a gas-production well with high water
production. This well was logged with fluid-density,
temperature, pressure, and spinner tools that provided
information for the production logging analysis (PLA)
program.
The fluid-density log indicates the type of fluid present.
Figure 3.14 (Page 50) consists of the fluid-density log, a
wellbore schematic, and temperature, gamma, and collar
logs. Below X077 ft, the fluid density read 1.03 g/cm
3
,
indicating that the wellbore fluid was all water. From
X073 to X077 ft, the density decreased to 0.73 g/cm
3
,
which indicated

gas production. Between the perforation
depths of X055 to X060 ft, the fluid density again
decreased from 0.73 g/cm
3
to 0.62 g/cm
3
, suggesting
additional gas production.
Figure 3.15 (Page 51) presents the temperature informa-
tion in the forms of amplified and differential tempera-
ture logs. The amplified temperature log is the tempera-
ture log presented with a more sensitive scale that allows
analysts to identify minute differences. At X100 ft, the
amplified temperature log shows a warming anomaly,
which indicates that liquids are entering the wellbore.
Temperature decreases indicate gas entry caused by the
gas expansion. According to the amplified temperature
log, gas is entering the wellbore at X090 and X060 ft.
The differential temperature is the difference between
two temperature measurements at a set interval. The
differential temperature log showed differences in the
geothermal gradient, providing an excellent indicator of
fluid movement. The differential temperature log
indicates a normal geothermal gradient below X105 ft.
Between X105 and X091 ft, the log becomes negative,
which indicates that liquid is entering the wellbore. At
the depth of X090 ft, the differential temperature
becomes positive, which suggests the cooling tempera-
tures that indicate gas entry.
By overlaying the fluid-density and temperature logs,
analysts can determine additional information. For
example, in Figure 3.16 (Page 52) the density log by
itself does not indicate fluid movement at X100 ft. The
temperature log, however, indicates water production.
Multiple sensors provide additional valuable information
for analysts to determine downhole performance.
Production logging analysis uses the available data to
provide the answers shown in Figure 3.17 (Page 53).
The fluid density is used to calculate holdup, the area of
the pipe occupied by the phase. Below the bottom set of
perforations, the wellbore is completely filled with water.
Above the top set of perforations, the pipe contains 60%
water and 40% gas.
The flow rates at surface conditions show water produc-
tion of 475 STB/D and gas production of 450 Mscf/D.
Further analysis of the data indicates that from X094 and
X103 ft, more than 250 STB/D of water is being pro-
duced. Therefore, a treatment in this zone would
eliminate most of the water without significantly reduc-
ing gas production.
Well 2
Well 2 was a producing well that had a three-phase flow
of gas, oil, and water. For proper analysis, operators ran
Figure 3.14Fluid density log with a wellbore schematic and temperature, gamma, and collar logs
Chapter 3
Figure 3.15Temperature information in the forms of amplified and differential temperature logs
Figure 3.16Combination of fluid density and temperature logs
Chapter 3
Figure 3.17Production log anaylsis (PLA)
fluid-density and Hydro tools on the well to calculate
fluid holdups. They also used a continuous spinner to
determine fluid velocity and temperature and pressure
tools to calculate reservoir properties.
Fluid-density and Hydro tools must both be run when
three-phase flow occurs below the bubble point. Figure
3.18 shows the data from these tools. Below X700 ft,
both holdup tools indicate only water in the wellbore. At
X697 ft, the decreased fluid density and the increased
Hydro count rate indicate hydrocarbons entering the
wellbore. Since the fluid-density measurement is
0.62 g/cm
3
, the hydrocarbons are probably primarily gas.
A slight decrease in the Hydro count above the top set of
perforations at X640 ft indicates that either water or oil is
entering from those perforations.
Figure 3.19 (Page 56) presents the raw spinner data and
the cable logging speed. Negative cable speeds indicate
that the tool is logging up the hole; positive cable speeds
show that the tool is logging down. Higher spinner count
rates should occur when the tool is logged against flow,
as shown in the figure. Analysts examine data from
multiple passes of the tool to calculate fluid velocities,
which they use to determine flow rates. By studying the
raw data, analysts can determine where fluid is entering
the wellbore. Below X721 ft, the spinners show very little
change, suggesting that no flow exists. Between X718 and
X721 ft, and again between X692 and X698 ft, the large
changes in spinner response indicate fluid entry. The
other regions show very little change in spinner response,
indicating neither production nor loss of fluids.
Figure 3.20 (Page 57) provides the PLA analysis of the
logging data. Again, the holdups are calculated from the
fluid density and Hydro data. The data show 100% water
below the bottom set of perforations and about 45%
water, 15% oil, and 40% gas above the perforations.
The flow rates indicate the surface production of each
phase (2,000 STB/D of water, 500 STB/D of oil, and
900 Mscf/D of gas). Zonal analysis of the well indicates
that most of the water comes from the bottom perforated
interval, with smaller amounts produced uphole. Gas is
being produced primarily from the second perforated
interval while oil is produced almost equally from the
upper two zones. Therefore, treatments on the lower
zone would likely decrease the amount of water produc-
tion without adversely affecting hydrocarbon rates.
Downhole Video Services
Real-time downhole video services allow analysts to (1)
identify wellbore problems, (2) plan reservoir and
wellbore treatments, (3) monitor well treatments while in
progress, and (4) confirm post-treatment of well condi-
tions. The video images permit viewers to determine
exactly where reservoir fluids and particulate matter enter
the wellbore. The images also reveal fluid turbulence and
flow direction to help viewers identify fluid migration
through the wellbore and into thief formations.
When used with other reservoir analysis tools, downhole
video visually confirms analysis models about reservoir
behavior. It can also reveal low-volume fluid entry that
conventional well data acquisition methods may not
normally detect.
Application in Oilwell Environments
A common misconception is that oil entry into a
wellbore causes turbulent fluid mixing, resulting in the
formation of opaque emulsions. In reality, at low to
moderate flow rates, crude oil generally enters into the
wellbore as amorphous bubbles of oil that float through
standing water to the water/oil interface. This reaction
results in a lava-lamp effect, where the fluids remain
distinct and separate rather than being mixed in an
emulsion. The resulting medium has proven to be very
adequate for the use of video; in fact, the possibility of
the camera flowing up the well is more likely to constrain
the use of video than the degree of fluid emulsification.
Video services are also effective in low water-cut oil
wells. It is sometimes assumed that a low water-cut oil
well has a proportionately low percentage of water in the
wellbore. If this assumption were true, video service
could be performed in oil wells only after the well was
shut in and the target viewing interval was displaced with
a clear fluid.
Actually, the water-oil ratio in the well can be much
greater than the water-oil ratio produced because the oil
tends to flow to the surface more readily than water. The
oil bubbles will travel to the top, where they will be
produced, while the water will ascend more slowly. As a
result, a high percentage of water may appear to be
standing in the wellbore. This water provides an excel-
lent medium for the video system to monitor the flow
activity in the well. Video services have been effective in
wells producing as little as 7% water cut.
Chapter 3
Figure 3.18Fluid density and Hydro tool data
Figure 3.19Flowmeter with raw spinner data and cable logging speed
Chapter 3
Figure 3.20PLA analysis of logging data
Detection of Fluid and Particulate Entry
Oil can bubble into the wellbore gradually without
significantly disrupting the well fluids. As a result, oil
entry can be difficult or impossible to detect if the
perforation interval cannot be visually observed. If the oil
gradually enters the wellbore over a significant length of
perforated casing, much of the perforated interval
actually producing the oil can be mistakenly assumed to
be nonproductive. By monitoring the perforated interval
with a downhole video camera, viewers can easily
determine where oil is entering the wellbore. In Figure
3.21, oil is identified as black bubbles rising through
standing water.
Gas entry into the wellbore is usually more turbulent.
Depending on the velocity and condensate content of
the gas, gas entry may appear as a spray of bubbles, a
smoke-like jet or plume, or waves of distortion in
otherwise clear fluid. If the turbulence is strong enough,
the fluids can become locally stirred so that any bubbles
of oil could mix with the water to cause a semitransparent
or opaque emulsion. The emulsion will generally be
isolated to the turbulent-flow area. Above the turbulence,
the fluids tend to separate.
In localized areas of emulsion, operators can detect fluid
entry by observing the motion of particulate matter that
is suspended in the fluid. Fluid entry is detected as the
particulate matter moves sideways or in circular eddies in
response to a sideways flow disturbance.
Oil entry into an existing emulsion is more difficult to
detect if the oil is bubbling in at a low rate. Although the
dark oil bubbles themselves are easy to identify, their
source can be more difficult to determine. If the well is
shut in for a short time, the emulsion should stratify into
components, allowing the targeted viewing interval to
clear. Alternatively, well fluids can be displaced to shift
clear fluids into the targeted viewing interval. Once clear
fluids are established in the target viewing area, the well
can be allowed to flow, permitting viewers to observe
fluid entry before emulsification occurs.
The entry of sand and particulate matter into the
wellbore is easily recognizable and helps trace the entry
and movement of clear fluids, such as water. Similarly,
changes in the movement of falling sand and suspended
matter near fluid entry points can signal entry of clear
fluids into the wellbore.
Viewers can further track the motion of clear fluids in the
wellbore by monitoring the motion of flexible members,
such as a piece of string fastened in front of the camera.
In injection wells, operators can use dyes to locate fluid
entry points in the producing wells and to better under-
stand the water migration patterns between the injection
and producing wells.
Logging
Wells are generally shut in for 24 hours before a video
log is run so that any opaque fluids can separate into
distinct fluid layers. This shut-in increases the probability
of water or clear liquid existing in the interval of most
interest. If opaque fluid is located in the interval targeted
for viewing, the fluid in the wall may have to be partially
displaced with filtered water, brine, production gas, or
some other clear fluid to provide a clear viewing medium.
Frequently, the opaque fluid layer is above the interval of
interest.
To begin video logging, operators run the downhole
video camera on cable or coiled tubing to the lowest
point in the well. If necessary, the well can be brought on
at this point as the camera ascends. The entry of fluids
and solids can be observed as the camera passes perfora-
tions or other fluid entry locations.
Depth and temperature displays are superimposed on the
video monitor during video operations so that the viewer
can correlate the observed well features and conditions to
the well tally.
Figure 3.21Downhole video camera showing oil
production in standing water
Chapter 3
Problem Identification
and Remedial Treatment Planning
Because so many effective conformance control methods
are available, engineers must thoroughly understand the
exact nature of fluid entry to determine the target
treatment area and select the best treatment. Downhole
video services reveal wellbore conditions and help
viewers pinpoint locations requiring treatment.
In-Progress Monitoring
If the treatment medium is relatively clear and the
physical operating limits of the camera and cable are not
exceeded, video can successfully monitor well and
reservoir treatments. For example, operators could use
downhole video cameras during a fracturing job to verify
the location of the proppant.
Post-Treatment Confirmation
After a reservoir or wellbore treatment, a video run can
confirm that the treatment accomplished the intended
result. By using video to confirm treatment conditions,
the viewer can learn more about treatment effectiveness.
Operating Limits
Clear Fluid Medium
Video service requires a relatively clear fluid medium in
the viewing area. Most wells, however, have enough
standing water and/or gas to accommodate video. When
opaque fluids, such as crude oil and mud, are displaced,
the video camera can clearly show the target areas of the
well. Coiled tubing can also be used to displace the local
target interval without displacing the entire well.
Pressure and Temperature
The camera, cable system, and all wetted components are
designed for operation at 10,000 psi and 225F. Video
logging has been successfully performed at temperatures
greater than 250F, although the picture quality was
compromised. All components exposed to well tempera-
tures can withstand temperatures over 250F without
permanent damage.
Depth
The maximum operating depth for the cable-deployed
system is 17,000 ft. This depth can be achieved because
the 7/32- or 1/4-in. diameter cable permits the camera
assemblies to be run against pressure without the need for
weight bars.
When it is deployed on coiled tubing, the video systems
maximum depth depends on the coiled tubing systems
depth capability. Coiled tubing deployment provides two
advantages over cable: (1) it allows operators to use
downhole video services in deviated wells, and (2)
operators can pump nitrogen through it to bring on the
well during video operations.
Regardless of depth, the picture quality remains excep-
tional because the video images are transmitted through a
fiber optic member to the surface. The cable assembly
also contains electrical conductor wires to power the
camera and lights.
Chemical Resistance
The cable armor design is similar to electric conductor
line, in that both are resistant to wear and chemicals.
Special polishes with surfactant wetting agents are used
on the camera lens and light sources to cause oil bubbles
to slide off without leaving an opaque film, and chemical-
resistant coatings and treatments for the cable are
available for special applications.
Other Applications
In addition to conformance control, downhole video can
also be used for the following applications:
inspecting casing, tubing, and downhole
equipment
performing corrosion surveys
detecting fractures and their orientation
verifying well treatments and other service
operations
locating and identifying fish
performing well appraisal analysis
Conclusions
Through the use of tracers, logging tools, and downhole
video, reservoir conditions can be more accurately
determined. Once conditions are known, design teams
can use computer programs to identify conformance
problems and recommend effective treatments. Chapter
4 provides information regarding Halliburton's XERO
Water-Control Expert System.
Bibliography
Boneau, D. F., Trantham, J. C., Jackson, K. M., and
Threlkeld, C. B.: Performance, Monitoring, and
Control of Phillips Surfactant-flood in the North
Burbank Unit, presented at the 1977 Second Tertiary
Oil Recovery Conference, Wichita, KS, April 20-21.
Calhoun, Tom G., II and Herford, Gary T.: Case History
of Radioactive Tracers and Techniques in Fairway
Field, JPT (Oct. 1970).
Gilliand, H. E. and Conley, F. R.: Pilot Flood Mobilizes
Residual Oil, Oil & Gas J. (Jan. 19, 1976) 43-48.
Greenkorn, R. A.: Experimental Study of Waterflood
Tracers, JPT (Jan. 1962) XIV.
Terry, R. E., et. al.: Manual for Tracer Test Design and
Evaluation, published by Tertiary Oil Recovery
Project, 4008 Learned Hill, University of Kansas,
Lawrence, KS 66045. Co-Directors: Don W. Green
and G. Paul Willhite.
Tinker, Gordon E.: Gas Injection With Radioactive
Tracer to Determine Reservoir Continuity, East
Coalinga Field, California, JPT (Nov. 1973) 1251.
Wagner, O. R.: The Use of Tracers in Diagnosing
Interwell Reservoir Heterogeneities - Field Results,
JPT (Nov. 1977) 1410.
Carpenter, P. G., Morgan, T. D., and Parsins, E. D.: Use
of Boron Compounds as Water Flood Tracers,
Producers Monthly (Oct. 1952) 12.
Widmyer, R. H., Satter, A., Frazier, G. D., and Graves, R.
H.: Low Tension Waterflood Pilot at the Salem Unit,
Marion County, Illinois, Part II - Performance
Evaluation, paper SPE 5833 presented at 1976 SPE-
AIME Symposium on Improved Oil Recovery, Tulsa,
March 22-24.
Computer Programs 61
Chapter 4
Chapter 4
Computer
Programs
Once data has been collected and
analyzed, engineers can use
Halliburtons XERO Water-Control
Expert System to verify problem
identification and determine possible
treatments (Figure 4.1). XERO, a
Greek term meaning no water, is a
Microsoft
Windows-based system
that has two processing phases: the
problem identification phase and the
treatment design phase. This chapter
provides a general overview of the
XERO System.
Phase 1Problem
Identification
During the problem identification
phase, the system prompts the user to
enter reservoir and well information.
Based on the information the user
enters, the system can determine the
probability of one or more of the
following conformance problems
existing in the well:
bottomwater
bottomwater coning
casing leaks
channel behind pipe
high-permeability streaks
injection out of zone
interwell communication
stimulation into water
Figure 4.1XERO main screen showing Problem Identification and
Treatment Design options
62 Computer Programs Chapter 4
Figure 4.2Customer Information screen
During the problem identification
phase, users will be prompted to
provide the following information.
The Customer Information screen
(Figure 4.2) requires the user to
provide information about the
customer and the well that will be
evaluated. After the user provides the
available information and presses the
GO! button, the first Reservoir
Information screen appears.
The Reservoir Information screens
(Figures 4.3 and 4.4) allow the user
to enter as much relevant reservoir
information as possible. Much of this
information can be omitted if it is not
available or if its accuracy is ques-
tionable. The minimum data required
are the completed interval depth
range (Figure 4.3) and the
bottomhole static temperature
(Figure 4.4). Obviously, however,
the more information the user enters,
the more accurately XERO can
identify potential reservoir problems.
Figure 4.3Reservoir Information I screen
Chapter 4
Figure 4.4Reservoir Information II screen
After choosing GO! from the Reservoir
Information II screen, the user advances
to the Well Information screen (Figure
4.5). This screen again prompts the
user to answer a series of questions
and to enter available data. The only
required information is the average
permeability and the hole size.
Figure 4.5Well Information screen
Figure 4.7Injection Information screen
If production and permeability data is
available, a Production Well Profile
screen will next appear (Figure 4.6).
After entering the pertinent data for
this screen, the user advances to the
Injection Information screen (Figure
4.7). The only required information
for this screen is the injection rate.
Figure 4.6Production Well Profile screen
Chapter 4
Figure 4.8Well Profile screen
If the user enters a maximum re-
corded bottomhole injection pressure
(BHIP), an Injection Well Profile screen
will appear (Figure 4.8)
After entering the pertinent data, the
user advances to the Workover History
screen (Figure 4.9). This screen asks
several questions regarding past
workovers, including previous
conformance control treatments. All
the treatments listed in Figure 4.9 are
Halliburton-specific treatments.
Figure 4.9Workover History screen
To enter non-Halliburton treatments,
the user would click on the OTHERS
button to display the generic water
control treatments listed in Figure
4.10.
After choosing a generic water
control treatment and advancing to
the next screen, the user must enter
well performance data (Figure 4.11).
The only information required for
the Well Performance screen is the
current water production rate, which
in the case of the example is 650 B/D.
Figure 4.11Well Performance screen
Figure 4.10Other Water Control Treatments screen
Chapter 4
After entering all available well
performance data, the user advances
to the Water Production Data screen
(Figure 4.12), which requests water
production data for up to 10 years.
Based on the information the user
enters, the system creates a water
production plot (Figure 4.13), and
asks the user to select up to two
patterns that most closely match the
current water production plot.
Figure 4.12Water Production Data screen
Figure 4.13Water Production Plots screen
After completing this screen, the user
advances to a series of recommenda-
tion screens, the first of which lists
possible problems and their percent-
ages of likelihood (Figure 4.14).
By clicking on any of the possible
problems listed, the user will receive
a list of reasons and unknowns
(Figure 4.15). The Reason(s) list
contains data that contributed to the
identification of the problem. The
Unknown(s) list contains data that, if
available, would help the system
more accurately identify the water
problem.
Figure 4.15List of Reasons and Unknowns
Figure 4.14Possible Problems screen
Chapter 4
To learn more about each reason or
unknown, the user can click on the
item and another window will appear
with additional information about
that particular reason or unknown
(Figure 4.16).
Phase 2Treatment
Design
During the treatment design phase,
the user chooses one or more of the
potential water problems that the
system identified as likely and enters
treatment design information into the
system. The system then determines
fluid systems that can be used based
on current well information and
displays a selection list of the
treatments. The user can choose from
any of the treatments for each water
problem from the selection list.
Once the system has identified
potential problems, the Treatment
Design button becomes active on the
main screen (Figure 4.17). To begin
the fluid selection process, the user
must first select at least one of the
potential problems and advance to
the next screen.
Figure 4.16Window providing more information about unknowns
Figure 4.17XERO main screen showing active Treatment Design button
The Design Information I screen requires
the user to enter specific wellbore
geometry and previous stimulation
information for the well (Figure
4.18).
Once the user enters this information
and selects GO! , the Design Informa-
tion II screen appears (Figure 4.19).
On this screen, the user must input
the appropriate operator constraints
on the treatment and other pertinent
information as shown on the screen.
The tripping out option on this
screen gives the user the option of
using cement as part of the treatment
design. Depending on well condi-
tions, the user may want to use the
program to make two designs: one
with cement and one without
cement.
Figure 4.19Design Information II screen
Figure 4.18Design Information I screen
Chapter 4
After the Design Information II screen is
completed, the user advances to the
Fluid Selection screen (Figure 4.20),
which shows the recommended fluid,
as well as primary and secondary
alternatives. Any of the listed choices
could be used for the treatment, but
the recommended fluid is the one
that best fits the requirements of the
candidate well that was evaluated. To
select the fluid, the user must place
the mouse pointer over the appropri-
ate box and click the left mouse
button.
Once a fluid is selected, the system
calculates a job schedule, including
estimated fluid volumes, a list of the
materials required, and recommended
placement techniques for the selected
fluids (Figure 4.21).
Figure 4.20Fluid Selection screen
Figure 4.21Job Design screen
To see additional information about
Halliburton products, the user can
choose Product Description from the
dropdown menu at the top of the
main screen, as shown in Figure
4.22.
After the treatment design phase,
users can print a report containing all
the data the system used to identify
the problem and generate possible
solutions.
Conclusions
Through the use of programs such as
XERO, users can identify and verify
conformance problems. They can
also choose from several means of
improving well conditions. Chapter
5 provides specific information about
the many treatments and treatment
methods available to control con-
formance problems.
Bibliography
Dawson, Rapier: Drillpipe Buckling
in Inclined Holes, JPT (Oct.
1984) 1734.
Hammerlindl, D. J.: Basic Fluid and
Pressure Forces on Oilwell
Tubulars, JPT (Jan. 1980) 153-59.
Hammerlindl, D. J.: Movement,
Forces and Stresses Associated
with Combination Tubing Strings
Sealed in Packers, JPT (Feb.
1977) 195-208.
Hammerlindl, D. J.: Packer to
Tubing Forces for Intermediate
Packers, JPT (March 1980) 515-
27.
Lubinski, A.: Helical Buckling of
Tubing Sealed in Packers, JPT
(June 1962) 655-670.
Figure 4.22Product Description screen for Injectrol Service
Lubinski, A.: Influence of Tension
and Compression on Straightness
and Buckling of Tubular Goods in
Oil Wells, Proc., 31st Annual
Meeting, API, Prod., Vol. 31, Sec.
IV (1951), 31-56.
Mitchell, R. F.: Buckling Behavior of
Well Tubing: The Packer Effect,
SPEJ (Oct. 1982) 616-24.
Mitchell, R. F.: Numerical Analysis
of Helical Buckling, paper SPE
14981 presented at the 1986 SPE
Deep Drilling and Production
Symposium, Amarillo, TX, April
6-8.
Muskat, M. and Wycoff, R. D.: An
Approximate Theory of Water
Coning in Oil Production, Trans.,
AIME (1935), 114: 114-161.
Wu, F. H., Chiu, T. H.,
Dalrymple, E. D., Dahl, J. A.,
and Rahimi, A. B.: Development
of an Expert System for Water
Control Applications, paper
SPE 27552 presented at the 1994
European Petroleum Computer
Conference, Aberdeen, Scotland,
March 15-17.
Treatment Options 73
Chapter 5
Chapter 5
Treatment
Options
Chemical methods currently available
for controlling water-flow range from
a variety of water-based polymer
systems to hydrocarbon-based,
ultrafine Portland cement slurries.
In injection wells, the success of a
treatment is measured by the incre-
mental oil recovered from offset
producers. The response time in the
producers ranges from immediate to
several months, depending on
treatment volume, well spacing, and
formation properties. Engineers may
use other techniques such as fluid-
entry surveys and pressure testing to
determine the success of the treat-
ment.
In production wells, the success of the
treatment is generally measured by
changes in the wells water produc-
tion. After a treated production well
has been shut-in for the recom-
mended time, production is slowly
resumed. If the treatment was de-
signed to seal a casing leak, pressure
testing to the required pressure
determines job success or failure. For
all other applications, a successful
treatment should decrease the amount
of produced water.
When designing a water-control
project, engineers must first carefully
consider the purpose of the program.
Specifically, they must make certain
that the physical and chemical
characteristics of the solutions used
will not contradict with any immedi-
ate or future plans for the reservoir.
For example, design engineers would
not recommend an Injectrol
treat-
ment into an interval if they were
planning an improved oil recovery job
in that same interval at a later date.
Instead, they would choose a material
that would not permanently seal the
zone, such as PermTrol E+.
Regardless of the treatment planned,
engineers should always order
laboratory-scale tests to evaluate
recommended treatment formulations
before the actual treatment is
performed.
Water-Based
Polymer Systems
Several water-based polymer systems
have successfully limited the flow of
produced formation water into the
wellbore. These include
PermSeal E+ service
PermTrol E+ service
Matrol 3+ service
Matrol II HT service
WOR-Con
service
KW-Control service
Flo-Chek
service
Injectrol
service
K-Max service
Angard and Anjel
systems
Table 5.1 (Pages 74 and 75) shows
the various water-control uses for
each chemical.
PermSeal E+ Service
PermSeal E+ service reduces or plugs
permeability to water and/or CO
2
in
hydrocarbon wells. After the water-
thin gelation system is batch-blended
74 Treatment Options Chapter 5
and pumped into the isolated water-bearing permeability,
the well is shut in, and the fluid polymerizes into an
elastomeric gel. The system uses a temperature-activated
initiator to induce a phase change from a liquid to a solid
at predictable times. PermSeal E+ can be used in tem-
peratures from 70F to 200F. The PermSeal E+ service
provides environmentally acceptable conformance
control without metal crosslinkers. It is acid-resistant and
compatible in CO
2
environments.
For production wells, PermSeal E+ is recommended for
the treatment of bottomwater coning problems or for
treatment of zones with a high degree of permeability
variation. For injection wells, PermSeal E+ is used for the
treatment of high-permeability streaks in wells with
channeling problems or for injection out of zone.
PermSeal E+ treatment volumes vary markedly, depend-
ing on the application. Because the treatment is a
porosity-fill-type sealant, engineers can use simple
volume-fill calculations to estimate the treatment size.
PermTrol E+ Service
PermTrol E+ service is used in injection wells to treat
high-permeability streaks and/or poor injection profiles
Table 5.1 (1 of 2)Recovery Efficiency Problems and Solutions
Problems
Injectrol
Sealant
Producing Wells
Bottomwater coning
Bottomwater shutoff
Casing leaks
High-permeability streaks
No shale barrier
Plugging well
Seal high-pressure zone
Injection Wells
Casing leaks
Channel to producer
Plugging well
Drilling Wells
Lost circulation
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Angard
Sealant
Anjel
Sealant
Flo-Chek
Sealant
PermSeal E+
Services
PermTrol E+
Service
Solutions
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Chapter 5
for waterfloods and CO
2
water-alternating-gas (WAG)
floods. To improve waterflood efficiency, operators pump
the treatment as a water-thin monomer solution at normal
injection conditions to help ensure that the monomer
placement is proportional to the amount of injection
water entering each zone. After placement, the well is
shut in to allow the fluid to polymerize. Once water
injection is resumed, the resulting high-viscosity polymer
increases volumetric sweep efficiency by diverting
injection water from the most highly permeable zones to
previously unswept oil-bearing zones.
The injection water following a PermTrol E+ service
treatment will slowly finger through the thick, water-
soluble PermTrol E+ service polymer slug. This water
becomes viscous as it solubilizes the polymer, yielding a
more favorable water-oil mobility throughout the
reservoir. The viscosified water behaves as a polymer
fluid treatment with the associated increase in volumetric
and unit displacement efficiency.
A typical PermTrol E+ treatment volume ranges from 25
to 30% of daily injection. The minimum recommended
PermTrol E+ service treatment volume is 4,000 gal or a
Problems
Producing Wells
Bottomwater coning
Bottomwater shutoff
Casing leaks
No shale barrier
Plugging well
Seal high-pressure zone
Injection Wells
Casing leaks
Channel to producer
Plugging well
Drilling Wells
Lost circulation
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Matrol Services KW-Control Service DOC Service BDO Process MOC/One
Solutions
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Table 5.1 (2 of 2)Recovery Efficiency Problems and Solutions
volume sufficient to provide 5 ft of radial penetration in
the net pay interval, whichever is greater.
Matrol 3+ and Matrol II HT Services
Matrol 3+ and Matrol II HT treatments reduce the
permeability to water in a region around the wellbore. As
with other sealant systems, these treatments are generally
placed in a 20- to 40-ft radius around the wellbore to
provide a long-lasting treatment.
The polymer concentration of either service can be
varied throughout the job as different gel strengths are
needed. For example, since the initial polymer solution
will be injected farther away from the wellbore, the
solution will not be subject to the near-wellbore regions
extreme pressure conditions. Therefore, lower concentra-
tions of the polymer and complexor can be used to
provide sufficiently strong gels. However, since near-
wellbore gels must be strong enough to withstand high
drawdown pressures, they would require higher polymer
concentration.
When used in production wells, Matrol treatments should
be followed in by the MOC/One oil-based, ultrafine
cement system if stronger treatments near the wellbore
are required. For more information about MOC/One
treatments, see Page 86.
Matrol 3+ Service
When using the Matrol 3+ service, engineers must
choose from two temperature-dependent, dry polymers
blended in an approved mixing water to form the
polymer solution. A chromium
3+
ligand metal complexor
is used to complex the polymer solution to a highly
viscous elastic gel.
Matrol II HT Service
The Matrol II HT (200F to 325F BHT) service consists
of a dry powder polymer that is hydrated in fresh water
to form the polymer solution. An organic crosslinker is
then used to create the final, highly viscous elastic gel.
WOR-Con
Service
Water encroachment in a hydrocarbon-producing well
sharply reduces the relative hydrocarbon permeability of
a formation. The WOR-Con
treatment is a water-thin
polymer solution that reduces the water-oil ratio in a
producing formation. Rather than setting to a viscous gel,
WOR-Con polymer alters the characteristics of rock
surfaces in fluid-flow channels (capillaries). The polymer
does not plug channels; instead, it literally holds on to
water while allowing oil to pass, therefore decreasing the
relative permeability of the rock to water. The WOR-
Con polymer strongly bonds to the formation. Produced
oil or water will not usually remove it (Figure 5.1).
Conventional Polymer Interaction
with the Formation
WOR-Con Interaction
with the Formation
Figure 5.1Idealized polymer interactions with the formation
Chapter 5
Because WOR-Con reacts with rock surfaces, its effect on
fluid-flow properties should be long-lasting. Laboratory
test results show that conventional polymers lose ~70%
of their effectiveness after 300 pore volumes; however,
the WOR-Con polymer retained effectiveness even after
10,000 pore volumes (Figure 5.2).
Although the WOR-Con

service treatment solution is
thin, formation water in the treated zone appears to have
a high viscosity. The mobility of the formation water is
decreased. WOR-Con does not increase the effective oil
viscosity. Hundreds of wells have been successfully
treated with the WOR-Con service. Example service
results are shown in Figure 5.3 (Page 78).
Treatment Procedure
To properly evaluate a well for WOR-Con

treatment,
Halliburton must have complete pretreatment production
data. If the well is not continuously monitored, several 8-
to 12-hour production tests should be performed at the
normal drawdown pressure for that well. More tests are
required if the test data are not reasonably consistent.
From production data, the well permeability must be
calculated. (The calculated permeability must be 5 md to
750 md). Wells with high water-oil ratio values will be
most significantly affected.
The principal variables associated with the design of a
WOR-Con treatment are the volume of WOR-Con
concentrate, the dilution factor, the overdisplacement,
and the injection rate. Therefore, to design a WOR-Con
treatment, Halliburton engineers must know the follow-
ing well data:
water-production rate
oil-production rate
net interval length
bottomhole static reservoir pressure
bottomhole flowing pressure
average porosity
inside diameter of smallest restriction in injection
string or discharge line
number of perforations
reservoir permeability obtained by logging or core
analysis
API gravity of oil
number of sacks of proppant
general history of the well and the water produc-
tion
Because the WOR-Con chemical must react with the
formation rock surface to form a monomolecular layer,
the WOR-Con treatment must be overdisplaced to help
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

o
f

R
e
t
a
i
n
e
d

W
a
t
e
r

P
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 10,000
Pore Volumes
Conventional Polymer
WOR-Con Treatment
Figure 5.2Polymer retention tests; berea sandstone, 150F (66C)
the chemical react with as much of the formation surface
as possible. A greater radial penetration means greater
treatment effectiveness.
When water coning is suspected, the recommended
WOR-Con design volume is larger than the volume
recommended for treating early water breakthrough or
high-permeability streaks. Water coning is a likely cause
for water production if the following conditions exist:
Vertical permeability is greater than 50% of
horizontal permeability.
Little stratification or physical separation exists
between the oil and water zones, and the oil
viscosity is greater than the water viscosity.
A high drawdown pressure is used while the above
conditions are present.
Treatment Evaluation
To evaluate the effectiveness of a WOR-Con

treatment,
operators must isolate and monitor the production from
the well daily for the first month. Afterward, the well
must be evaluated at least twice a week. Well cleanup
normally requires 2 weeks after treatment. In some cases,
longer periods may be necessary.
KW-Control Service
KW-Control is a nonplugging selective water-control
material that is pumped into producers to reduce the
producing water-oil ratio resulting from bottomwater
coning and high-permeability streaks. To prepare KW-
Control, operators must dilute the two components of
the service (KW-1 and KW-2) with water and pump them
downhole. The well is then shut-in for 10 to 18 hours to
allow for in-situ polymerization. When aqueous fluids are
present, hydrophilic polymer branches of this polymer
extend into the pore throat area and function as
microvalves or polymer brushes. A hydrocarbon fluid
passing by this treated area will be exposed only to a
water-wet surface. No physical plugging of the porosity
occurs. KW-Control is unaffected by multivalent cations
or acids.
If removal is required, Oxol II is recommended. Oxol II is
an oxidant solution that helps eliminate polymer and/or
bacteria buildup in injection and producing wells.
Specifically, it removes polymer-face plugging, misplaced
polymer, or damage caused by polymer or bacteria
growth. Oxol II treatments break down the backbone of
the polymer, reducing the effect of the damage.
As a solid, Oxol II service offers several handling advan-
tages. It is safer to work with than comparable concen-
trated liquid systems, and it has a shelf life of at least 1
year.
Generally, operators run a tubular cleanup ahead of Oxol
II treatment to remove as much rust as possible. Oxol II
service spends on rust, resulting in lower effective
concentrations downhole. Spacers between acids and
Oxol II solutions are required. Treatment volumes can
range from 50 to 100 gal/ft of net pay. Oxol II cleaner is
generally slightly overdisplaced and left in place for 12 to
48 hours.
3,800
3,900
4,000
4,100
4,200
4,300
4,400
4,500
4,600
4,700
0 20 40 60 80 100
Water Permeability (md)
I
n
t
e
r
n
a
l

D
e
p
t
h

(
V
e
r
t
i
c
a
l

f
t
)
Before
After
Figure 5.3Results of WOR-Con
treatment based on
fluid-entry survey
Chapter 5
Flo-Chek
Service
Flo-Chek
service is an externally catalyzed, soluble

silicate system that controls subsurface brine in produc-
tion/injection wells in near-wellbore areas. It is often used
for improving the water-oil ratio in flood operations and
primary production. Specifically, it is used to stop water
movement behind casing (Figure 5.4), reduce
bottomwater production (Figure 5.5), and recover lost
circulation (Figure 5.6). Its usable temperature range is
40F to 550F.
The Flo-Chek solution is often used ahead of a cement
squeeze. When it intermixes with a fluid containing
multivalent cations, such as calcium or magnesium, Flo-
Chek instantly forms a very stiff, semisolid gel that forms
a bridge to block or divert the cement slurry.
Figure 5.4Flo-Chek treatment to stop water movement
behind casing
Leakage Between
Casing and
Cement Job
Cement
Flo-Chek Solution
Perforations to
Intersect Leak
Bridge Plug
Below Perforations
Oil Zone
Water Zone
CaCl
2
Brine
Leak Remains
Sealed
Water Zone
Oil Zone
Perforations Filled
with Cement
Flo-Chek Barrier
Oil Zone
A
B
Figure 5.5Flo-Chek used to reduce bottomwater
production
Cement
Flo-Chek Sealant
Entering Thief Zone
Flo-Chek Sealant
in Place
Drilling Continued
with Full Circulation
Figure 5.6Drilling after lost circulation is reduced with
Flo-Chek
A
B
Injectrol
Service
Injectrol
service is an internally catalyzed silicate system

that achieves intermediate depth-of-matrix penetration.
Injectrol is primarily used to decrease water-to-oil ratios
and water-injection profiles. The internal catalyst allows
operators to pump a low-viscosity solution (1.2 cp) into
the formation matrix before the material sets to a stiff gel.
The stiff gel formed in the matrix seals the formation
pores and diverts or blocks water production.
This sealant can be used alone or with a tail-in cement
squeeze. When run with the cement, the Injectrol
chemical reacts with the cement to become a gel, while
the cement hydrates almost immediately. The resulting
cement has a high compressive strength near the
wellbore where the differential pressure is the highest.
Example
In the well shown in Figure 5.7, the oil is in lenses of
varying permeability. Under waterdrive conditions, the k
4
lens produces the most volume (oil and some water). Out
of the total of 206 BFPD, 6 bbl is water, all produced
from the k
4
lens at the bottom. With time, the water
production in this well should increase. The harder the
well is drawn, the faster the water production increases.
In an advanced stage in the life of a waterdrive reservoir,
water production through the high-permeability lens
dominates (Figure 5.8). Because of its high mobility,
water is easily drawn up through the k
4
lens. The in-
creased hydrostatic pressure from the water-dominated
column in the tubing tends to choke off oil flow from the
k
1
through k
3
lenses. Therefore, without an effective
correction treatment, such as Injectrol, large volumes of
oil can be left in place.
Typical reservoir conditions assist the effectiveness of a
large-volume Injectrol treatment to correct the
bottomwater production described. Usually, vertical
permeability is lower than horizontal permeability. As the
distance away from the wellbore increases, less pressure
drop is available to drive the fluid vertically through the
zone. For example, at 40 ft from the perforations, 60% of
the pressure drop is lost. Therefore, Injectrol sealant is
placed in the bottom few feet of the zone, extending 20
to 40 ft from the casing to form a long-lasting barrier
against water production (Figure 5.9).
Treatment Procedure
A generalized treatment procedure used for all Injectrol
systems includes (1) isolating the problem zone if
Typical
BOPD 200
BWPD 6
k
1
< k
2
< k
3
< k
4
k
4
k
3
k
2
k
1
Typical
BOPD 50
BWPD 180
k
1
< k
2
< k
3
< k
4
k
4
k
3
k
2
k
1
Figure 5.7Initial oil production from a waterdrive
reservoir
Figure 5.8Secondary oil production from a waterdrive
reservoir
5 10 20 30 40
30 40 50 55 60
Percent of Pressure Drop
8 in.
k
4
k
3
k
2
k
1
Figure 5.9Water production corrected with a large-
volume Injectrol treatment
Chapter 5
possible, (2) pumping preflush fluids where indicated, (3)
pumping the Injectrol sealant with spacers, and (4)
tailing-in with cement slurry (most generally used in
producers).
Other features common with all Injectrol treatments
include (1) low injection rates, (2) injection pressure well
below fracturing pressure, and (3) exact displacement
into the formation or a small underdisplacement.
Injectrol
Sealants and Services

By selecting one of three Injectrol catalysts, operators can
control the gel time of the Injectrol from a few minutes
to several hours at temperature ranges of 60F to 300F.
Injectrol
G Sealant
Injectrol
G is a three-component system consisting of an

Injectrol concentration, an activator, and water. The
activator controls the wide range of gel (pumping) times.
The gel times include a temperature range of 70F to
150F BHIT. Pump times of a few minutes to 600 minutes
are possible at 74F BHIT. Pump times of a few minutes
to 180 minutes are possible at 150F BHIT.
Injectrol

IT
Injectrol
IT service uses a different activator to provide

field-suitable pump times within an injection BHIT range
of 120F to 180F. At higher temperatures, the gel quality
of Injectrol IT is better than Injectrol G. Injectrol IT can
be mixed as a single solution. Because of slight variations
in chemicals and mixing waters, engineers must order
laboratory-scale tests before making job recommenda-
tions to ensure that pump times are accurate.
Injectrol

U
Injectrol
U sealant is used only when temperatures of

180F or higher are encountered. It can be successfully
used in wells having BHITs as high as 300F. The activa-
tor for Injectrol U sealant provides widely variable set
times and precipitates particles of hard solids when this
time has elapsed. Laboratory testing shows it is an
effective plugging agent in rock matrices.
K-Max Service
The K-Max service involves the use of a crosslinkable
HEC in the form of a liquid gel concentrate (LGC). K-
Max forms a highly complexed gel downhole that
prevents completion or treatment fluids from flowing
into the isolated areas. Specifically, K-Max is used as a
temporary pill to shut off production or injection at
various depths. This application allows engineers to
pinpoint water- or gas-producing zones and determine
production effects that might occur after the zone is
treated.
The K-Max base fluid is mixed, hydrated, and allowed to
partially or fully crosslink on the surface before it is
pumped. The fluid is allowed to complex fully before
final placement of the uncrosslinked polymer into the
formation matrix.
K-Max service fluid can be prepared in brines having
density ranges from 8.33 to 15.2 lb/gal of fresh water.
These brines include KCl, NaCl, NaBr, CaCl
2
, NH
4
Cl,
seawater, and CaCl
2
- CaBr
2
. Brine formulations and
polymer fluid mixing procedures must be strictly ob-
served.
Placement
To prevent uncrosslinked polymer from entering the
formation, operators must hold the polymer fluid in the
mixing container until the crosslinking reaction is well
underway. If crosslinking is completed before the
material is pumped out of the blender, it will still be
pumpable and control fluid loss when placed.
The crosslink reaction rate depends on a variety of
factors, such as brine type, brine weight, and polymer
fluid temperature. Usually, higher-weighted solutions
have a faster complexation rate. The rate is fluid/tempera-
ture-dependent. A warmer polymer fluid crosslinks faster
than a cooler one. As the polymer fluid is heated by the
formation temperature during placement, the reaction
rate accelerates.
Coiled Tubing Placement
When coiled tubing is used to place K-Max, the friction
pressures through the smaller-diameter coiled tubing
restrict the gel concentration of the K-Max treatment.
Under these conditions, a 60-lb/Mgal formulation is
recommended. Pumping rates are restricted by the
pressure rating on the tubing (a maximum of approxi-
mately 0.5 bbl/min is expected for 1 1/4-in. tubing).
Figure 5.10 (Page 82) shows typical friction pressures
through coiled tubing.
Angard and Anjel
Systems
Angard and Anjel
nontoxic silicate gel sealants fill voids

behind corroded casing or plug communications behind
casing. Both sealants have usable temperature ranges of
70F to 140F.
Angard
Angard is placed as a thixotropic slurry with low fluid-
loss properties. Angard forms a firm gel that provides a
reliable annular seal between casing and tubing or the
tubing and formation. Because of its pH, gel structure,
and corrosion-inhibiting characteristics, Angard sealant
can be used to protect steel casing and tubing from
aqueous corrosion. Although Angard gel is permanent
and corrosion-resistant, the sealants low strength allows
operators to easily pull pipe and packers through it.
Anjel
Anjel
sealant is an excellent alternative to cement for

filling voids behind corroded casing or for plugging
communications behind casing because its removal does
not require drilling. The system forms a very tough gel at
controllable pump times, and moderate mechanical
disturbance is required to remove it.
Squeeze Cementing
Many of the previously described chemical systems can
be enhanced with water-based or hydrocarbon-based
cement slurries as a tail-in to the chemical treatment.
This section describes basic cement slurry designs and
provides specific information about the following diesel
cement slurry systems:
Diesel-Oil cement (DOC)
Bentonite Diesel-Oil cement (BDO)
MOC/One slurry
General Design Principles
Two of the most important and useful pieces of informa-
tion needed for the design of a successful zone isolation
cementing treatment are formation pressure and fractur-
ing pressure. With this information, Halliburton can (1)
design a cement job that will not lose a large volume of
cement slurry into the formation, (2) determine a realistic
10
1.0
0.1
F
r
i
c
t
i
o
n

P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

(
p
s
i
/
f
t
)
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Flow Rate (gal/min)
60 lb/M
gal K-M
ax
90 lb/M
gal K-M
ax
Figure 5.10Typical friction pressures through coiled tubing
Chapter 5
column height for recementing treatments, and (3)
control cement fallback. Pressure buildup and injectivity
tests indicate whether a well can hold a full column of
fluid.
If a job requires circulating cement into the open annulus,
Halliburton uses formation pressure data and a series of
rate-in, rate-out circulation tests to evaluate (1) perfora-
tion location, (2) a realistic cement column height, and
(3) the need for additional cleaning, flushes, or the
application of ultralight cements.
Most commonly, a squeeze job fails because operators fail
to place enough slurry in the areas where it could have
been effective, and they do not hold the cement in the
area long enough to form a permanent seal. The most
common contributors to squeeze job failure and field-
proven methods of handling each problem are discussed
below.
Lack of Proper Fluid Control
Improper fluid-loss control can result in either a prema-
ture squeeze (slurry dehydration) or no squeeze (caused
by fluid loss being too low). Either condition can block
an uncemented annulus and force cement into the wrong
zone or prevent sufficient slurry from entering an
injection zone. The degree of fluid-loss control during
squeeze jobs depends mostly on the types of fluid-loss
additives used in the slurry. Fluid loss can be reduced by
large precharge volumes and reactive flushes pumped
ahead of the cement.
Improper Perforation Cleanup
Many squeeze jobs fail because the perforations were not
cleaned properly. For example, if a mud-filled casing is
perforated with a pressure differential to the formation,
the perforations are likely to be plugged with mud,
crushed formation material, and debris. The zone should
be tested to ensure cleanliness.
Low Placement Rates
A low injection rate simply allows more time for a
specific volume of cement slurry to lose fluid and become
a solid mass. In effect, the placement rate supplies the
time factor for fluid loss.
No Knowledge of Where Cement Is Needed
Some squeeze jobs are apparently performed with little
more knowledge than the approximate depth of the
casing leak. If more than one formation is open in an
uncemented annulus, the slurry enters the formation with
the lowest frac gradient, which frequently is not the
formation that produced the brine.
Poor Injection Point Control
Slurry entrance into at least one formation is normally
required for a successful squeeze treatment. Simply
isolating a hole in the casing with packers does not
ensure that the slurry can be forced into the formation at
that point. In some instances, a zone cannot be success-
fully squeezed until the uncemented annulus below it is
blocked.
Effect of Bottomwater
If naturally induced fractures extend into lower zones,
bottomwater control problems will occur. To combat
bottomwater, Halliburton may recommend injecting a
low-viscosity, temporary blocking material into the upper
zone before squeezing the bottom zone. The success
ratio of this type of treatment is greatly improved when
reactive preflushes are used ahead of the cement.
Crossflow
High-volume water flow in an uncemented annulus
(often referred to as crossflow) can dilute a cement slurry
until it can no longer seal effectively. To control this
condition, operators must eventually squeeze off the
brine-producing zone with treatment pressures greater
than the producing zones pressure. If a weak zone is
open in the same uncemented area, special materials,
such as foam cements, thixotropic cements, and reactive
preflushes may be needed. A multiple-stage cement job
with selective injection can also prevent crossflow if the
slurry injection points can be controlled.
Poor Bonding
Poor bonding to the formation is common in salt
formations. Salt-saturated slurries are necessary for good
bonding, but these slurries can have long thickening
times and may set at low to moderate temperatures. This
dual problem can complicate squeeze procedures. The
slurry must remain static from the placement time to the
initial set time. High-pressure water can easily enter and
disrupt the integrity of a cement during its transition
from a fluid to a solid.
Cement Flowback
When pumping stops, the downhole pressure is initially
equal to the hydrostatic pressure and any remaining
surface pressure. If no squeeze pressure is obtained, some
formations continue to take slurry until the hydrostatic
pressure is equal to the fracture extension pressure. As the
cement gels and fluid is lost from the slurry (to permeable
formations), the pressure in the cement rapidly decreases.
This pressure decrease allows gas or brine to enter the
cement column, migrate upward, mix with the cement
slurry, and/or form flow channels for the brine or gas.
Foam cement, Gas-Chek, GasStop, and thixotropic
cements can often effectively control this phenomenon.
Multiple Injection Zones
Difficulties of squeezing more than one area with a single
job are mostly self-evident. However, treating multiple
injection points or paths in a single zone is less under-
stood. For instance, a reactive preflush or pad ahead of
the slurry can result in complete blockage of one flow
path, yet the following slurry meets very little added
restriction and no squeeze pressure is evident.
This condition is best solved with either multiple-stage
squeeze jobs with a Flo-Chek

component preflush ahead
of each stage or treatment with a large volume of an
Injectrol
solution that reacts with the formation brine

and has time-dependent gelation.
Diesel-Oil Cement (DOC) Slurries
When water is produced through channels or fractures in
the cement sheath or formation, operators may choose to
shut off the water by using a diesel-oil cement slurry
within the fracture. This slurry will not set to form a plug
until it contacts water. As a result, the unhydrated slurry
can be produced back out of the oil-producing portion of
the zone without severe damage. DOC slurries are
composed of diesel oil or kerosene, standard or premium
cement, and a special surfactant, such as Halliburtons
DOC-3.
Although DOC slurry itself is more expensive than a
water-based cement slurry, the complete cost of the
DOC service is generally less than the overall cost of
water-based cementing services for the following reasons:
Less cement is needed. Sometimes the slurry
required is a small fraction of the normal volume of
a water-based slurry.
The use of DOC results in less damage to the
producing formation.
The ratio of successful applications under very
difficult conditions is much higher when DOC is
used.
DOC is a particularly good choice for channel
jobs.
The recommended surfactant for diesel-oil cement
slurries is DOC-3 surfactant. When DOC-3 is used, it
allows the slurry to absorb water. The slurry actually
forms a capillary system that draws the water into the
slurry like a sponge. Because the individual cement
particles are still preferentially water-wet, the water-wet
mass will stick together and set up hard. The slurry also
takes in water, even when no differential pressure exists.
The slurrys water-wettability is closely related to its
ability to thicken once it contacts water. As a result, small
volumes of slurry can be used for each job, and the slurry
is particularly good against thief formations. The thick-
ening behavior of the slurry is not a flash set. Instead, it
behaves similarly to a powder that pours freely when it is
dry, but it sticks together and will not pour when
dampened with water. If the slurry will not thicken, water
will not be absorbed into the slurry through capillary
action.
DOC Fluid-Loss
Many customers appear to be confused about the fluid
loss of DOC slurries. In some instances, customers have
required operators to use special low fluid-loss oils to
prevent slurry lockup that could occur before enough
slurry is put away into the formation. This lockup is not
caused by fluid loss, but the thickening action of the
slurry when it contacts water.
Based on regular Baroid filter press tests (100 psi on filter
paper), the average slurry containing DOC-3 has a low
fluid loss (50 to 100 cc). Diesel slurries without DOC-3
do not have this fluid-loss property. Therefore, water
contamination results in greater fluid loss. Under these
circumstances, the filter cake formed by DOC is not
hard, and it is readily washed off by oil if water has not
first contacted the cake.
If a low fluid-loss additive is required for a DOC slurry,
calcium chloride could be used to reduce the fluid loss to
about 10 cc. If the water is moderately contaminated, the
calcium chloride may actually decrease fluid loss to less
than 5 cc. Although many customers suggest Adomite as
a low fluid-loss additive, its use may actually increase
fluid loss and cause other harmful effects.
Chapter 5
Other Uses and Mixes
DOC slurry has also been successfully used to mend
holes in corroded and split pipe. Since water must be
present before the slurry will set, operators may pump
water ahead of the slurry to set the cement once they
have placed it.
Sand in DOC Slurries
When a formation requires a stronger set and a heavier
slurry, operators can add sand to DOC slurries. The sand
also increases slurry bulk or fillup without the use of
additional cement or diesel oil.
To achieve a slurry heavier than 18.1 lb/gal, operators
may choose to use a 50-50 sand-cement blend. This
blend results in a slurry that requires only 1.88 gal of
diesel oil per sack of the 50-50 sand-cement blend rather
than the 4 gal of diesel per sack of neat Portland cement.
Of course, in field conditions, a regular DOC slurry will
mix at more than 4.5 to 5 gal/sk, so 1.88 gal/sk of the
blend may not be attainable, but 2.5 or 2 gal/sk can be
achieved.
Many cement-sand blends are possible from 66% cement
to 66% sand (by weight), and only experience will tell
which is best. These percentages represent the ranges
tested in Halliburton laboratories. More extreme percent-
ages can be tried if necessary.
The sand size should be in the range of 40/60 mesh
fracturing sand. Coarser sand settles out of the slurry too
fast. Sand finer than 100- to 200-mesh results in lighter
slurries, but the resulting slurries are still heavier than
neat Portland cement. Creek sand has possibilities for
use, but it must be dry and free of clay and silt.
Oil-Wetting of Cement in DOC Slurries
In a freshly prepared DOC slurry, the cement particles
are not thoroughly wetted by the oil. The longer the
cement is in contact with the oil, however, the more oil-
wet it becomes and the more difficult for the water to
penetrate the slurry and provide a good set. This oil-
wetting occurs more quickly at higher temperatures. For
instance, a slurry stored at 80F for 8 days should still
accept water readily.
Some crude oils contain natural surfactants that can
poison the DOC slurry because they prevent water from
entering the slurry and causing it to set. This effect may
explain why some squeeze jobs do not have set DOC
opposite the oil zone. For that reason, diesel oil or
kerosene should always be used to prepare the slurry.
Where the oil-bearing formation is oil-wet, operators
should use only a very small volume of oil ahead of the
DOC slurry. An oil-wet formation does not generally
have a continuous water phase around formation par-
ticles. Therefore, any appreciable oil pumped ahead of
the slurry will sweep the water out into the formation and
away from the wellbore, where the water is needed to
cause the slurry to set. A water-wet formation has a
continuous water phase around formation solids, which
forms a flow pattern for the water to contact and set the
slurry.
High-Weight DOC Slurries
In areas where high mud weights are required, Hi-Dense
No. 3 should be added to the DOC with little or no

variation from the regular mixing or treating technique.
Since a 16.2-lb/gal slurry is often unobtainable because of
water in the oil or bentonite in the cement, the recom-
mended slurry weights may not be attainable. Therefore,
operators should take special precautions to keep water
out of the diesel oil and gel (bentonite) out of the
cement.
Bentonite-Diesel Oil (BDO) Slurry
A bentonite-cement mixture can also be used to combat
lost returns. Typically, operators will create a mixture
with equal weights of cement and bentonite, mixed at a
ratio of 8 to 11 gal of diesel oil per sack of bentonite-
cement. For these jobs, DOC-3 is not used because the
large proportion of bentonite will cause extreme thicken-
ing of the slurry when contacted with water, and the
cement will give some strength to the mass.
BDO Placement
To perform a BDO job, operators pump the BDO to the
point of lost circulation through the drillpipe and then
pump the drilling mud down the annulus. The bottom of
the drillpipe is located in the area of the lost-circulation
zone. When the BDO exits the drillpipe, it mixes with
the drilling mud and forms a thick, putty-like material
that is then displaced into the lost-circulation zone to
seal it off.
The average ratio of BDO to drilling mud at the begin-
ning of the job is approximately 8:1, but it is gradually
decreased to a final ratio of 3:1. An oil-based spacer is
pumped ahead and behind the BDO in the drillpipe to
prevent gelation problems while the BDO is still in the
drillpipe.
BDO Squeeze (Gunk Squeeze)
For high-density muds in which fibrous, granular, or flake
materials have failed to create a seal in the mud, opera-
tors can use the BDO squeeze process to overcome loss
of circulation. This mixture yields a semisolid material to
block lost-circulation channels where bridging agents are
not satisfactory.
BDO slurry can be mixed with the regular cementing
equipment and hopper. Drilling mud is pumped down the
annulus at the same time the BDO mixture is pumped
down the drillpipe. BDO exits the area surrounding the
bottom of the drillpipe and mixes with the mud, forming
a sticky, putty-like material. Because the additional
bentonite in the diesel oil can only absorb the limited
amount of water in the drilling mud, the resulting
substance is very thick. The diesel oil acts only as a
lubrication carrier. The putty-like material is carried by
the flow current to the area of lost circulation, where it
plasters over the zone and seals against additional fluid
loss.
To enhance the strength of the treatment, operators can
add cement to the BDO slurry. The resulting bentonite-
cement-diesel oil (BCDO) slurry is mixed and placed just
as BDO.
MOC/One Cement
The one disadvantage of using DOC as a treatment
method is that the standard cements larger particle size
(up to 120 m) limits its penetration into the leak. As a
result, a job may have to be repeated several times before
it is even marginally successful.
In these situations, the use of the MOC/One service
could provide more positive results. MOC/One consists
of Micro Matrix cement, diesel or kerosene, and MOC-A
surfactant. MOC-A, when used at the recommended
concentration by volume of diesel, yields a densified
slurry, which when contacted by water, delivers a low-
permeability slurry with high compressive strength.
With a maximum particle size of 10 m or less, Micro
Matrix cement can penetrate areas in the wellbore and
surrounding formation that would otherwise be inacces-
sible. When this cement is used, MOC-A is necessary to
prevent the immediate oil-wetting of the ultrafine
cement. Like a standard DOC slurry, the ultrafine,
hydrocarbon-based slurry only sets when it contacts
mobile water. Since ultrafine slurries have a delayed
gelation, however, they usually penetrate fractures more
deeply before they set. The system can be used up to
temperatures of 400F.
For example, a well with an initial production of 10
BOPD and 300 BWPD was first treated with hydrocar-
bon-based, standard cement. Only 470 to 940 lb of
standard cement could be placed in the formation, and
water production did not decrease. A 4,000-gal,
complexed polyacrylamide treatment was then placed in
the zone. Again, water production remained the same.
Eventually, production increased to 10 BOPD and 600
BWPD. At this time, operators placed 2,500 lb of
ultrafine cement in a diesel slurry behind a 1,500-gal of
MOC-A treatment. After 2 months, the well stabilized at
17 BOPD and only 200 BWPD.
When MOC-A contains 20 gal/Mgal of hydrocarbon-
carrying fluid, the resulting Micro Matrix cement slurry
has a delayed gelation that allows it to be placed into
water-bearing formation fractures some distance from the
wellbore. The small size of the Micro Matrix cement also
allows for placement into near-wellbore microchannels
that may be communicating with adjacent water-bearing
formations.
Conclusions
Once a treatment design has been established, engineers
must determine the proper placement technique for
optimal treatment results. Chapter 6 provides informa-
tion regarding placement methods and mechanical
equipment.
Bibliography
Advances in Well Test Analysis, SPE Monograph Vol. 5, Page
86.
Avery, M. R., and Sutphen, J. A.: Field Evaluation of
Production Well Treatments in Kansas Using a
Crosslinked, Cationic Polymer Gel, presented at the
1989 8th University of Kansas Tertiary Oil Recovery
Conference, Wichita, KS, March 8-9.
Bonifay, W.E., Wheeler, J.G., and Garcia, J.G.:
Cementitous Compositions and Method, U. S.
Patent 5,071,484, Dec. 10, 1991.
Broussard, G. L., et. al.: Fluid Loss Control Using
Crosslinkable HEC in High-Permeability Offshore
Flexure Trend Completions, paper SPE 19752
presented at the 1989 SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, TX,
Oct. 8-11.
Chapter 5
Clampitt, R. L., Al-Rikabi, H. M., and Dabbous, M. K.:
A Hostile Environment Gelled Polymer for Well
Treatment and Profile Control, paper SPE 25629
presented at the 1993 8th Middle East Oil Show and
Conference, Manama, Bahrain, April 3-6.
Clarke, W.J.: Formation Grouting Method and Composi-
tion Useful Therefor, U.S. Patent 5,106,423, April
21, 1992.
Cole, R. C., and Lindstrom, K.: Well Integrity Mainte-
nance Using Pumpable Sealants, presented at the
1987 Underground Injection Practices Council
International Symposium, New Orleans, LA, May.
Cole, R. C., Dalrymple, D., McDuff, C. H., and
Jones, M.: Chemical Process Seals Leaks in Injection
Wells, presented at the 1987 Southwestern Petroleum
Short Course, Lubbock, TX, April.
Crook, R.J., Lizak, L.F., and Zeltmann, T.A.: Permian
Basin Operators Seal Casing Leaks with Small-Particle
Cement, paper SPE 23985, presented at the 1992
Permian Basin Oil and Gas Recovery Conference,
Midland, TX, March 18-20.
Dahl, J. and Harris, K.: Uses of Small Particle Size
Cement in Water and Hydrocarbon Based Slurries,
presented at the 1991 9th Tertiary Oil Recovery
Conference in Wichita, KS, May.
Dalrymple, D., Maughmer: Treatment Helps Decrease
Water and Reduce Costs, American Oil and Gas Reporter
(June 1992) 114.
Dalrymple, D., Sutton, D., and Creel, P.: Conformance
Control in Oil Recovery, presented at the 1985
Southwestern Petroleum Short Course, Lubbock, TX,
April.
Dalrymple, E. D, Dahl, J.A., East, L.E., and McKown,
K.W.: A Selective Water Control Process, Presented
at the 1992 Rocky Mountain Regional SPE Meeting in
Casper, WY, May 18-21.
Dalrymple, E.: Two Stage Treatment Reduces Water/Oil
Ratio, Oil & Gas J (Sept. 10, 1990) 73.
Dawson, D.D. Jr. and Goins, W.C. Jr.: Bentonite-Diesel
Oil Squeeze, World Oil (Oct. 1953) 222.
Ewert, D.P., Almond, S.W., and Bierhaus, W.M.: Small
Particle Size Cement, paper SPE 20038, presented at
the 1990 60th California Regional Meeting, Ventura,
CA, April 4-6.
Ewert, D.P., Kundert, D.P., Dahl, J.A., Dalrymple, E.D.,
and Gerke, R. R.: Squeeze Cementing, U.S. Patent
5,121,795, June 16, 1992.
General Rules and Regulations of the Oil and Gas
Conservation Division, Oklahoma Corporation
Commission, 1986 Edition.
Great Britain Patent 2,099,412A, U. S. Patent 4,466,831,
Canada Patent 1,201,274.
Hanlon, D. J., Fulton, S., and Beny, M.: New Chemical
and Mechanical Technology for Injection Profile
Control, presented at the 1987 Southwestern
Petroleum Short Course, Lubbock, TX, April.
Harris, K.L. and Johnson, B.J.: Successful Remedial
Operations Using Ultrafine Cement, presented at the
1992 Mid-Continent Gas Symposium, Amarillo, TX,
April 13-14.
Harris, K.L., Vinson, E.F., Bour, D.L., Ewert, D.P., and
Ekstrand, B.B.: Repairing Leaks in Casings, U.S.
Patent 5,123,487, June 23, 1992.
Harris, S. H.: Control of Water Production Using Cross-
Linked Polymers, 1988 United States Dept. of
Energy Improved Oil Recovery Conference, Abilene,
TX, Sept. 11-13.
Heathman, J.F., and East, L.E. Jr.: Case Histories Regard-
ing the Application of Microfine Cements, paper
SPE/IADC 23926, presented in 1992 in New Orleans,
February 18-21.
Herring, G. D., Milloway, J. T., and Wilson, W. N.:
Selective Gas Shut-Off Using Sodium Silicate in the
Prudoe Bay Field, AK, paper SPE 12473 presented at
the 1984 Formation Damage Control Symposium,
Bakersfield, CA, February 13-14.
Himes, R. E. and Sandy, J. M.: A New Crosslinkable
HEC - Its Application in Completion Work, pre-
sented at the 1986 6th Offshore Southeast Asia
Conference, Singapore, Jan. 28-31.
Himes, R. E., et al.: Low Damage Fluid Loss Control for
Well Completions, paper SPE 22355 presented at the
1992 SPE International Meeting on Petroleum
Engineering, Beijing, March 24-27.
Hower, W.F. and Montgomery, P.C.: New Slurry
Effective for Control of Unwanted Water, Oil and Gas
Journal (Oct. 19, 1953).
Koch, Ronney R. and Diller, John E.: An Economical
Large Volume Treatment For Altering Water
Injectivity Profiles, Paper No. 851-40-A American
Petroleum Institute Division of Production.
Koch, Ronney R. and McLaughlin, Homer C.: Field
Performance of New Technique for Control of Water
Production or Injection in Oil Recovery, paper SPE
2847, Practical Aspects of Improved Recovery
Techniques Meeting, Fort Worth, TX (1970).
Kohler, N., Rahbari, R., Zaitoun, A., and Han, M.: Weak
Gel Formulations for Selective Control of Water
Production in High-Permeability and High-Tempera-
ture Wells, paper SPE 25225 presented at the 1993
Oilfield Chemicals International Symposium, New
Orleans, March 2-5.
Lange, K. R., Weldes, H. H.: Properties of Soluble
Silicates, Ind Eng Chem (April 1969) 61, 29-44.
Maughmer, R.E., Dalrymple, D., East, L., and
McKown, K.: Cement System Reduces Water
Production, The American Oil and Gas Reporter (May,
1992) 114.
McKown, K., Dalrymple, D., Wood, F., and Fontenot, D.:
Strategies for Obtaining Effective Injectivity Pat-
terns, presented at the 1987 University of Kansas
Tertiary Oil Recovery Project, Lawrence, KS, March.
McLaughlin, Homer C., Jewell, Robert L. and Colomb,
Glenn R.: A Low Viscosity Solution For Injectivity
Profile Change, Paper No. 851-41-1 American
Petroleum Institute Division of Production.
Meek, J.W. and Harris, K.L.: Repairing Casing Leaks
Using Small-Particle-Size Cement, paper SPE/IADC
21972, presented at the 1991 SPE/IADC Drilling
Conference, Amsterdam, March 11-14.
Messenger, J.U.: Lost Circulation Techniques Can Solve
Drilling Problems, Part 3, Oil and Gas Journal (1968)
66, No. 22, 94-98.
Messenger, J.U.: Lost Circulation, PennWell Publishing,
16-18, 21-22, 33, 35, 56, 58, 60-63, 70-77.
Murphey, J. R.: Rapidly Dissolvable Silicates and
Methods of Using the Same, U. S. Patent No.
4,521,136 (1981).
Murphey, J., Young, W., and Oberpriller, F.: Treatment of
Lost Circulation and Water Production Problems with
a Powdered Silicate, CIM 82-33-46 presented at the
1982 33rd Annual Meeting, Calgary, Alberta, June 6-
9.
Quarnstrom, T. F. and Cavender, T. W.: Fluid Loss to
Formation Stopped Before Gravel Packing, Technol-
ogy, Oil & Gas J (1989) Sept. 25, 101.
Ramos, Joe, and Hower, Wayne F.: Selective Plugging of
Underground Well Strata, U. S. Patent 2,837,163
(June 3, 1958).
Rensvold, R. F., Ayres, H. J., and Carlile, W. C.:
Recompletion of Well to Improve Water-Oil Ratio,
paper SPE 5379 presented at the 1975 45th Annual
California Regional Meeting, Ventura, CA, April 2-4.
Smith, C. W., Pugh, T. D., and Bharat, M.: A Special
Sealant Process for Subsurface Water, presented at
the 1978 Southwestern Petroleum Short Course,
Lubbock, TX, April 20-21.
Wood, F., Dalrymple, D., McKown, K., and Fontenot, D.:
Converting a Producing Well to an Injection Well in
the State of Kansas, presented in 1987 at the Univer-
sity of Kansas Tertiary Oil Recovery Project,
Lawrence, KS, March.
Placement Techniques and Equipment 89
Chapter 6
Chapter 6
Placement
Techniques
and
Equipment
Placement Techniques
Placement techniques used in treating
unwanted water and/or gas produc-
tion should be chosen on a well-by-
well basis. This section discusses
placement differences between
injection and production wells, the
nature of fluid movement, and the
following placement methods:
bullheading
mechanical packer placement
dual-injection placement
isoflow placement
transient placement
Placement in Injection vs.
Production Wells
Injection Wells
Treatment placement in injection
wells is relative to the ongoing water,
steam, CO
2
, water-alternating-gas
(WAG), or other flooding method
used to maintain formation pressure,
replace volumetric removal, and
sweep the reservoir to the best
mobility efficiency. To alter the in-
depth injection profile of these wells,
engineers strive to change the flow
throughout the reservoir to modify
existing inefficient patterns or paths.
Generally, the conformance-control
treatment is performed based on the
same injection method (pressure-rate)
currently used on the well. If possible,
even the fluid used should be similar
to the one used to flood the well.
Logically, if the same injection
method and fluid are used, the
treatment should enter the formation
in the same path. The injection
pressure must remain below parting
pressure; if injection pressure
approaches parting pressure during
treatment, a rate decrease will be
necessary.
Production Wells
Generally, placement in production
wells is based on the idea that an
aqueous fluid will enter the formation
in the same area through which an
aqueous fluid is being produced. For
example, once produced water has
broken though, the mobility ratio of
the aqueous solution in the water-
bearing strata is much more favorable
than the mobility ratio of the
aqueous solution in the oil-bearing
strata. As a result, at reasonable
pressures and rates, the solution
treatment should preferentially enter
the water-producing portion of the
zone.
Controlling Fluid
Movement
To effectively use the conformance
technology processes available,
engineers must consider the follow-
ing conditions:
Unless the formations are
highly stratified with little or
no vertical permeability and
no random fracture systems,
the corrective materials must
penetrate deeply into the
formation to influence fluid
flow for a significant time in
injection or producing wells.
90 Placement Techniques and Equipment Chapter 6
The best fluid to perform deep formation place-
ment is a low-viscosity, solids-free fluid that
improves mobility or has a high resistance to
extrusion in a controlled manner.
When injection wells are treated at less than
parting pressure with a fluid that has viscosity
comparable to the floodwater viscosity, selective
injection may result. The rate and pressure of
injection should be maintained at or less than the
rate and pressure of injection of the floodwater.
The same may hold true for producing wells if the
fluid is comparable to produced water, and
fracturing rates and pressures are avoided.
Bullheading
The simplest, most economical treatment placement
method is the bullheading technique, in which operators
inject the treatment without isolating the targeted zone.
This technique can be used effectively for entry into
zones that will take 100% of fluids or for entry into
perforations where a permeability decrease is necessary.
Bullheading is seldom recommended, however, because
without zone isolation, the treatment may seal not only
the intended water zone but the oil zone as well. Figure
6.1 shows a bullhead treatment that has sealed both
zones.
To design an effective placement procedure and respon-
sive treatment, engineers must carefully consider well
conditions and reservoir characteristics. Specifically, they
must analyze injectivity profiles and perform a multirate
analysis to determine variances in entry that are associ-
ated with variances in injection pressures/rates. The
possibility of static condition crossflows that might
continue after placement should also be considered.
The profile entry logs generated during these tests are
visuals for near-wellbore entry only, and analysts must
always consider the possibility that conditions may differ
deeper in the formation.
The histories of injection profile entry for wells can often
change over the life of a well. For example, damage such
as scaling, paraffin buildup, and plugging caused by fines
can divert fluid movement. Frequently, this damage is
actually an asset to treatment placement, because it
prevents treatments from entering into possible preferred
flood intervals. Once the solution treatment is in place,
this damage can be removed through stimulation.
If available, computer simulators can also interpolate
pressure responses. Specifically, engineers can use the
maximum bottomhole injection pressure (BHIP) deter-
mined during the multirate injection/profile analysis to
establish the limits for a treatment.
Mechanical Packer Placement
For added control, operators can use mechanical packers,
bridge plugs, or selective zone packers to isolate perfora-
tions or a portion of an openhole completion into which
a treatment will be placed (Figure 6.2). This method
protects critical perforations in the adjacent oil sands
from sealant invasion.
When selecting tools, engineers should consider how the
treatment materials could affect the performance of the
Cement
Oil Zone
Water Zone
Figure 6.1Bullhead placement technique
Cement
Oil Zone
Water Zone
Figure 6.2Mechanical packer placement technique
Chapter 6
tool. Depending on the circumstances, the tools could
also be left in the well as a control for injection or
production. To determine the packers degree of place-
ment control on the zone, engineers must test for
injectivity and communication aspects.
Dual-Injection Placement
When performing dual-injection placement (Figure 6.3),
operators use the wells tubulars to inject fluids down the
tubing and down the annulus. Packers, bridge plugs, sand
plugs, chemical plugs, chemical packers, and other
mechanical means are usually used with this technique.
By isolating intervals with tools or covering intervals with
sand backfill, operators can more accurately target the
preferred treatment intervals.
The dual-injection placement technique offers efficient
placement control. To protect critical perforations in the
adjacent oil-producing zone from the treatment solution,
operators inject a nonsealing fluid that is compatible with
the formation. Frequently, the fluid used to protect the
adjacent intervals from the influx of treatment solution is
reactive to the sealant fluid. Therefore, when the treating
pressure increases, the fluid interface builds a reacted seal
between the formation intervals, creating a barrier that
may allow the treatment to be placed farther into the
formation.
Ideally, dual-injection placement directs fluids along the
interface away from the wellbore and far enough into the
formation to change the injectivity or the production.
After considering the density, viscosity, and frictional
pressure differences of the two injection streams, engi-
neers normally equalize the BHIP to control placement
when using this technique.
Dual-injection placement techniques can also be de-
signed based on injectivity profiles and multirate analyses
used for determining variances in entry associated with
variances in injection pressure/rates. The profile analysis
can provide percentages of fluid entry throughout the
entire interval and can help analysts determine the
tubular and annular rates for performing a dual-injection
placement technique. The possibility of static condition
crossflows or transient flow that might continue after
placement can be determined by profile analysis, but the
profile entry logs generated during these tests only apply
to near-wellbore entry; conditions deeper in the forma-
tion could differ. If pressure responses vary from the
initial analysis, the control materials could be placed into
the wrong interval.
Operators can also use dual-injection techniques to place
treatments in which two incompatible fluids must be
pumped separately into the well through the tubing
annulus before they are injected into the interval. If the
two systems cannot be mixed and pumped through the
tubing annulus from the surface, they are pumped
separately down the tubing and intermixed at the
treatment interval.
Isoflow Placement
When using the isoflow placement technique (Figure
6.4), operators direct the treatment solution into the
selected interval(s) while protecting the hydrocarbon-
producing or hydrocarbon bearing zone by simulta-
Compatible
Nongelling Fluid
Oil Zone
Sealant Sealant
Water Zone
Figure 6.3Dual injection placement technique
Figure 6.4Isoflow placement technique
Radioactive
Compatible Fluid
Oil Zone
Sealant
Sealant
Bottomwater Production
Gamma Ray
Logging Tool
Wireline
neously injecting a nonsealing, formation-compatible
fluid that contains a radioactive tag down the annulus.
Before the treatment is run, a gamma-ray detection tool is
run down the well inside the tubing and placed at the
interface between the upper nonsealing and lower sealing
point in the well. During the initial analysis and some-
times during the sealant placement, engineers analyze the
output from the tool to regulate tubing and annulus pump
rates. To adjust the location of the interface, operators
can manipulate the pump rate of the tubing and annulus
fluids.
During normal isoflow placement operations, the sealing
solution is placed at a rate based on daily injection. This
rate should be proportional to the intervals percentage of
fluid entry based on profile analysis. Before placement,
engineers must also consider differences in each
chemicals viscosity and density.
When adjusting to maintain the location of the fluid
interface, engineers should use only the annular fluids
rate if possible. The tubular fluid should remain constant.
To save time, operators generally spot the annular fluid
down near the preferred interface before the analysis is
performed, since annular volumes are based on the daily
injection volume for the upper interval.
Rate adjustments can be made to control the interface
during treatments. As the location of the fluid interface is
being tracked, rate, not pressure, controls these jobs;
pressure restrictions of the casing are the only pressure
consideration. To locate the interface and track the
stationary injectivities for each annular rate adjustment,
operators can move the gamma ray logging tools to
different locations in the wellbore.
The isoflow method is uniquely suited to wells with
negative surface pressures and wells in which the fluid
stands static once they are shut in. On wells that flow
back and have a charged-up bottomhole pressure,
engineers may recommend the isoflow method to
perform tests that will establish the appropriate rates for
conducting a conformance job. This solution treatment
should be performed with a stripper for the casing and a
downhole flapper valve for the tubing, which both serve
to negate the use of gamma ray tools and interface
analysis during the actual treatment. If the treatment
solutions do not cause a problem with tubulars removal
from the well, the jobs are performed as in static-
condition wells or low-pressure, vacuum-pressure
injection wells.
Transient Placement
When the injectivity profile and shut-in crossflow on
many wells are analyzed, it may become apparent that
the well could produce fluid during static conditions from
one interval into another. The analysis may also indicate
that the well may be crossflowing at a particular rate from
other intervals while injection is being performed at a
particular rate. Once a sufficiently high rate is estab-
lished, these wells may not show a crossflow.
Transient placement techniques (Figure 6.5) use
crossflow to help eliminate entry into unwanted intervals
as treatments are injected into the zones that will be
sealed. The fluids from the treatment and crossflow are
allowed to intermix in this placement procedure.
While designing treatments, engineers must perform tests
to determine if compatibility and sealant concentration
will seriously affect the treatment. For example, since
transient flow and injection flow intermixing will occur,
engineers must analyze injectivity profiles by performing
multirate tests to determine the concentration of the
treatment solution fluid.
Tubular
and Crossflow
Placement
Crossflow
from Interval
Sand
Plugback Fill
Cement
Figure 6.5Transient placement technique
Chapter 6
Service Equipment
Halliburton uses a wide variety of equipment to place and
monitor conformance technology treatments. This
equipment includes process monitoring and control
systems, treating fluid filtration systems, mixing systems,
and high-pressure pumping systems.
This section describes some of the different types of
Halliburton equipment available for this service.
Monitoring Systems
Halliburtons Compupac portable data acquisition system
(Figure 6.6) is an IBM
PC-compatible laptop computer

that records and processes data from proprietary data
acquisition hardware. The basic Compupac system can
monitor one density input, one temperature input, three
pressure inputs, and three flow inputs. While monitoring
the basic transducer inputs, the system can simulta-
neously acquire pressure, flow, and density data from
multiple remote digital panel meters, such as Halliburton
Unipros.
Filtering Systems
Several filtering systems are available for cleaning
treating fluids. Figure 6.7 shows a low-pressure diatoma-
ceous earth filter that can filter fluids at rates as high as
Figure 6.6Compupac Portable Data Acquisition System
Figure 6.7Halliburton Filtering System
Cement
Oil Zone
Water Zone
Figure 6.8Halliburton HCS Advantage Skid
15 bbl/min. High-pressure filters that can withstand
pressures up to 10,000 psi with a maximum flow rate of
2 bbl/min are also available.
Mixing and High-Pressure
Pumping Systems
Mixing and high-pressure pumping systems are available
as individual, standalone systems or as integrated systems
that have been combined and mounted on a skid, truck,
or trailer. Halliburton mixing systems incorporate the
latest technology in high-energy mixing with computer
controls. Fluids can be mixed continuously while being
pumped downhole, or they can be mixed in batches
before pumping.
The HCS Advantage skid (Figure 6.8) has mixing and
high-pressure pumping capabilities. This unit incorpo-
rates the RCM
II mixing system. This mixing system

uses Halliburtons patented Axial Flow Mixer (Figure
6.9) and microprocessor-based control system. The unit
has a 25-bbl tank that can be used as part of a continuous
mix system or as part of a batch-mix system. It also
includes Halliburtons high-pressure HT-400 pumps.
The CMR-100R (Figure 6.10) batch-mixing trailer
contains two 50-bbl tanks and the RCM
II mixing
system. This unit is suitable for mixing batches up to 100
bbl.
Coiled Tubing
The coiled tubing unit (CTU) (Figure 6.11, Page 96) is a
self-contained, easily transported, hydraulically powered
workover unit that injects and retrieves a continuous
string of tubing into a larger string of tubing or casing.
The unit can be used on live wells and allows operators to
inject fluids or nitrogen while continuously moving the
pipe.
Chapter 6
Figure 6.9RCM
Axial Flow Mixer flow schematic

Figure 6.10Halliburton CMR-100R Batch-Mixing Trailer
Bulk Cement
Inlet
Bulk Cement
Control Valve
Mixing
Water
R/A
Densometer
Screen
Slurry to
Displacement Pumps
Recirculating
Centrifugal Pump
Bulk
Cement
H
2
O
Vent
Rubber
Splash
Sheath
Recirculating
Fluid
Diffuser
Turbine
Agitator
When used to place conformance treatments, coiled
tubing has the following advantages:
Coiled tubing isolates treatment materials from
contaminants in the tubulars.
Because of the smaller tube capacity, required
pumping times are shorter.
Treatments can be more accurately placed.
The smaller diameter of coiled tubing minimizes
the intermixing of the staged treatments.
To prevent the treatment fluid from flowing past the
proper point, operators can use inflatable multiple
straddle packers, single packers, and bridge plugs.
Inflatable multiple straddle packers can be used in
selective chemical treatments for water zone shutoff or
for squeeze cementing or locating leaks. Inflatable single
packers can be used for selective chemical treatments,
cement squeeze jobs, and zonal isolation in horizontal
wells. Inflatable bridge plugs can be used to temporarily
shut off water production from lower zones, or for
selective chemical treatments or selective squeeze
cementing.
Conclusions
After the selected treatment has been placed in the hole,
engineers must perform tests on the well to determine the
success of the treatment. Chapter 7 provides general
information regarding conformance treatment evaluation.
Figure 6.11Halliburton Coiled Tubing Services
Conformance Treatment Evaluations 97
Chapter 7
Chapter 7
Conformance
Treatment
Evaluations
Introduction
Engineers can evaluate conformance
treatments using many of the same
techniques that they initially used to
identify the problem, including well
logs, production logs, well testing,
downhole video, reservoir descrip-
tion, reservoir monitoring, production
performance, tracer surveys, and field-
wide reservoir simulations. These
topics were covered in detail in
Chapters 2 and 3. This chapter
briefly discusses the following
additional methods that can be used
as a part of a treatment evaluation:
logging methods
numerical methods
production data
injection well data (Hall plots)
Logging Methods
FracPressure Analysis
Engineers can combine full-wave
sonic measurements with bulk-density
log data to predict fracture height as a
function of the differential pressure
between downhole treatment pressure
and fracture closure pressure.
The log shown in Figure 7.1 (Page
98) shows a FracPressure analysis.
Engineers predicted fracture height
before the treatment to ensure that
the job design limited fracture growth
and avoided the water table. Track 1
contains the gamma ray and stress
profiles.
Fracture pressure is the amount of
pressure equal to the least principal
horizontal stress; this pressure is
computed from the rock properties
measured by sonic and density logs.
This stress profile identifies barriers
to fracture growth and stress con-
trasts between producing zones.
Track 2 of Figure 7.1 shows the
calculated static fracture extension.
The fracture extension pressure is the
pressure necessary for the fracture to
extend vertically. The pressure blocks
indicate the extent of the fracture
with the length of their right-most
edge. Track 3 shows formation
lithology as determined from an
openhole log analysis.
TracerScan Analysis
To determine the effectiveness of
hydraulic fracture treatments,
engineers may choose to inject
radioactive tracers during the frac
job. These tests can be run in two
different ways: a different isotope can
be used in each of several zones or a
fluid stage and/or a sand stage can be
simultaneously tagged with different
isotopes and evaluated with a spectral
gamma ray log.
Figure 7.2 (Page 99) shows a
TracerScan analysis of a spectral
gamma ray log run after materials
used in a hydraulic fracture job were
tagged with two isotopes. The foam
pad was tagged with scandium-46,
and the proppant was tagged with
iridium-192. The gamma ray concen-
trations on the log indicated that
each of the three intervals remained
isolated. The scandium relative-
98 Conformance Treatment Evaluations Chapter 7
Figure 7.1FracPressure analysis log
Chapter 7
Figure 7.2TMD fracturing log
distance curves indicate that the fracture in each zone
extended beyond the perforated intervals, particularly in
the upper zone, where the fractures propagated more
than 50 ft above the perforations. However, the iridium
relative-distance curve confirms that the propped
intervals did not communicate with one another. There-
fore, the TracerScan log confirmed the fracture height
modeling and fracture design, and analysts deemed the
operation a success.
Any of the other logging services normally run for
problem diagnosis (production, cement bond, casing
inspection, or pulsed neutron logs) can also verify
treatment effectiveness. Chapter 3 provides detailed
information about these logs and how analysts can use
them to evaluate conformance treatments.
Numerical Methods
To properly quantify the effect of a treatment, engineers
must carefully evaluate sophisticated well test data and
use numerical simulation programs. Well test data
evaluation programs simplify the complex results gained
from numerical simulators to just several equations. These
equations include a mathematical definition of rate,
pressure, and time behavior in dimensionless form and
account for flow-rate variation based on the principle of
superposition. A matching algorithm modifies the
reservoir models parameters to provide calculated
pressures that match those recorded during the well test.
The time required for a numerical simulation is directly
proportional to the number of factors that will be
considered. The more factors involved in the test, the
more computer time will be required. Other factors that
can greatly complicate numerical solutions include
reservoir boundaries, aquifer influence, gas cap, layering,
partial penetration, and heterogeneities.
Production Data
Production data provide an accessible source of informa-
tion for evaluating conformance projects. Comparisons of
water-oil ratio, gas-oil ratio, oil production rate, and
wellhead pressure and temperature data to pretreatment
values can provide quantitative means of evaluating
treatment success.
Injection Well Data (Hall Plot)
If the cumulative volume of injected fluid and a good
record of injection pressures are both available, engineers
can use a Hall plot to evaluate injection well perfor-
mance. This method assumes a series of steady-state
injections, which means that dimensionless pressure, p
D
,
is time-independent. This assumption is valid only as
long the pressure transient has not encountered external
boundaries, fluid contacts, and reservoir heterogeneities,
and the rate variation is not frequent. The Hall plot
provides an acceptable approximation over a reasonable
period and is a simple means of monitoring injection-well
performance. Based on the constant p
D
assumption, the
following equation can be derived:

p dt p t
B p s
kh
W
tf e tw
D
t
i
( )
+ ( )

. 141 2
0
(7.1)
where
p
tf
= wellhead pressure in the injection well, psi
p
e
= reservoir pressure, psi
tw
= hydrostatic pressure inside the wellbore, psi
t = injection time,
B = formation volume factor, RB/STB
= injected fluid viscosity, cp
s = skin factor
k = permeability, md
h = formation height, ft
W
i
= the cumulative water injected, STB
When (p
e
-
tw
)t is small compared to the integral, a
plot of this integral, commonly approximated by the
summation, p
tf
t, vs. cumulative water injected, W
i
,
will result in a straight line, the slope of which is given by

( )
m
B p s
kh
H
D
=
+ 1412 .
(7.2)
For a radial flow pattern, Equation 7.2 changes to

m
B
kh
r
r
s
H
e
w
_
,
1
]
1
1
141 2 .
ln
(7.3)
Chapter 7
where
B = formation volume factor of injected fluid,
RB/STB
r
e
= drainage radius, ft
r
w
= wellbore radius, ft
If r
e
/r
w
is known and s has been determined through a
pressure transient test, k/ can be estimated from
Equation 7.3. Likewise, if k/ has been determined
through a pressure transient test and r
e
/r
w
is known, s can
be estimated.
When a successful conformance treatment has been
performed, the graph should display two straight-line
portions with the slope of the second line, m
H2
, which
reflects conditions after the conformance treatment. This
slope should be greater than the slope of the first line,
m
H1
, which reflects pretreatment conditions.
To evaluate injection performance before and after a
conformance treatment, engineers can estimate the ratio
of the new flow efficiency to the old flow efficiency:
E
E
m
m
f
f
H
H
2
1
1
2
=
(7.4)
where
E
f1
= old flow efficiency
E
f2
=new flow efficiency
A successful conformance treatment results in a flow
efficiency ratio less than 1.
The skin resulting from the treatment, s
2
, can be calcu-
lated from

( )
s s
kh
B
m m
H H 2 1 2 1
141 2
= +
.
(7.5)
where s
1
is the pretreatment skin value.
A wellbore will have a higher skin value after a successful
conformance treatment. In addition to reflecting changes
in permeability around the wellbore, this higher skin
value also reflects changes in fluid properties and offset
production, and the accumulation of skin damage on the
wellbore face.
The value of k/ used in Equations 7.1 through 7.3 and
Equation 7.5 is determined from conventional well tests,
such as a pressure buildup test.
Bibliography
Hall, H. N.: How to Analyze Waterflood Injection Well
Performance, World Oil (Oct. 1963) 128-30. Refer-
ences for Seismic-Geologic Reservoir Characteriza-
tion (Reservoir Description).
Marquardt, D. W.: An Algorithm for Least Squares
Estimation of Nonlinear Parameters, J. SIAM (June
1963) 11, No. 2, 431-41.
Index 103
Index
A
acoustic impedance, 37
acoustic transmissivity, 35
active waterdrive, 4
adsorption/desorption effects, 29
ammonium nitrate, 28
ammonium thiocyanate, 28
anelastic strain recovery, 9
Angard, 81
anions, 28
Anjel
, 81
axial flow mixer, 94
B
bactericides, 29
barrier breakdown, 6
barriers, 11
BDO Squeeze, 86
bentonite-diesel oil (BDO) slurry, 8586
borehole audio tracer surveys (BATS), 6
bottomwater, 83
bottomwater drive, 4
bullheading, 90
C
caliper index curve, 39
casing evaluation logs, 3743
casing inspection tool (CIT), 3941
casing leaks, 56
casing ovality, 43
cations, 28
cement bond, 34
cement bond logs (CBLs), 31
cement evaluation logs, 3137
channeling, 7
channels behind casing, 6
circumferential acoustic scanning tool (CAST), 41
CMR-100R batch-mixing trailer, 94
coiled tubing, 9496
completion into or near water or gas, 7
Compupac, 93
computer programs, 61
conformance control process, 12
conformance problem sources, 59
conformance problems, 3
conformance technology, 1
coning, 7
cresting, 7
crossflow, 83
D
delineation of flow barriers, 28
depletion drive, 3
depositional boundaries, 20
development planning, 2022
diagenetic effects, 20
diatomaceous earth filter, 93
diesel-oil cement (DOC) slurries, 8485
diffusion/dispersion effects, 29
directional flow trends, 27
displacement fluid velocity, 6
DOC fluid-loss, 84
downhole video services, 5459
drilling fluid, 6
dual-injection placement, 91
E
eddy current (EC), 41
edgewater drive, 4
electromagnetic phase-shift devices, 3741
ethanol (EtOH), 28
F
faults and barriers, 1112
field development, 21
filtering systems, 9394
fingering, 19
fissures, 13
FL-EC logging tools, 41
Flo-Chek
service, 79
flow and sweep comparisons, 28
flow-unit boundaries, 14
104 Index
flowback, 83
flowmeter logs, 48
fluid control, 83
fluid-density logs, 48
fluorescent dyes, 28
flux leakage/eddy current (FL/EC) devices, 41
FracPressure analysis, 97
fracture communication, 8-9
fracturing out of zone, 8
free pipe, 34
G
gas influx, 6
gas-cap depletion, 3
Gas-Chek, 84
gas-injection pressure maintenance, 5
gas-oil ratio (GOR), 21
GasStop, 84
geologic model, 23
gravity drainage, 4
gunk squeeze, 86
H
Hall plot, 100101
HCS Advantage skid, 94
high-permeability channeling, 19
high-permeability streaks, 7
horizontal water encroachment, 4
horizontal/highly deviated wells, 20
HT-400 pumps, 94
Hydro logs, 48
I
improved oil recovery (IOR), 2, 14
induced fractures, 20
infill drilling, 20
inflatable bridge plugs, 96
inflatable multiple straddle packers, 96
inflatable single packers, 96
injection point control, 83
injection system, 29
injection well data, 100101
Injectrol
G Sealant, 81
Injectrol
IT, 81
Injectrol
U, 81
Injectrol
Service, 8081
instantaneous waveform characteristics, 35
interference tests, 13
interwell communication, 11
intrareservoir heterogeneities, 20
iridium-192, 97
irregular pore networks, 20
isoflow placement, 9192
isopach maps, 29
K
K-Max Service, 81
KW-Control Service, 78
L
layered reservoirs, 12
logging methods, 97101
logging services, 3054
long-term gas migration, 6
low placement rates, 83
M
Matrol 3+ Service, 76
Matrol II HT Service, 76
mechanical calipers, 37
mechanical logging devices, 37
mechanical packer placement, 9091
methanol (MeOH), 28
microannulus, 35
microfrac treatments, 8
mixing systems, 94
mobility ratio, 19
MOC-A surfactant, 86
MOC/One cement, 86
monitoring systems, 93
multiple injection zones, 84
multiple-well transient tests, 12
N
natural fractures, 1213
near-wellbore problems, 57
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 28
numerical methods, 100
O
oil-water viscosity ratios, 19
openhole logs, 3031
Oxol II, 78
oxygen scavengers, 29
oxygen-activation curves (OAI), 43
Index 105
P
perforation cleanup, 83
permeability
horizontal, 11
vertical, 11
permeability anisotropy, 12
permeability barriers, 20
PermSeal E+ Service, 7374
PermTrol E+ Service, 7476
pipe centralization, 6
pipe movement, 6
placement techniques, 8992
poor bonding, 83
poor sweep efficiency, 19
potassium bromide, 28
potassium iodide, 28
premature communication, 19
pressure logs, 48
pressure-volume-temperature (PVT) analysis, 5
primary recovery, 3
problem identification phase, 61
production data, 100
production logging tools, 4854
production planning, 21
1-propanol, 28
2-propanol (IPA), 28
pulse echo tool (PET), 4249
pulse tests, 1
pulsed neutron capture (PNC) logs, 43
pulsed neutron logs, 43
pulsed spectral gamma (PSG) logs, 4348
pumping systems, 94
Q
quartz pressure tool (QPT), 48
R
radioisotopes, 28
RCM
II mixing system, 94
recovery mechanisms, 35
reservoir descriptions, 1314
reservoir fluid saturation distribution, 23
reservoir heterogeneity, 1417
reservoir monitoring, 2123
reservoir nonidealities, 11-12
reservoir simulations, 8
reservoir-related problems, 710
rhodamine B, 28
S
scandium-46, 97
sealing faults, 11
secondary recovery, 5
segregation drive
with counterflow, 3
without counterflow, 5
seismic data acquisition, 22
seismic verification, 23
selective chemical treatments, 96
selective squeeze cementing, 96
semilog plots, 13
service equipment, 9396
simulation model-building, 23
sodium bromide, 28
sodium chloride, 28
sodium fluorescein, 28
sodium iodide, 28
solution gas drives, 3
spectral gamma ray log, 97
squeeze cementing, 8288
static gel strength, 6
stimulation applications, 20
strain-gauge pressure tool (SPT), 48
stratigraphic surfaces, 14
sweep efficiency, 19
T
temperature logs, 49
thermal multigate decay (TMD) logs, 43
thickness index, 39
tracer injection, 29
tracer surveys, 27
tracer types, 28
TracerScan Analysis, 97100
transient placement, 92
tritium, 28
type-curve matching, 13
U
ultrasonic bond logging, 3537
ultrasonic casing tools, 4143
uranine, 28
V
vertical interference testing, 12
vertical pulse testing, 12
vertical water encroachment, 4
volumetric sweep, 27
vugs, 13
106 Index
W
water-based polymer systems, 7382
water-injection pressure maintenance, 5
water-soluble alcohols, 28
water-soluble salts, 28
waterdrive, 45
waterflood tracers, 2729
well pattern maps, 29
well test analysis, 22
well testing, 1113
well test data evaluation, 100
wellbore storage effects, 11
wireline logs, 16
WOR-Con
Service, 7678
X
XERO Water-Control Expert System, 61

Conformance Technology: What Is Conformance Technology? The Conformance Control Process

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Conformance Technology: What Is Conformance Technology? The Conformance Control Process

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

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

Conformance Technology: What Is Conformance Technology? The Conformance Control Process

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What is conformance technology?

What are the steps in the conformance control process?

HALLIBURTON ENERGY SERVICES

service is an externally catalyzed, soluble

service is an internally catalyzed silicate system

Sealants and Services

G is a three-component system consisting of an

IT service uses a different activator to provide

U sealant is used only when temperatures of

nontoxic silicate gel sealants fill voids

sealant is an excellent alternative to cement for

solution that reacts with the formation brine

No. 3 should be added to the DOC with little or no

PC-compatible laptop computer

II mixing system. This mixing system

Axial Flow Mixer flow schematic

You might also like