SPE 9610
SPE
PRODUCTIVITY TESTING USING PRODUCTION
LOGGING TECHNIQUES
by Ernst N. Weiss, Schlumberger Overseas SA;
James G. Taylor and Robert M. Toronyi, ARAMCO
Copyright 1981. Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper was presented at the Middle East Oil Technical Conference of the Society of Petroleum Engineers held in
Manama, Bahrain, March 9-12,1981. The material is subject to correction by the author. Permission to copy is restricted to an
abstract of not more than 300 words. Write SPE, 6200 North Central Expressway, Dallas, Texas, 75206 USA. Telex 730989
ABSTRACT
A method of individual zone productivity and inflow performance
relationship testing has been employed in two prolific offshore oil fields.
The procedures involving downhole measurement of flow and
pressure data using production logging combination tools are explained.
This testing approach conveniently obtains individual zone
productivity information as well as general PI data, and is therefore
useful for delineating important reservoir characteristics. Field results
from carbonate and sandstone reservoirs are presented and discussed.
INTRODUCTION
Pressure transient testing, production logging, and well production
testing are commonly used techniques for evaluating and improving
well and reservoir performance. With enhanced recovery projects,
sophisticated sim ulation and modeling, as well as exploration and
production increasing world wide, determining and monitoring dynamic
reservoir perform ance is hecom ing mandatory.
Extensive data acquisition program s have been initiated in offshore
Saudi Arabian fields to provide input for facility planning and reservoir
modeling studies. The information required includes core, PVT, open
hole logs, production logs, inflow perform ance and pressure transient
tests, and BHP data. The primary objective of this study is to establish
guidelines for proper reservoir management and future development.
In the paper, the application of a com bination production logging
tool in m uir:i-rate well testing is discussed. Real time surface readout
enables the operator to determ ine downhole conditions and monitor the
test ptogress. Two case histories are presented in which the tool
provided specific data for well and reservoir evaluation.
HISTORY
The case histories discussed are in fields located offshore of Saudi
Arabia, on the west flank of the prolific Middle East Basin.
M ark of Schlum berger
297
Society of Petroleum EngineePS
Field Case Well I
The well is com pleted in a carbonate reservoir which is divided into
two m~m bers - the lim e muds (m icrites) and the varied mixture of
clastic carbonates (calcarenites), as shown in Figure I. Analysis of core
and log data indicates facies changes that could be significant to porosity
and permeability relationships. Also, detailed correlations seem to
indicate tight barriers between productive streaks. As the barriers are
not impermeable, the effects on production and pressure maintenance
are not yet known.
Extensive water front monitoring, surface-rate well testing, and
production logging programs have been initiated. Initial results confirm
non-uniform flow profiles and help predict water movement. Due to
adverse conditions and safety precautions because of high H,S content,
only short term pressure transient tests have been performed.
Interpretation has shown that the kh values derived from short term
flow tests may differ significantly from predictions of long term
performance. Finally, flowing profiles were routinely obtained at only
the well"s normal rate and no data is available to compare profiles
obtained at different rates.
Field Case Well 2
Well 2 is completed in a massive highly permeable sand (Main
Sand) which is overlain and underlain by a sand and shale sequence of
lesser permeability. These sands make up an oil reservoir which is
overlain by a gas cap, and in portions underlain by water. The PVT
properties of the oil vary, and the bubble point, solution GOR and API
gravity decrease with depth.
Gas production has begun to increase in the field. This results in
part from the existence of the gas cap and from flowing bottom hole
pressures at or below the bubble point of the produced oils. In addition
to increased gas production, the sands composing the oil reservoir are
quite friable. As a result, all wells tend to produce sand in varying
quantities. The high wellhead pressures associated with the gas
production, coupled with the sand production, have produced erosion
of equipment when choking back and when turning wells onto
prod uction.
An extensive well logging program was begun to monitor and
evaluate the effects, and extent, of gas and sand production. The
logging package consisted of a Production Com bination Tool (PCT),
Thermal Decay Time Tool (TDT') and a Noise Log, coupled with a
 PRODUCTIVITY TESTING USING PRODUCTION LOGGING TECHNIQUES
single rate production test. In general, these. logs have been helpful in
monitoring free gas movement and in serving as a basis for evaluating
well performance. But because of the presence of free gas in the
reservoir, and having only a single rate test, nothing could be said
about the amount of productivity impairment in a well.
DATA ACQUISITION OBi ECTIVES
The following objectives were developed to provide specific data and
to assist in the evaluation of the data acquisition program:
1. Obtain multi-rate flowing profiles to confirm lithology
stratigraphy.
2. Obtain stabilized multi-rate inflow perform ance tests to com pare
indices derived from short term tests with predictions of long term
performance. Determine onsite the flow period required for
stabilized rate.
3. Obtain pressure buildup and drawdown data to assist in PI
evaluation. Determine onsite the required shut-in time necessary
for accurate kh and PI analysis.
4. Obtain individual zone inflow performance. Analysis of this data
should confirm pressure gradients shown by RFT data. If zone
pressure data is not available, the analysis could dictate the need
for zone testing with DST or RFT tools.
5. Obtain pressure versus rate data for facilities and artificial lift
modeling studies.
6. Determine stirn ulation and completion requirements.
7. Detect flow anomalies which could affect well and
characte ristics.
8. Obtain the above data with minim urn downtime and expense.
It was recommended that a Combination Production Tool using a high.
precision quartz pressure gauge with surface readout be utilized to
achieve these objectives.
DATA ACQUISITION
Concept
The classical objectives in well productivity testing, definition of
production capacity, optim urn operating pressure regarding lift
efFciency, and water-cut can be met and extended to a more detailed
and complete performance analysis using new production logging
procedures. Both pressure and flow-rates can be measured downhole
with a combination of the HEWLETT-PACKARD quartz gauge and
appropriate flowmeters. A variety of auxiliary data such as borehole
diameter, fluid composition, and temperature can be made available by
use of the Production Logging Com bination Tool (PL T* or PCT).
In addition, the production contribution from individual reservoir
members may be surveyed with the downhole instrumentation, at
pressure levels chosen for the total well Productivity Index (PI) or
Inflow Performance Relationship (IPR). Thus, individual zone PI's and
IPR's may be obtained during the well testing process without having to
isolate these zones by costly and lengthy straddle test operations
involving a workover rig. Zonal productivity data can be used to
understand reservoir hydraulic mechanisms, improve computer
modeling and help to anticipate future developments like water or gas
entries, or crossBow. In many cases, an Inflow Performance
Relationship can be plotted for each major contributor to production,
and individual boundary pressures extrapolated. The individual zone
Mark of Schlumberger
SPE 9610
IPR's should exhibit straight lines in the range of flow where the Darcy
equation applies, and in absence of free gas at reservoir depth. The
straight lines for individual zones a~e expected to intersect the IPR
pressure axis (zero flow) at their respeccive boundary pressures.
Of parcicular interest is the detection, or prediction, of crossBow
from one zone into another shown in Figure 2a. This can become a
problem in developed fields, especially pressure maintained ones where
pressure distribution in the reservoirs, or their members, may not be
uniform as a consequence of depletion or injection. Crossflow may
disturb not only the planned reservoir drainage process, but also
contribute to erroneous transient pressure record evaluation since the
record would represent the cross flow pressure rather than the boundary
pressure, Figure 2b. In the case of free gas or water production, a
and
selective IPR will help to estimate optim urn well operating conditions.
In addition, the location of such entries along the producing profile can
be found with prod uction logging tools in com bination with the PI
testing instrumentation. Partial or complete buildup or drawdown tests
can be incorporated in the PI test routine without major additional
costs.
Practical considerations in favor of PI testing with production
logging techniques include:
Continuous, real time surface monitoring of (he test progress.
Accurate depth control.
Immediate repeat of tests where data is uncertain.
Observation of unusual flow entry patterns.
Time saving since transient tests can be discontinued when
sufficiently developed.
reservoir
Instrumentation
The availability of a high precision, surface recording quartz
pressure gauge, in combinarion with production logging sensors, has led
to the new concept of downhole selective PI testing, permitting reliable
tests in conditions of small pressure drawdown and high flow rates.
The PL T, shown in Figure 3 is a new sim ultaneous produccion
logging device. Ratings and specifications for the sensors, as well as for
the radioactive-tracer ejector and the Hewlett-Packard pressure gauges,
are summarized in Table 1. The features included in the PL T make it
highly adaptable to well testing:
Quanz pressure gauge real time deconvolution with simultaneous
automatic (em perature correction, electronic clock time, paper
printout as well as continuous tape and film recording.
Flowme(ers as required for range and nature of Bow encountered.
Sim ultaneous Flow/Pressure/Temperature measurement and
display, opening new possibilities for early transient evaluations.
Gamma Ray depth tie-in.
The PCT permits similar measurements in a single trip into the well but
withou( the features of sim ultaneous data acquisition, (ape recording
and G R corre lation.
The vast amount of data involved in m uhiple zone test evaluacion
calls for the help of computer processed interpretation which is
available in the PL IE D E com puter program for flowrate evaluation.
Accuracy
Conventional PI testing requires downhole pressures and stock tank
measured rates. With production logging instruments, all data is
obtained downhole and a direct stock tank measurement is not needed.
Instead, fluid velocities are obtained with a downhole calibrated
flowmeter and converted into stock tank rates knowing the well bore
diameter and forma(ion volume factors.
298
 SPE 9610 E. N. WEISS,J. G. TAYLOR, R. M. TORONYI

While velocity may be measured fairly accurately, accuracy is Downhole tools can remain in the well during stabilization times but
reduced when converting it to Bowrate because of the somewhat must not be positioned in front of producing intervals in order to
uncertain relation between measured center vein velocity to average prevent equipment damage or loss due to high energy flow patterns or
velocity, and because of limitations in caliper measurement accuracy sand blasting.
( 0.1").
Unless a drawdown pressure survey is desired, the multiple PI test is
The formation volume factor (test pressure conditions) must be best started with the rates not normally employed and ended with an
available from PVT data to convert from downhole to stock tank extended period of normal rate and shut-in condition (Example:
volumes. To evaluate the dependability of flowmeter derived rates, 25 Well 1).
surveys, mostly in deviated wells in the producing area of example
At each test, flowing pressures should be observed before and after
"Well No.1", were compared with surface rates and total stock tank
flowmeter logging and each flowmeter survey should include 6 different
gauged production. The average log interpreted rate was within 10%
speed/direction logging passes to permit averaging. The consistency of
of the calculated stock tank rates. Though considered adequate for the
these passes must be verified by onsite plotting. A t least one pass at a
purpose of selective PI testing in this field, performance can be
very low logging speed (PCT) or a very short averaging length (PL T)
improved by calibrating flowmeter derived rates against stock tank rates
should be included in the program to provide optim urn vertical
in a series of operations in a given field area.
resolution for the delineation of high specific PI stringers. A complete
The HP quartz gauge excels with an accuracy of 0.5 psi and a Bowm eter survey with the well shut-in enhances interpretation accuracy
resolution of 0.01 psi, but has a slow response to temperature transients and determines magnitude and nature of crossBow situations.
which affect the pressure readings. To enhance its performance in this
respect, it should be positioned just above or below the producing
intervals so that temperature variations from Bowing to shut-in status
are minimized. For very small drawdown tests, the phenomenon of RAW DATA INTERPRETATION
cable shrinkage due to a change of average logging cable temperature
may have to be considered: 5.58 x 10-6 FT/FT'F for the 7/32" cable.
Flow Rates:
Well stabilization is also an important factor in PI test accuracy.
Requirements can be estimated from the equation:
For productivity testing, a flow profile must first be defined over the
0.04 p.c rJ producing interval. This flow profile will then be broken down into
T (days) =
k significant zones related to perforated intervals, individual reservoirs, or
members of a reservoir, that may act as separate pressure units. The
where
characteristics of the flow profile itself, in conjunction with open hole or
<p = porosity TDT logs, help to define zones.

To determine the Bowrate for each zone of interest, the Bowmeter

JL = viscosity in cp
response in revolutions per second (rps) is plotted versus logging speed
while moving the tool at several absolute velocities, both up and down,
c = effective com pressibility
within the moving column of fluid. From these recordings, exact
relationships can be established between the rps of the tool and fluid
rJ = drainage radius in feet
velocity in ft/min.

k = permeability in Darcies Stationary readings should not be considered as amain param eter as
they may be subject to localized hole diameter or flow pattern
Surface monitoring of pressure and flow help to verify the degree of situations; however, they often are quite useful to corroborate and
stabilization attained. support the calibration.

Zero flow (well shut-in) logs are also recorded.

Surveying Procedures

Pressures
To gather the large amount of raw data in a limited period of time,
particularly offshore, calls for time programming before the operation,
Quartz gauge pressures, computed in real time, are absolute but may
taking into consideration:
have to be extrapolated to a reference depth considering the distance
Stabilization periods berween surveying depth and producing zones of interest, using a
gradient established by "gradient StopS" during the survey, or by
Overnight safety shut-down
Gradiomanometer logs. The fluid gradient may not be the same in a
Coordination with separator stations shut-in and flowing well condition.

Normal producing condition of neighboring wells.

The choice of downhole instrumentation should be related to flow

conditions and well problems: EXAMPLES

Type of flowmeter

Caliper in openhole or casing Field Case Well

G radiom anom eter* for Buid com position evaluation

This well was completed open hole in a carbonate reservoir as
H 2S resistance shown in Figure 4. Flow profiles were recorded by the flowmeter over
the productive interval with the well producing at three different rates.
Deviation angle
Figure 5 which is a flowmeter log recorded over a portion of the
Dead weight tester measurements are desirable on surface where lift producing interval, is typical. An analysis of the flow profiles indicates
performance is to be included in the results package. there are three productive zones: zone 1 (8925-40) zone 2 (8958-80)
and zone 3 (below 8992)". This can be clearly seen in Figure 6 where
Mark of Schlumberger the flow distribution has been plotted opposite the sonic log over the

299
 PRODUCTIVI1'Y TESTING USING PRODUCTION LOGGING TECHNIQUES
interval 8900-9020_ The bottom producing interval (zone 3) correlates
with the "lower clean" facies as determ ined from geological descriptions.
The other two producing zones confirm sub-zonation or horizontal
permeability streaks of the "clean" facies. Note in particular the zone
8958-8962 on Figure 5.
The information needed to analyze the well and reservoir
perform ance was obtained over a three-day period. Downhole flow
rates and pressures were monitored in real tim e at the surface with the
well producing at three different rates (70/64" choke, 84/64" choke and
fully open). The well was then shut in to obtain buildup pressure data.
The pressure response of the well over this test period is shown in
Figure 7, where the "heavied-in" intervals on the response curve
identify when the actual pressure meaSurements were taken. Pressure
data recorded at 8860 ft. is shown in Tables lA, 2A, 3A, 4A, and 5A in
the appendix. For analysis, all pressures are referred to 8960 ft. which
is the midpoint of the producing interval.
Plots of flowmeter (rps) versus cable speed (ft/min.), with the well
producing at different rates, are shown in Figures 8, 9 and 10.
Readings were recorded at 8895, 8950 and 8985 ft. for all three tests.
The tool response slope was established by drawing median lines
through the plotted points for each depth chosen. Effects of rate
fluctuations or tool response variations are thus reduced by averaging.
(A linear regression equation applied with a pocket calculator does the
Same job).
The difference in flowmeter rps between x-axis intercepts of the
zero flow line and the slope line at the dept~ chosen is divided by the
slope to give measured fluid velocity Vm.
The stock tank rate at the depth chosen is thus obtained from the
following:
Q STB = 1.4 Vm C d 2 B;'
QSTB: Rate in B/d
Vm : Measured fluid velocity in ft/min
C : Turbulent flow front correction factor, usually .83
d Hole diam eter in inches (obtained from caliper log,
Figure II)
Bo: Formation volume factor
This tim e consum ing interpretation process can be handled by the
PLIEDE computer program.
The IPR plot for the well and for the three producing intervals is
shown in Figure 12. Being located in a new area of the field, no
significant pressure differences seem to exist between the individual
zones at this early stage of depletion .. For the low flow rate test
(test I), the rates in zones 1 and 3 plot too high. This could be the
result of a lack of stabilization, or skin factors changing with different
rates.
Analysis of the IPR for the three zones shows that the productivity
indices vary with different rates. Prior testing in the field (without
sim ultaneous flow profiles) also indicated that the total well PI varied
significantly with changing rates. Usually the PI increases as the rate
increases. One theory is that the skin factor decreases as the rate
increases. As can be seen from Table 2, the performance of this well
did not confirm this theory and additional testing must be perform ed to
explain the changing productivity indices.
Since the data sum m arized in Table 2 is from a new part of the
field, it will be used as a base to monitor changes in the well and
reservoir performance. Evaluation of the pressure buildup, Figure 13
showed no formation damage and stirn ulation was not recommended.
The individual zones should be analyzed for kh properties which will be
helpful for modeling purposes.
The long flowing and buildup times will aid in determining future
testing requirements and for analyzing and comparing previous short
term tests. The data will also be he.lpful for modeling the well and
300
SPE 9610
facilities as well as for designing artificial lift requirements.
Field Case Well 2
This well was cased and com pleted in a sandstone reservoir as
shown in Figure 14. Flow profiles indicate that the well is producing
from three zones: zone I (5876-5925), zone 2 (5925-5993) and zone 3
(6004-6016).
Sand production in the field can be a problem and is increased by
non-uniform, high specific production rates within the perforations. On
the flowmeter log shown on Figure 15, note the intervals 5897-5898,
5909-5910, and 5911-5912 which have high specific production rates.
These jetting entries probably contribute to sand production.
Recom m endations have been made to reperforate such wells in order to
create more uniform flow profiles.
Measured fluid velocity (Vm) and hence flow rate for zones 1, 2,
and 3 was obtained from Figures 16 and 17. Zone I includes a 4 ft.
stringer of rate dependent free gas production. The PI interpreted in
this zone disregards the free gas portion of production because of its
unknown characteristics. However, through interpretation of the
Gradiomanometer, Figure 18, the amount of the free gas portion can
be determined. For Test 1 the total production was 34% gas
(5670MCFD) and for Test 2 it was 40% (l1740MCFD). The PI's for
zones 2 and 3 are easily obtained with the selective method described
previously. The data needed to analyze the well is summarized in
Table 3.
The IPR plot, Figure 19 indicates a slight pressure difference leading
to the suspicion of a slight crossflow from zone I to zones 2 and 3 with
the well in a stabilized shut-in condition. This cross flow seems to be
confirmed by other measurements as well. For example, the High
Resolution Temperature log, Figure 20, exhibits down flow
temperature pattern with the well shut-in. The resolution of the
flowmeter tool was not sufficient to verify the small crossBow. Note
also the pressure buildup, Figure 21. The buildup stops after about
1 hour, and ends in a stable pressure situation. It is suspected that this
is the cross flow pressure and is prohibiting extended buildup
evaluations.
Reservoir data gained from other wells in the field also support the
occurence of the slight pressure difference indicated by the IPR plot.
Recent RFT results indicate that sands closer to the gas cap have higher
pressures. Also, flowmeter analysis from other wells indicate that zones
close to the top of the massive sand are preferentially produced. On
the basis of these and other findings, a new completion strategy has
been developed, part of which is to complete wells away from the top of
the massive sand.
CONCLUSION
The selective PI testing method provides essential reservoir
parameters. The technique meets all of the data acquisition objectives
'discussed, and provides valuable information for reservoir modeling,
.artificiallift studies and proper reservoir management.
The Com binadon Production Logging Tool has proven to be an
efficient tool for productivity testing. The two case histories
demonstrate the ability of the tool to provide data for evaluating zone
IPR.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors wish to thank the Arabian American Oil Company and
Schlum berger for perm iss ion to use and publish the necessary data in
this paper.
 SPE 9610 E. N. WEISS,J. G. TAYLOR, R. M. TORONYI

REFERENCES TABLE 4A

1. Anderson, R. A., Smolen, J. J., Laverdiere, L. and Davis, J. A.:

"A Production Logging Tool with Sim ultaneous Measurements", J.
Pet. Tech. (Feb. 1980) 191-198. 02 APRIL 1980
WELL FLOWING; FULLY OPEN
2. Meunier, D., Tixier, M. P., and Bonnett, J. L.: "The Production FWHP = 455 psig
Com bination Tool - A New System for Production Monitoring", J. FBHT = 213.8F
Pet. Tech. (May 1971) 603-613. DEPTH = 8860 FT
3. Earlougher, R. C.: Advances in Well Test Analysis, Monograph TIME PRESSURE TIME PRESSURE
Series, SPE-AIME, Dallas (977) HRS-MIN-SEC psi HRS-MIN-SEC psi
4. Schlumberger, Ltd., Production Log Interpretation, Document 10-11-00 2441.92 10-52-00 2442.98
(973) 10-l2-00 2441.93 11-00-00 2443.78
10-13-00 2442.03 11-05-00 2444.06
10-14-00 2442.03 11-10-00 2444.23
APPENDIX
10-15-00 2442.09 11-15-00 2444.59
10-15-56 2442.23 11-20-00 2444.76
TABLE lA 10-50-00 2442.93 11-25-00 2444.85
10-50-00 2442.96 11-29-00 2444.82

31 MARCH 1980 TABLE 5A

WELL SHUT IN; STABILIZATION TIME 4 DAYS
SIWHP = 7 psig
DEPTH (FT.) TIME SIBHT (OF) PRESSURE (psi) 02 APRIL 1980
2528.50 WELL FLOWING; FULLY OPEN
7358 09:30 199.7
201.6 2656.50 WELL STABILIZED AT THIS FLOW FOR 20 HRS
7858 10:30
11 :10 206.0 2793.50 WELL SHUT IN AT 11 HRS - 30 MIN - 08 SEC
8358
8858 12:00 210.7 2932.80 TIME PRESSURE TIME PRESSURE
8860 15:20 211.0 2933.70 HRS-MIN-SEC psi HRS-MIN-SEC psi
11-30-08 2470.68 11-32-26 2692.42
TABLE 2A 11-30-12 2480.67 11-32-35 2701.42
11-30-16 2489.18 11-32-46 2712.13
11-30-21 2499.03 11-32-56 2721.07
01 APRIL 1980 11-30-26 2508.65 11-33-09 2731.40
WELL FLOWING; 70/64" CHOKE 11-30-30 2518.39 11-33-22 2741.72
FWHP = 622 psig 11-30-35 2528.31 11-33-36 2751.01
FBHT = 213.8F 11-30-40 2537.92 11-33-52 2760.89
DEPTH = 8860 FT. 11-30-45 2547.18 11-34-09 2770.27
TIME PRESSURE 11-30-50 2556.17 11- 34-31 2780.07
(HRS-MIN-SEC) (psi) 11-30-57 2567.24 11-34-55 2789.63
11-11-00 2695.20 11-31-02 2575.91 11-35-25 2799.12
11-12-00 2695.10 11-31-08 2586.43 11-36-05 2808.95
11-13-00 2695.27 11-31-14 2596.59 11-36-58 2818.56
11-14-00 2695.28 11-31-20 2606.46 11-38-20 2828.50
11-15-00 2695.21 11-31-26 2616.04 11-40-30 2838.24
11-16-00 2695.18 11-31-33 2625.26 11-44-00 2847.64
11-17-00 2695.16 11-31-39 2634.21 11-50-10 2857.32
11-18-00 2695.14 11-31-46 2644.51 12-01-00 2866.88
11-19-00 2695.11 11-31-54 2654.4 5 12-22-00 28(6.97
11-32-01 2663.89 13-00-00 2886.47
TABLE 3A 11-32-09 2672.90 13-36-36 2891.14
11-32-17 2682.93 14-31-00 2896.64

01 APRIL 1980
WELL FLOWING; 84/64" CHOKE
FWHP = 598 psig
FBHT = 213.7F
DEPTH = 8860 FT
TIME PRESSURE
HRS-MIN-SEC (psi)
13-25-00 2651.28
13-26-00 2651.20
13-27-00 2651.05
13-28-00 2650.95
14-26-00 2648.74
14-27-00 2648.66
14-28-00 2648.52
14-29-00 2648.52
14-30-00 2648.44
14-31-00 2648.40
 Table 2 PI Test Data - Field Case Well 1
Table 1 Production Logging Tool System
TEST I TEST 2 TEST 1

SINSO..
ACCU .. ACY
(,..,<fIllof "!SOLUTION PIUSU .. II TeMPII"ATU .. e
S t"huuon Tom. H .. un
W.UHud P, ..... ,. PSIG
70/6-4" CHOKE 8-4/6-4" CHOKE

,.. " ..
SHUT.IN

".
Po" Suld I A T I N G " A TING
BH "fUll'" II 8960 PSI A 2676.1 2-468-4 2960.2

CONTINUOUS ::t:2 0.' H. ".000 pai l'O"P

18820 216-40
PLO..... eTe.. 003 .. Pa) (In"c)
TANK OIL RATE STBID IH90 DIM
PULLaoa.E SPINNEI. :t:2 0.01 HI 20.000 pli 390'
PROD INDEX fROM 1'1\ STBIDI'SI
PLOWMETEI. CU8MPa) (lOO'C)
CALIPER :2:1.4 0.06
0.'
'D.
111111)
1),000 pli
(103 M'.)
no'p
(In"c)
TOTAL LENGTH PRODUCING
AVERAGE SPEC PI H8/D/PSI/FT
fT
"
" "
92 .,"
GI.ADIDMANOMETEJI. , 0.00) ,mIce ",000 pli no'p
TOTAL LENGTH OPEN
AVERAGE SPEC PI " "" "
,
(lO~ M'.) MAX S P I 89~88961 "
NANDMETEJ. 03 C/n
-fOol! s~lc.
C'i n,ooo
liO} M'a)
pli no'p CALCULATED PROD INDEX
ZONE I 892)-40
".
THEI.MOMETEIl. %) o.t"P ".000,11 no'p
(0.0560 (to}M'.) (1770 TANK OIL RATE 2660 -46-40
QUAJ.TZ PI. ESSU IlE 0.025 (,unnt 0.01 til (0.07 12,000 ,II }OO', PROD INDEX FROM IPj\ STBIDIPSI

",.
of.ud'II,) k'Il,nt, CS} NPe) (no"o TOTAL LENGTH PRODUCING fT
GAGE
DUAL TRACER mcl .. dul(l .. ulluIO....... III
17.'00 ."
"O'p AVERAGE SPEC PI
CALCUl-ATED PROD INDEX
ST8/D/PSI/fT
ST8/D/PSI
"
61
,.
06
(In"c)
E1 ECTO I.
~:', ~:'::03~.::::fch~7~~::n
,illl ~ nl~cubl~ frolll 20 III I to
021 MPd
ZONE 2 89~880

118}0
"
1-49}0 2-4}00
TANK OIL RATE STB/D 10-470 170}0
,
...
PROD INDEX fROM IP(I" STB/..oIPSI
GAMMA RAY =::: I APiU 17,'00,11
(llIN',) TOTAL LENGTH PRODUCING
AVERAGE SPEC PI STB/D/PSl/fT
22 "
U9
CALCULATED PROD INDEX ST8/D/PSI
ZONE 3 BElOW 8992
}4'
'" H.6

18HRATE 3190 1000 5160

:TANK OIL RATE ST81D 2BO 2100 1900

...""
PROD INDEX FAOM EPR ST81D/PSI
TOTAL LENGTH PRODUCING fT
AVERAGE SPEC PI STB/DIPSllfT "
."
I
CALCULATED PI STBID PSI '.9

BHT 213 8"f

FVf 1-427
BUBBLE POINT PRESSUI.E 1920 PSIA
ALL PRESSURES II.EfEII.I.ED TO 8960 .. MIDPOINT Of PRODUCING PI-OPllE

Table 3 PI Test Data - Field Case Well 2

TEST I
PI TEST DATA I" CHOKE IV," CHOKE SHUT IN
S,ab,h,."on T,m .. Ho .. n
w.. 11 Hud Pr .. n ..... PSI G 1-480 2224
8H P ... I I ....... '840 262-4 264'
WELL
16630hncl 290}O(.n<l Zou 1 P.od .. mon
H% Gul 40% Gn) ,n<l .. d ... fr .... ,U Thtu

TANK OIL I-ATE STaiD 8-480 IHOO

DOWNHOLE PI fll.ON IPII. 791Hrn Tu.1 34%
, .. ,n<l) , .. ,ncl) Tu.2 40%
PI CALCULATED <0.
TOTAL LENGTH PI-ODUCING '" Thus with B,u .. 11180.
AVE .. AGE SPEC PI
TOTAL LENGTH OPEN '"'29
'"'29 fr .... , .. p.od .. , .. on ..
'670 MCFD., Tu. 1
AVERAG! SPEC PI 11740MCfDuTu,2
MAX S P 1.5878'882 > 21 4 onodd,uon,nhb .. ra, .. d

ZONE 2 )876)92)
10920 Ind .. d ... '610111610 BID
TANK OIL RATE 4080 H70 F ..... , 80w .up.. <1 ....
DOWNHOLE PI fROM !PII. 476(ftn
,U ,ncl) , .. ,ncl)
PI CALCULATED
TOTAL LENGTH PRODUCING
1943
49 .,
1411

AVERAGE SPI ST81DIPSIIFT 29'

ZONE 2 '92)93
8H RATE 8m 9120
TANK OIL RATE STBID 7010
DOWNHOLE PI flOM !PR ,,.
PI CALCULATED 1871 1897
TOTAL LENGTH PRODUCING
AVEkAGE SPI ,." "
ZONE 3 600416
8H "ATE
TANK OIL lATE
DOWNHOLE PI flOM IPII. 810/PSI
'60 1010

PI CALCULATED
TOTAL LENGTH PI.ODUCING
ST8/0IPSI
fT
" "
'"
"
'28
ST8/D/PSI/FT
'"
BHT 16S"f
I'VF I.}
BU8BLE POINT PIESSUI.E 221) PSI
 FIELD CASE WElL 1 5000
FACIES DISTRIBUTION
A A'
S N ZONE B 4000

.;;;
co. 30110
w
a:
=>
en
100' 100' en
w
2000
a:
ZONE A D..
,200' 200'
% 1000
,300' 300' ..;
"'-I-_+--J
,400' 400' o
J-------+--i---+-+--I-I--!_-+-I ,500 o 1000 2000 3000
500'
I SURFACE PRODUCTION RATE. BID
CROSS-FLOW -t- PRODUCTION

Fig. 1 - Carbonate Reservoir - Field Case 1.

Fig. 2 - Cross Flow Between Zones.

WELL No.1

8800 2 3/8-in. KILL TUBING 8827-ft.

~_ _ PRESSURE RECORDING
GALVANOMETER
RECORDER
DEPTH 8860-11.

CASING COLLAR LOCATOR

9 5/8-in. 401b CASING 8888-11.
TELEMETRY CARTRIDGE
8900 FLOW RATE I PI EVALUATION
GAMMA RAY 8 l/2-in. OPEN HOLE 30 DEVIATION
(PART OF TELEMETRY CARTRIDGE)

PRECISION QUARTZ PRESSURE GAGE

GAMMA RAY FLOW RATE I PI EVALUATION

DUAL TRACER EJECTOR
GAMMA RAY
FLOW RATE I PI EVALUATION
TELEMETRY INTERFACE
9000
TOP Fill 9010-ft.

EXISTING PCT SENSORS

THERMOMETER-MANOMETER
GRADIOMANOMETER
} FULL BORE SPINNER OR CONTINUOUS FLOWMETER
PBlO 9055-ft.

Fig. 3 - Simultaneous Production Logging Device. Fig. 4 - Completion - Field Case Well 1.
 FIELD CASE WELL 1

WEll No.1 FLOW SONIC

DISTRIBUTION TRANSIT TIME
CABLE SPEED FLOWMETER LOG
FTlMIN RPS TOP CLEAN
0 200 0 20 40 A

JABLE
c--TENSION
l.
t
.. CASING
SHOE

J
Al

COLLAR
,... LOG -
.} B

1
I- TOP LO. CLEAN
Bl

:> % FLOW
70/64in. CHOKE - - -

~
64/64in. CHOKE - - -
192164in. CHOKE -------

~
% 100

Fig. 5 - Flowmeter Log - Field Case Well 1. Fig. 6 - Flow Distribution - Field Case Well 1.

FLOWMETER INTERPRETATION PLOT 8 112 ;n. OPEN HOLE

AVERAGE VELOCITY = .83 x MEAS. VELOCITY
WELL No. I. 70/64;n. CHOKE RESPONSE SLOPE = 0.095 RPS/FTIMIN
BH RATE TANKDlL RATE
PRESSURE TOTAL, 18820 13190
WEll No.1
PSIA ., 8960 " ZONE I , 3800 2660
ZONE 2 , 11830 8290
TIME 1 PRESSURE SCHEOULE ZONE 3 , 3190 2230
3000 OURING WEll TEST OPERATIONS flOWMETER RPS FVF, 1.427
SHUT IN SURVEYS (OPS. SHUT DOWN OVER NITE)
30
HEAVY LINE, PRESSURE RECORDED,- BUILD.UP

2800 RECORDING

FLOWING SURVEYS
flOWING SURVEYS

2600
ZERO FLOW

FLOWING SURVEYS
2400 58 TIME HRS
o 10 34 _
-;I;..._---;I;;--_--'9--:::;>,..--t.,-_---;*n....:.;.CABLE SPEEO . FTIMIN
OAY 1 OAY 2 DAY 3 100 50 50 100

Fig. 7 - Pressure Response Over Test Period - Fig. 8 - Flowmeter vs Cable Speed - Filed
Field Case Well 1. Case Well 1, Test 1.
flOWMETER INTERPRETATION PLOT
8 112';0. OPEN HOLE FLOWMETER INTERPRETATION PLOT
WEll NR. 1. 84/64';0. CHOKE
AVERAGE VELOCITY = .83 x MEAS. VELOCITY WELL No.1 FULLY OPEN
RESPONSE SLOPE = 0.095 RPS/FT/MIN /a.8895.11.
FLOWMETER RPS BH RATE TANKOIL RATE
TOTAL ,21640 15160 FLOWMETE~'
RPS
ZONE 1 , 3700 2590 40 a. 895011.
ZONE 2 , 14930 10470 t<;)~'\ /,..
ZONE 3 , 3000 2100
FVF, 1.427 / . 8 112';0. OPEN HOLE
30 ,... ./". AVERAGE VELOCITY = .83 x MEAS. VElOCITY
./. ./ RESPONSE SLOPE = 0.095 RPS/FTIMIN
./30 BH RATE TANKOIL RATE
./ TOTAL , 36480 25570
~ ZONE 1 , 6620 4640

20
t<;)~' 'l
~g~i ~ ~~~go ~Jggo
FVF , 1.427
~ a.898511.

10 ~ ,ZERO flOW
10 ~. /'./"

CABLE SPEED . FTIMIN ~,'1.Y"'/.

--.~1O~0-----.~50~--~+-~~~5~0-----,~ono--- , /.-. CABLE SPEEO FT/MIN
100 50 50 100 150
.,/'

Fig. 9 - Flowmeter vs Cable Speed - Filed Fig. 10 - Flowmeter vs Cable Speed - Filed
Case Well 1, Test 2. Case Well 1, Test 3.

WELL No.1

CALIPER LOG
0 inches 10 20

~.CAt TENSION
:
WELL No.1
IPR PLOT

.;;

COLLAR
LOG - r---- 2800
CASING
SHOE
.::
6co

- '"
ex>
10
<[
en
"-
2700 ~.

w
a:
~
(I)
2600
~
a:
"-

2500 ZONE 1
PI = 9

ZONE 3 \ \
PI = 8
2400
10K 20K
RATE STB/D

Fig. 11 - Caliper Log - Filed Case Well 1. Fig. 12 - IPR Plot for the Three Producing
Intervals - Field Case Well 1.
 WELL NR_ 2

7-in. 231b CASING

WElL No.1
APRIL 1980
j 5798-11. 2 3/8-in. KILL TUBING

2900 o
MDH PLOT 0 0

00
o - PRESSURE RECORDING DEPTH
2800 00
o
- FLOWRATE I PI EVALUATION
<t
...en 2700
g;
'"f::l o
ZONE I
g: o 5900
2600

. - FlOWRATE I PI EVALUATION
o
2500 o
o
o ZONE 2

240P
9.001 om 0.1 1.0 10
6000 _ FLOWRATE I PI EVALUATION
TIME
ZONE 3
TOP Fill
Fig. 13 - Pressure Buildup - Field Case Well 1.

PBTO
WELL No.2
RECORDING FLOWMETER LOG
SPEED RECORDED GDiNG DOWN
0 f1Imin 200 0 RPS 50 100

-~
I WELL FLOWING ON
: 1.5-in_ CHOKE Fig. 14 - Completion - Field Case Well 2.
I '1
f.--J-I I- :--RECORDINGtPEED
~
V-
J ~
I
\
5

vfABLE TE JSION
f )JETTING ENTRIES FLOWMETER INTERPRETATION PLOT
WEll No.2. I-in. CHOKE
15=1'"
I
I 7-in. 231b CASING
I ~ FLOWMETER - RPS AVERAGE VELOCITY = .83 x MEAS. VELOCITY
I
SPINNER VELOCITY (R PS)
: l
,1"-
RESPONSE SLOPE = 0.095 RPS/FTIMIN
BH flOW RATE TOTAL: 16630 BIO
\I ZONE I : 10920 BID
.,..~ 60 ZONE 2: 511 0 BID

<
I ZONE 3: 600 BID
I
I

i at 5850-11.
?
--- --
I 40 _________

: ). .
I
. 10~~ , at 592511.

I
I
I? 20- ~--
~tl~ '2. at 6000-11.
I
I
I
.
____

10~~ ~ ZERO flOW
~~~~

I -50 50 100 CABLE SPEEO - FTlMIN

,
I
6000

Fig. 15 - Flowmeter Log - Filed Case Well 2. Fig. 16 - Flowmeter vs Cable Speed -
Field Case Hell 2, Test 1.
FLOWMETER INTERPRETAliON PLOT
WELL No.2. 1.5in. CHOKE
7in. 231b CASING
AVERAGE VElOCITY = .83 x MEAS. VELOCITY
WELL No.2
GRADIOMANOMETER LOG
I
0.00 QIIIIcm3 1.00 2.00

flOWMETER RPS
RESPONSE SLOPE '" 0.095 RPS/FT 1M IN
8H FLOW RATE TOTAL, 29030 BID

----.
al 5B5D.II. ZONE 1 , 18600 BID
ZONE 2, 9120 BID
ZONE 3, 1310 BID
lLl WE~L
,"\..Af~FIED CURVE
FLOW:ON
-
l-iQ~ CHOKE

~
.------
60 .~

CABLE TENSION ! - -
-~. 1
FREE ,GAS ENT flY

----- ~
40

al 592511. ~
5900 JETtNG EJRIES

.__
____- -
20 ,...---
l\l~~ '2.
~_
al 6000-11.
ZERD FLDW
L
~l\l~~ '3 CABLE SPEED - FT/MIN
100 50 100

)
F~g. 17 - Flowmeter vs Cable Speed _
It
Fleld Case Well 2, Test 2.
i
I
{
I:
I
I
I
I
I
I
6000

.> J

Fig. 18 - Gradiomanometer--Fie1d Case Hell 2.

WELL No.2
IPR PLOT

PSIA BH PRESSURE al 5840-11. DOWNHOLE PI WEll , 791 BIOlpsi

ZONE 1 , 476 BIDlpsi (5876-5925-ld
60 ZONE 2 244 BIDlpsi (5925-5993-11)
ZONE 3, 39 BIOI psi (6004-6016-11)
50

" ........,
FREE GAs PRODUCTION IN ZONE 1, - 40% OF TOTAL FLDW RATE

"
(FROM GRADIOMANDMETER INTERPRTATIDN)

20 ............
"............. .~NCl. FREE GAS FLOW
\ ZONE 3 " ... ............... ZONE 1
10 \ (OIL ONLY)" ZONE 2 ......... (OIL and FREE GAS) _ _
, . , (OIL ONLY) .......... -
~ ............
26000~-'--------:1':"0'-----------}20~"----------'-30
1000 BID DOWNHOLE FLOW RATE

Fig. 19 - IPR Plot for Producing Intervals -

Field Case Well 2.
 WELL No.2
COLLARS HIGH RESOLUTION THERMOMETER LOG
160 of 16&

-~
1\
-~

- \ WELL SHUT IN

-
- \
- ~
\
-
\
-
-10-

~
5800
\
~
- \ INDICATION OF
SLIGHT CROSS FLOW

- 6900

\.
Fig. 20 - High Resolution Temperature Log -
Field Case Well 2.

PSIA
2650

.
2640
. ., CROSS FLOW PRESSURE ?

2630
WELL No.2
SHUT IN PRESSURE @ 584011.

2620

2610

1 HOUR LOG TIME

2600
2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.5 1.0

Fig. 21 - Pressure Buildup - Field Case Well 2.