A NEW ERA IN PRODUCTION LOGGING:

DEFINING DOWNHOLE FLOW PROFILES

For decades, production and reservoir engineers have sought to measure fluid flow rates and
properties in the wellbore. Early measurement techniques focused on establishing fluid velocity
using a single, centrally positioned spinner. This remained the principal fluid-logging tool for
production engineers for many years.
The latest production-logging methods provide a much more detailed picture of fluid distributions,
temperatures, pressures, and flow rates. In addition, many of the limitations of conventional
production-logging tools have been overcome and reliable data can now be gathered in highly
deviated and horizontal wells.
In this article, Antoine Elkadi and Murat Zeybek explain how the latest developments in productionlogging techniques can help production and reservoir engineers to make better-informed decisions
about well and field management.

Production logging is the measurement of fluid parameters

and flow contributions on a zone-by-zone basis to yield
information about the type and movement of fluids within and
near the wellbore. This well-established production-logging
technique provides vital information about well performance
and can help engineers to identify potential problems and take
remedial action before production is interrupted. Production
logging also helps production and reservoir engineers to
understand where the various fluids enter the well. This enables
them to identify optimal solutions, such as selecting which
unwanted fluid entry zones should be shut off or which poorly
producing layers require perforation and/or stimulation.

flow
Oil

ter
Wa
flow

Figure 1: Problems can be encountered with conventional

production-logging tools as a result of multiphase flow.
6

Number 7, 2006

Middle East & Asia Reservoir Review

The principal aim of production logging is to measure the

performance of producing and injecting wells by gathering
diagnostic data, for example, information indicating the
efficiency of perforation. When extensive production-logging
campaigns are conducted as part of a reservoir monitoring or
surveillance program, operating companies can use the data
to assess the individual reservoir compartments and establish
their contributions to oil and gas production or water cut.
The information gained from production logging can be used
to help companies in defining field economics and thus to
make the most appropriate decisions for field development
and reservoir management.
However, traditional production-logging methods have
limitations in many of todays wells, wellbore conditions, and
fluid types. Wellbore conditions have a large effect on the
quality of the data obtained. In vertical wells with high fluid
flow rates, the data acquired are accurate and reliable.
However, multiphase flow conditions exist in many deviated
and horizontal wells. In these wells, conventional productionlogging tools are often inadequate and may give misleading
results (Fig. 1). In the 1990s, the industry began to drill large
numbers of deviated and horizontal wells, and so the need to
understand and measure fluid flow within complex flow
regimes became increasingly important and necessitated the
development of new tools and techniques.

A clearer picture
Production logging helps to provide information on flow rate
(fluid velocity from spinner rotation), density, temperature, and
pressure. In traditional production logging, only the flow rate
and density readings were used for quantitative analysis. The
temperature and pressure data were used in a qualitative way
to compute in situ flow properties and to locate the zones
where fluids were flowing into or out of the well (Fig. 2).
Today, production logging provides engineers with a broad
range of fluid measurements, including temperature and
pressure data. The additional information can be used to

improve the quality of interpretations and is particularly useful

in highly deviated wells and those with low production rates.
Modern tools and techniques can provide zone-by-zone
measurements of flow rates and fluid parameters and so yield
information on the type of fluid movement within and near
the wellbore. For example, the PLT* Production Logging Tool
detects mechanical problems, breakthrough, and coning;
monitors flow profiles, production, and injection; detects thief
zones and channeled cement; and helps to evaluate single- and
multilayer well tests.
Identifying unwanted water and/or gas entries becomes
more complicated because of the interactions between oil,
water, and gas at downhole conditions. Oil and water are
immiscible, but gas is miscible with oil, depending on the
pressure and temperature, and with water in small quantities.
At a specific pressure and temperature, both oil and water can
absorb gas until the saturation point is reached. Above this
gas-saturation limit, the gas remains as a separate phase. This
means that in the wellbore, oil and water both containing
dissolved gas and free gas bubbles may coexist and flow
toward the wellhead (Fig. 3). The proportions of these fluids
in the production stream have a direct influence on the
separation process and, ultimately, on the production rates that
can be achieved for a particular field or reservoir.

Making sense of multiphase conditions

Interpreting production-logging data and determining
downhole flow profiles in single-phase flow conditions are,
usually, straightforward processes. Flow profile
determination in multiphase conditions is much more
complicated. Factors including holdup, slippage velocity, and
phase segregation combine to greatly complicate flow
behavior. The holdup, for example, is defined as the
percentage by volume of the borehole contents (i.e., gas, oil,
and water) measured over a cross-sectional area. This crosssectional area is typically the inner diameter of the
production string (casing or tubing). Holdup can be
measured at different places throughout the production
string and can vary dramatically with borehole deviation and
fluid flow rate. Under multiphase conditions, light phases
move faster than heavier phases by an amount known as the
slippage (slip) velocity. Engineers must therefore determine
the downhole holdup when attempting to interpret
production logs obtained under multiphase flow conditions.
The main objective for production logging in three-phaseflow wells is usually to establish the flow rates for oil, water,
and gas. However, characteristics such as stratification, misting,
annular flow, and recirculation can make accurate
quantification extremely difficult. Flow rate is a function of
holdup and velocity. Engineers who want to evaluate the flow
rate of each phase at every depth level along the survey interval
must map fluid velocities and holdups inside the wellbore.

Flow without gas entry

Flow with gas entry

Depth

The quality of the data acquired from traditional productionlogging methods depends on the downhole well conditions.
These methods are accurate and reliable for vertical wells with
high fluid flow rates, but for deviated and horizontal wells with
stratified, multiphase flow the data acquired may be misleading.
The need for understanding and measuring downhole multiphase
fluids with complex flow regimes emerged during the 1990s
when the era of drilling deviated and horizontal wells started.

Geothermal
gradient

Gas entry

Temperature

Figure 2: Temperature profiles can be used to indicate where fluids

are entering the wellbore.

Fugitive
emissions
Process heat
input and
electrical
power input

Gas to
flare

Gas for fuel use

and injection
Oil separation system
Crude oil to
storage

Well stream
fluids from
subsea

Cooling seawater To produced

from process
water system

Figure 3: In the wellbore, oil and water both containing dissolved

gas and free gas bubbles may coexist and flow toward the wellhead.
Their proportions in the production stream have a direct influence
on the separation process required at surface.

Middle East & Asia Reservoir Review

Number 7, 2006

Flow structure in deviated and

horizontal wells
In vertical wells, oil and water are mixed across the entire
wellbore. The velocity profile is smooth, and the water holdup
profile varies gradually across the borehole. Averaged
measurements across the wellbore, such as those obtained
using conventional production-logging tools, are generally
adequate to determine the velocity and the holdup in this
type of flow regime.
However, once the wellbore deviation exceeds more than a
few degrees (say 20), the centrally positioned sensors of
conventional production-logging tools become much less
reliable. Phase segregation and small changes in well
inclination and flow regimes all influence the flow profile.
Logging problems typically occur when conventional tools run
in deviated wells encounter topside bubbly flow, heavy phase
recirculation, or stratified layers flowing at different speeds.
Flow-loop laboratory experiments that simulate conditions
in the wellbore have shown that the flow regimes that
develop in highly deviated wells can be extremely
complicated (Fig. 4). These flow regimes are controlled by
factors including the borehole size and deviation, the fluid

holdup, and the velocity, density, and viscosity of each phase.

Tests have also shown that even a 1 variation in well
deviation can have a dramatic effect on fluid distribution,
holdup, and velocity.
Flow-loop studies have also revealed the ineffectiveness of
conventional logging tools in multiphase flows once there is
strong phase segregation. The measurements made are
inadequate for describing complicated flow regimes. In
addition, conventional tool sensors are usually spread over a
long toolstring, which makes the measurements even more
difficult to make.

Mapping fluid velocities

Two of the most significant challenges in developing a new
generation of production-logging tools were extending
measurement coverage across the diameter of the borehole
and making measurements in a shorter depth interval over
the wellbore.
One solution was to develop a tool with a range of small
sensors that covered the full width of the wellbore and could
be placed close together to improve depth resolution. The
Flow Scanner* horizontal and deviated well production-

Figure 4: The flow regimes that develop in highly deviated wells can be extremely complex.

Number 7, 2006

Middle East & Asia Reservoir Review

logging system has five microspinners and six pairs of

electrical and optical holdup probes that are activated
downhole once the tool has reached the survey interval. This
combination of small sensors ensures almost total wellbore
coverage. The microspinners evaluate local fluid velocity, and
the electrical and optical probes measure the local water and
gas holdups.
In the borehole, the sensors are positioned so that the
measurements map the fluid velocities and holdups across the
borehole at every depth. This enables engineers to derive a
much better estimate of the flow rates for the individual
phases within the flow regimes.
Using the Flow Scanner tool in deviated and horizontal
wells gives operators a better understanding of production
regimes and enables them to define more accurate flow
profiles and, consequently, to plan more efficient workover or
production strategies, which will improve the ultimate
hydrocarbon recovery.
The Flow Scanner tool was developed using computational
fluid-dynamics simulations. Hundreds of flow-loop tests and
fluid-dynamics simulations were conducted to optimize the
tools architecture and the sensor deployment. Unlike
conventional systems, the Flow Scanner tool was designed to run
eccentered because it is difficult to centralize a tool in horizontal
or highly deviated wells. When in the wellbore, the tool opens up
into a characteristic triangular configuration (Fig. 5).
Five one-inch-diameter microspinners are mounted on the
front arm. Because the tool is designed to rest on the base of the
triangle when driven into the hole, the spinners line up along the
vertical axis of the wellbore. In this way, the phase velocities
along a vertical axis can be mapped at every depth point.

Using the Flow Scanner tool in

deviated and horizontal wells
gives operators a better
understanding of production
regimes and enables them to
define more accurate flow
profiles and, consequently, to
plan more efficient workovers
or production strategies, which
will improve the ultimate
hydrocarbon recovery.

Figure 5: The design and development of the Flow Scanner tool were guided by hundreds of
flow-loop tests to establish the most suitable architecture and sensor deployment system.

Middle East & Asia Reservoir Review

Number 7, 2006

All the angles

In wells containing two or more
immiscible fluid phases, wellbore
deviation causes phases with different
densities to separate out with a mixing
layer of dispersed bubbles between
them. In two-phase systems, the flow
structures are characterized by the
width of the mixing layer. One of the
key factors influencing flow structure is
well deviation. The thickness of the
mixing layer is fixed for a given
borehole diameter and deviation. The
composition of the produced fluids
determines the position of the mixing
layer. As the overall fractional volume
of water in the wellbore (i.e., the water
holdup) changes, the mixing layer
moves across the boreholes diameter.
The effect of borehole deviation on
mixing and flow structure is
complicated, even in relatively simple
two-phase systems such as those
containing only water and oil. Three
principal types of flow structures can be
defined on the basis of well deviation.

Near-vertical wells
In near-vertical wells, the oil and water
phases are fully mixed across the entire
wellbore cross section. Even for wells
with a deviation of less than 20, the
mixing layer is large and the two
phases are mixed across the borehole
with a smooth velocity profile.

10

Number 7, 2006

Middle East & Asia Reservoir Review

However, as soon as the wellbore

deviates further, gravity creates a
higher concentration of oil in the
upper section of the borehole. The
profile of the local water holdup begins
to vary across the wellbore (Fig. 6A).

that yield average answers are

unsuitable for understanding flow
structure. Local measurements made
across the boreholes diameter are
needed to clarify the velocity and
holdup profiles.

Deviated wells

Near-horizontal wells

In wells deviated at angles between 20

and 85, portions of the wellbore cross
section have monophasic flow but the
overall flow structure is more complex
(Fig. 6B). Heavy phases, typically water,
segregate at the bottom of the
borehole because of gravity, and the
mixing layer is located in the upper
part of the wellbore and contains
dispersed bubbles of oil or gas. In
mixed gas-liquid flow, the structure
can be more complex. The gas can flow
in slugs instead of small bubbles.
This flow structure has large velocity
gradients
and
local
holdup
distributions. At low flow rates, water
is frequently recirculating and the
water velocity at the bottom of the
borehole may be negative.
At high flow rates, differential
acceleration of the phases caused by the
shear forces between the different fluid
phases can lead to KelvinHelmholtz
instabilities; these almost cause
breakdown in stratification. Under these
conditions, production-logging sensors

For horizontal and near-horizontal

wells (deviations between 85 and 95),
the flow structure is completely
stratified, with the water flowing at the
bottom and the oil or gas phase at the
top with little or no mixing (Fig. 6C). At
low flow rates, well deviation has a
strong influence on flow behavior. The
slightest deviation from 90 causes the
monophasic oil and water streams to
flow at different velocities.

(A)(A)
(A)
Near-Vertical
Near-Vertical
Well
Well
Near-Vertical
Well

Velocity
Velocity
Velocity

(B)(B)
(B)
Deviated
Deviated
Well
Well
Deviated
Well

Holdup
Holdup
Holdup

TopTop
Top

Bottom
Bottom
Bottom

0 00
TopTop
Top

Oil
and
Oiland
and
water
water
mixed
mixed
across
across
water
mixed
across
nn
nOil
the
the
section
section
ofof
the
ofthe
the
pipe
pipe
the
section
pipe
Smooth
Smooth
velocity
velocity
profiles
profiles
velocity
profiles
nn
nSmooth
Almost
Almost
linear
linear
holdup
holdup
profiles
profiles
linear
holdup
profiles
nn
nAlmost

Holdup
Holdup
Holdup

Velocity
Velocity
Velocity

1 11

(C)(C)
(C)
Near-Horizontal
Near-Horizontal
Well
Well
Near-Horizontal
Well

Velocity
Velocity
Velocity

1 11

Holdup
Holdup
Holdup
1 11

0 00
Bottom
Bottom
Bottom

TopTop
Top

Bottom
Bottom
Bottom

0 00
TopTop
Top

Bottom
Bottom
Bottom

Very
Very
complex
complex
flow
flow
structures
structures
complex
flow
structures
nn
nVery
Monophasic
Monophasic
water
water
phase
phase
atat
the
atthe
the
bottom
bottom
water
phase
bottom
nn
nMonophasic
ofof
the
ofthe
the
pipe
pipe
pipe
Dispersed
Dispersed
oiloil
phase
oilphase
phase
in in
the
inthe
the
uppermost
uppermost
uppermost
nn
nDispersed
level
level
ofof
the
ofthe
the
pipe
pipe
level
pipe
Large
Large
velocity
velocity
and
and
holdup
holdup
gradients
gradients
velocity
and
holdup
gradients
nn
nLarge

TopTop
Top

0 00
Bottom
Bottom TopTop
Top
Bottom

Bottom
Bottom
Bottom

Almost
Almost
stratified
stratified
flow
flow
structures
structures
stratified
flow
structures
nn
nAlmost
Monophasic
Monophasic
oiloil
at
oilat
the
atthe
the
top
top
and
and
top
and
nn
nMonophasic
monophasic
monophasic
water
water
atat
the
atthe
the
bottom
bottom
monophasic
water
bottom
Narrow
Narrow
mixing
mixing
layer
layer
mixing
layer
nn
nNarrow
Oil
and
Oiland
and
water
water
streams
streams
flow
flow
atatat
water
streams
flow
nn
nOil
different
different
velocities
velocities
different
velocities

Figure 6: Three main types of flow structure can occur in a two-phase (water-oil) system.

One of the key factors influencing

flow structure is well deviation.
This is the angle to vertical at
which the well has been drilled.

Middle East & Asia Reservoir Review

Number 7, 2006

11

Conventional Spinner

12

Flow Scanner Spinners

Figure 7: When the Flow Scanner tool is in the 'open' configuration, its spinners can measure flow rate
across the entire borehole.

Figure 8: When deployed, the Flow Scanner tool is 5 m long, compared to 25 m

minimum required for the conventional PL Flagship* toolstring that would be
required to obtain the same measurements. This saving in logging string length
is a significant benefit for those who rig up and deploy the tool at the wellsite.

The spinners are located in a depth range that means that

the velocities will be measured at practically the same points
in depth and time. This is particularly valuable in wells where,
during logging, the fluid dynamic properties change over
short intervals. In a 6-in borehole, the top spinner and pair of
probes are located very close to the inner wall. This enables
the tool to measure the velocity of any gas that would be
flowing along the top of the borehole in a gas-liquid mixture
(Fig. 7). Conventional tools can only measure gas velocity if
the fullbore spinner blades are fully within the gas phase. The
minimum gas holdup required to make measurements with
the top microspinner and probes is only 5%.
The six pairs of electrical and optical probes on the Flow
Scanner tool are mounted on the rear arm behind the
spinners (Fig. 8). In mixed and segregated flow regimes, the
electrical and optical probes measure the localized water and
gas holdups, respectively. The electrical probes measure fluid
resistance (impedance), which facilitates calculation of the
water holdup, while the optical probes use a reflectance
method to evaluate the gas holdup.

Boosting production in mature fields

Number 7, 2006

Middle East & Asia Reservoir Review

The tool arm can deploy both the spinners and the sensors
along the vertical axis of a nonvertical wellbore to obtain the
velocity and holdup measurements. Additionally, a fifth
miniature spinner and the sixth pair of electrical and optical
probes positioned on the tool body measure the flow
properties on the low side of the well.
The spatial location of the different sensors is accurately
identified using an integrated, relative-bearing sensor and
caliper measurements. The direct measurement of the velocity
and fluid-holdup profiles helps the analyst to determine the
downhole phase split and reduces the uncertainties
associated with multiphase flow interpretation.
The tool arm is motorized with a 1.5-m-long hydraulic
module, which is controlled from the surface. At any point in
the wellbore, the arm can be made to scan the wellbore
slowly during a stationary measurement to pinpoint the
position of the fluid interface or interfaces. In addition, the
Flow Scanner tool is 5 m long as compared with the 25 m
minimum of the best conventional toolstring required to
obtain similar measurements, but of lower quality. This
shorter logging string saves time and effort at the wellsite.

The application of modern production-logging methods has

helped some operators to make dramatic production gains.
Conventional production-logging tools often have difficulty
in defining complicated flow regimes and identifying the
areas for the water shutoff needed to maximize oil recovery
as fields approach their economic limit.
The Flow Scanner tool was first used in mature reservoirs in
the Gulf of Suez, where viscous oils are produced at high
water cuts through deviated to horizontal completions. One
well with an inclination of 37 was producing with gas lift
through six open intervals. The oil production rate was
327 m3/d with a 97% water cut. A conventional productionlogging survey could not evaluate the individual interval
contributions or identify the sources of water production, so
the operators decided to try the Flow Scanner tool, which
was deployed on wireline.

In a 6-in borehole, the top spinner

and pair of probes are located
very close to the inner wall. This
enables the tool to measure the
velocity of any gas that would
be flowing along the top of the
borehole in a gas-liquid mixture.

Middle East & Asia Reservoir Review

Number 7, 2006

13

production (88 m 3 /d of oil and 403 m 3 /d of water)

represented a nine-fold increase in oil production: payback
for the operation was achieved in less than a week.

Conventional
Production Logging

Conventional
Production Logging

Flow Scanner

Depth, Fullbore spinner

m
Velocity
ft/min

Fluid density
40

Velocity image

rps

Flow Scanner

0.9

g/cm 3

1.2

Water-holdup
image

Density stations

Spinner stations
0

The Flow Scanner tool is engineered specifically to provide

real-time holdup and velocity profiles along a vertical axis of
the borehole cross section. The holdup sensors used are six
GHOST* Gas Holdup Optical Sensor Tool probes and six
FloView* electrical probes. The optical probes distinguish
between gas and liquid using optical refractive index
measurements (Fig. 10). The electrical probes discriminate
between water and hydrocarbons using fluid electrical
resistance measurements. The velocity sensors are five
microspinners. Several years of engineering effort have
produced small diameter spinners with velocity thresholds
comparable to larger fullbore spinners.
To maintain its orientation in the wellbore, the tools
hydraulically operated arm is extended to a length equal to
the diameter of the production tubing so that it serves as a

Gradiomanometer
fluid density

Velocity
0

Fluid discrimination

3 -40

ft/min

40

0.9

g/cm 3

1.2 0.92

1.0

Conventional
Production Logging

caliper. This arrangement provides the area measurements

needed to calculate flow rates. The tool has an outside
diameter of 11116 in, and it can be run in holes ranging from
278- to 9-in diameter using coiled tubing (CT), wireline, or
the MaxTRAC* downhole well tractor system (Fig. 11).
The Flow Scanner tools low-frequency resistivity probes
measure fluid electrical resistance to detect water. Water
conducts electrical current, whereas oil and gas do not. A
threshold is set that enables the tool to distinguish between
hydrocarbons and water. Each probe generates a binary signal
when oil or gas bubbles in a continuous water phase or droplets
of water in a continuous hydrocarbon phase touch its tip.
The water holdup is determined by the amount of time
that the tip is conducting current; thus the water holdup
profile accurately represents the flow regime in the wellbore.
This methodology enables a local water holdup measurement,
which is independent of fluid properties, to be determined
without calibration. Conventional holdup tools, however,
require accurate calibration in oil and water.

Flow profile

Flow profile

Water flow

Water flow

Oil flow

Oil flow

The Flow Scanner tool software optimizes and displays the

data acquired from the spinners and probes at the wellsite.
Two views are constantly updated with real-time acquisition
data. One of these views shows the relative fluid velocities
measured by the microspinner array, while the other shows
the phase distribution across the wellbore section (Fig. 12). In
both views, the wellbore is sliced horizontally into the five
layers associated with the different combinations of spinner,
electrical-probe, and optical-probe measurements.
In the spinner view, five rectangles are plotted with lengths
proportional to the rotational velocities of the corresponding
spinners. Each rectangle is divided into color-coded sections
with widths proportional to the three-phase holdups seen by
the electrical and optical probes.
In the cross-sectional view, each layer is color coded to
represent the phase with the highest holdup seen by the
probes. The holdup values of the two remaining phases are
represented by proportionate numbers and bubble sizes. The
relative positions of the sensors are also shown, with circles
for the spinners and dots for the probes.

120

Flow Scanner
Well
Sketch

Reflected light, %

In comparison with the conventional production-logging

survey, the Flow Scanner profile showed that approximately
25% of the oil and 85% of the water were being produced from
perforations below X,121 m (Fig. 9). The remainder of the water
and some oil were being produced from perforations at X,118 m.
The perforations above X,118 m were producing clean oil,
and more than half of the oil was flowing into the top
perforation. Conventional production-logging sensors could
not detect oil entering the top perforations because the
spinner was affected by water recirculation, and the
resolution of the Gradiomanometer* specific gravity profile
tool was too low for it to resolve the oil contributions. As a
result, the conventional survey had erroneously attributed
90% of the oil production to the lower perforations.
A workover operation was planned for optimizing
production on the basis of the Flow Scanner results. After
cross-referencing the log results with the geological
information on the location of a sealing shale layer, the field
operator set a plug at X,120 m to isolate most of the highwater-cut zones in the bottom of the well. The resulting

80
40
0
1

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.6

Refractive index, n

X,105

Air

Gas (n = 1.1)

Condensate (n = 1.4)

Water (n = 1.3)
Crude (n = 1.5)

Figure 10: The principle on which the GHOST

probes operate.

X,120

Figure 11: The MaxTRAC unit.

Figure 9: Gulf of Suez log: When conventional production-logging efforts failed to produce useable results, the Flow Scanner
system identified and measured zonal oil production in the well. A subsequent workover increased oil production by 900%.

14

Number 7, 2006

Middle East & Asia Reservoir Review

Middle East & Asia Reservoir Review

Number 7, 2006

15

Water recirculation revealed

Surface

92

Surface

88

c
rfa
Su
e

45

Figure 12: Real-time flow rate and phase distribution

data are continuously optimized and displayed by the
Flow Scanner system.

In its first field test, the Flow

Scanner tool identified water
circulation along a completion
to around 30 m from the
surface in one Middle East well.

16

Number 7, 2006

Middle East & Asia Reservoir Review

Holdup

Pressure

Density

XX,050

Temperature

Fullbore
spinners
In-line spinners

90

In the Middle East, the Flow Scanner tool has also helped to
identify water recirculation along a wellbore completion. This was
the first field test for the tool.
The well under investigation was a 7-in cased hole
producer with a production rate of 500 m3/d of oil at surface
with zero water cut. The wellbore deviation was 47 across
the logging interval. The advanced PS Platform* tool had
already been run in the well, which meant a direct
comparison of its data could be made with data from the
Flow Scanner tool. The average value for water holdup above
the perforations was approximately 25%.
The fullbore spinner on the PS Platform tool had measured
a net, positive (upward) velocity. Because the water holdup
was not zero, a conventional interpretation was bound to
estimate a net positive water flow rate. When using the
conventional toolstring, the zero water cut at surface was the
only indication that water must be recirculating downhole.
However, the Flow Scanner tool was able to identify and
characterize the water recirculation (Fig. 13).
Figure 14 shows the holdup distribution along a vertical
axis of the casing; the bottom probe measured water holdup
at about 92% and the top one at about 2%. Note that the
bottom two spinners measured a net negative fluid velocity,
which was mainly that of the water. The water was being
dragged up with the oil on the topside of the wellbore only
to fall back down on the low side of the casing. The recording
made while coming out of hole showed the water column
extending to a few hundred meters from surface, but no
water was reaching the surface (Fig. 15).
This type of information is a major breakthrough for
production logging. Engineers can now visualize and measure
heavy-phase recirculation downhole. The image in Figure 15
was taken from a processing application called the Flow
Scanner tool Inflow Profiler, which uses predetermined spinner
pitches to provide a single-pass interpretation in real time.
The presence of a quasi-stationary water column inside the
wellbore was exerting backpressure on the sandface and
choking oil production. The operator has conducted a
workover operation that involved pulling out the completion,
cleaning the water from the wellbore, and recompleting the
well as a dual producer.

XX,100
Perforations

Surface

XX,000

XX,150
GR
0 60
gAPI

SPIN.SD4

SPI1.SD4

WFDE.SD4

WTEP.SD4

WPRE.SD4

SCVL.SD4

DFHM.SD4

1.2 218
2,450 -7,000 7, 000 0
221 2,350
15 0.7
-10
15 -15
g/cm3
ft/h
psi
deg F
counts/s
counts/s

Figure 13: Flow Scanner image showing the water recirculation.

Challenging conditions
As production-logging technology advances, more accurate
and reliable results are being achieved for multiphase flow
conditions in horizontal wells. The most significant test of any
new technology is in wells where the operational conditions
are challenging.
Both of the following examples are from a giant carbonate
reservoir in which reservoir thickness varies between 46 and
55 m, porosity varies between 15 and 20%, permeability
varies from 50 to 500 mD, and oil gravity varies between
32 to 36 dAPI.

Determining water entry intervals

and flow profile
Well 1 was drilled and completed as a slanted 6 1 8 -in
openhole horizontal producer. The well was a barefoot
completion below the 7-in casing with 412-in tubing and a
3 1 2-in tail wellbore extended into the open hole. It was
620 m long and produced oil with 22% water cut at surface.
The produced water had a total dissolved solids content
reported to be 70,000 ppm, i.e., fresher than the formation
water, which suggested the presence of injection water.

Figure 14: Holdup and velocity profiles.

The production-logging objectives for this well included

determining the water entry interval(s) and the flow profile.
The integrated production toolstring used was 28-m long and
included a gamma ray sensor at the top and a deployment
bar in the middle for two-stage deployment with CT.
The total flow rate was determined in the 412-in tubing
(the deviated section) above the perforated pup joints
because of the tail wellbore extension into the openhole
section. The agreement between the production-logging tool
data and the test trap data was very good (similar amounts
of oil with a 26% water cut). The water flow velocity
(137 m/min) and the oil-phase flow velocity (142 m/min) were
in excellent agreement with the expected slip velocity in this
38 deviated wellbore section.
The oil-phase flow velocity measurement at this deviation
proved to be valid, independent of deviation, as long as the
oil phase was continuous. Oil and water velocity stations
were continued in the openhole section for flow profile
determination. To increase confidence in the results, a
multiphase holdup pass using pulsed-neutron measurements
(Roscoe and Lenn, 1996) was recorded and holdup
measurements were made using electrical probes. Both
measurements showed very close agreement, see Fig. 15,
tracks 2 and 4.

Middle East & Asia Reservoir Review

Number 7, 2006

17

Improved depth resolution and wellbore coverage

Moved hydrocarbon

PSP
deviation
40

60

Cable
velocity
memorized
100
-100
ft/min

20

Total holdup

1.0000

FSIT RB
-20

0.0000

in

5,000.0000

1.0000

Calibrated
caliper

5,000.0000
21.0000
5.0000
2.0000
1.0000
0.5000
0.4000
0.3000
0.2000
0.1500
0.1000
0.0500
0.0100
0.0100
0.0500
0.1000
0.1500
0.2000
0.3000
0.4000
0.5000
1.0000
2.0000
5.0000

Flow Rate

Water

Flowing

Oil

Holdup

Holdup

Holup

Well Sketch

Flowing
(probes)

Shut-in

Flowing
(pulsed neutron)

MD

TVD

TVD

TVD

Oil

Calcite

Oil

Oil

Oil

Water

Anhydrite

Water

Water

Water

PFC1
in
8
PFC2
8
-8 in
-8

X,100
lbg 3-in

Rate
bbl/d

BSAL
ppk

Dolomite

ElanPlus volumes
250

0
Water flow
stations

X,200
Well
pressure
0

5,000
psi

Well
Water
Oil flow rate Gamma ray temperature
Mixture velocity image (full range) flow rate
3
3
m/s
-1 x10 bbl/d 4 0 x10 bbl/d 5 0
100 250 degF 275

X,300
X,400
X,500
X,600
X,700
X,800
X,900
X,000
X,100

X,000

X,200
X,300
X,400
X,500
X,600
X,700
X,800
X,100

X,900

No flow

X,000

18

Figure 15: Middle East well holdup measurements.

Figure 16: Results of integrated production logging in Well 1.

The fluid holdup distribution along the wellbore indicated

that there was no oil entry below X,260 m; only water was
seen in the wellbore. The first water entry was detected in the
toe section, the second in the middle section where the
borehole salinity decreased significantly, which indicated the
entry of injection water (see track 5, Fig. 16).
In the presence of water and oil, the amount of oil holdup is
compensated for to determine the salinity of the water. The
sudden increase in oil holdup 60 m above the slanted section of
the wellbore gave a clear indication of significant oil entry. In
fact, the oil-phase flow velocity measurements detected the
entry; this translated, using holdup and caliper data, into 40%
of the total oil production. An increase in water flow at stations
across the same interval translated into a 60% water entry.
The spinner data also indicated a large increase in flow
velocity, which supported both the oil- and the water-phase
measurements. This interval was identified as a superpermeable
zone that had not previously been identified in logs.
Productivity index information was obtained from the
measured total flow rate and the pressure drawdown data.

Quick and accurate results

Number 7, 2006

Middle East & Asia Reservoir Review

Well 2 was drilled and completed as a 618-in open hole and

was initially producing dry oil. The test trap showed 40%
water cut after six years production. Before logging, the well
showed a 51% water cut with an 80172 choke size. During
logging with CT, the well was flowing with an 80/172 choke
size and a flowing wellhead gauge pressure of 4,620 kPa. The
logging operations aimed to determine the water-entry
interval(s) and the flow profile.
The compact, integrated Flow Scanner production-logging
toolstring was used to provide fast rig-up without
deployment. The flowing passes were planned and completed
within 15 h from rig-up to yield real-time answers.
The job was planned to include one downward and one
upward pass, including stations, with a repeat pass if required
to achieve the objectives on the basis of the real-time results.
Image logs were available during logging and were integrated
with the openhole logs. The total flow rate determination was
performed above the perforated pup joint to detect any

The downhole flow rate, Q, is estimated

at every depth point from the formula:
Q = VAY
where V is the velocity of the phase
in question, Y is its holdup or the
fraction that it occupies in a unit
volume, and A is the surface area that
is available to the flow.
When using conventional methods, the
oil and water velocities were measured
during stationary acquisition. The
vertical resolutions of the measurements
are about 0.5 and 7 m for water and oil
respectively (see figures 17 and 18).
Because the oil and water velocities
are not measured at the same instant,
inconsistencies can be introduced into
the computations. In addition, the
stationary nature of the measurement
has a detrimental effect on the
resolution of the velocities calculated;

1. Near Count Rate

2. Far Count Rate

surveying a 300-m interval with 15 m

between stations would require about
5 h for each velocity measurement.
Therefore, a distance between stations
of less than 15 m is usually avoided
because of the time constraints.
Consequently, the final flow profile will
usually have a vertical resolution of only
about 15 m using the PS Platform tool.
For making holdup measurements,
four or eight probes are deployed
circumferentially in the wellbore.
In highly deviated and horizontal wells,
this distribution is not optimum for
full holdup coverage and accurate
determination of the fluid interfaces. Tool
rotation can lead to a symmetrical probe
distribution where two probes are at the
same level and therefore measuring the
same flow component (Fig. 19).

1
5

7
3

Figure 19: The distribution of sensors in

conventional logging tools. Probes 14
belong to one tool and probes 58 belong
to the other probe tool.

3. Gamma Ray Count Rate

Oil miscible marker

Oil

Oil
Neutron burst

Water

Water
PVL

Neutron generator

Figure 17: The WFL* Water Flow Log measurement principle. The
water velocity is computed from the time of flight of the activated
oxygen between the neutron generator and the detectors. The
vertical resolution of the measurement is equal to the distance
between the minitron and the corresponding detector.

L (usually 7.3m)

RST

Phase velocity = L T

Figure 18: The PVL* Phase Velocity Log measurement principle.

The oil velocity is computed from the time of flight of the
miscible marker between the ejection nozzle and the RST*
Reservoir Saturation Tool. The vertical resolution of the
measurement is equal to the flight distance, which is usually
about 7.3 m.

Middle East & Asia Reservoir Review

Number 7, 2006

19

contribution from behind the tail wellbore. During downward

logging, approximately 50% holdup was observed
immediately below the tail wellbore, as was expected at this
deviation. The spinner at the top was reading much faster
flow rates than the middle spinnerclearly representing the
oil and water velocities respectively.
After 120 m of logging, the holdup measurements showed
that the wellbore contained only water, which indicated that
there was no oil entry beyond that point. Track 3 in Fig. 20
shows the holdup distribution, and track 5 shows the oil and
water flow profiles. Two water entries were pinpointed near
the toe section, where both spinners gave the same values in
the downward and upward passes.
The upper 150-m interval, in which all the oil entries were
found, was logged with another pass in 10 min using a cable
velocity of 18 m/min. The oil and water profiles obtained and
the cross sections are shown in tracks 4 and 5 of Fig. 20,
together with the openhole results.
The cross section of the wellbore is shown in Fig. 21 with
the spinner locations and the holdup profile indicated. The
wells productivity index was excellent. Although tool design
allowed no more than 10 rotation because of the hole
conditions, rotations of up to 30 were observed over the
60-m interval where oil entry was indicated during the
downward pass.

No fluid contributions were observed from some features that

had been described as open or conductive fractures. The image
log of the first entry interval showed only a few fractures, yet, it
contributed 42% of the water. Across the second entry interval,
one fracture was evident; this interval was responsible for 58%
of the water entering the well. Some of the imaged conductive
fractures located above the water-entry interval were not
associated with the detected fluid entry, which suggested that
conductivity determination could be directly obtained from
dynamic data such as production logging.

Careful planning
Prejob planning and integration of all the available well data
and logs to achieve the logging objectives and maximize the
reservoir characterization information are essential for efficient
logging data acquisition. Recent successes have demonstrated
that, by using advanced tools and techniques, integrated
production-logging acquisition, with either CT or tractor
conveyance, can be designed to successfully achieve
challenging production-logging objectives in open holes,
including boreholes with highly deviated or horizontal sections.
Production logging can include the identification of
superpermeable zones or conductive fractures and the direct
assessment of their flow contributions; the description of
water salinity variations to define injection water entries

along the wellbore; and the evaluation of production

pressure losses. The compact, integrated Flow Scanner tool
provides fast, efficient rig-up and rig-down; promotes safer
operations; and delivers real-time data analysis in support of
challenging objectives.

Holdup profile

20rps

X,328m

Surface
0

Figure 21: Well cross section and sensor measurements in real time in Well 2.

Calcite
Dolomite
Anhydrite

Well Sketch

FSI caliper
in
8

Holdup

Holdup

Shut-in

Flowing

TVD

TVD

Oil

Oil

Oil

Water

Water

Water

Oil
Flowing
0

Flow rate
B/D

Water
Moved hydrocarbon
Volumetric analysis
0
1

The future
Efficient integrated production logging improves
understanding of well behavior and reservoir
characterization under challenging conditions. The Flow
Scanner tool offers major improvements over conventional
production-logging technology. Although it uses
established principles of measurement, the miniaturization
of the spinners and the mounting of the sensors across the
diameter of the wellbore offer breakthroughs in the quality
of the data and their interpretation. The Flow Scanner
tools ability to measure the continuous velocity of three
phases and its relatively short length in comparison with a
conventional toolstring are added to the advantages of

Figure 20: Results of new compact integrated production

logging in Well 2.

20

Number 7, 2006

Middle East & Asia Reservoir Review

this new technology.

Reference
Roscoe, B. and Lenn, C.: Oil and Water Flow Rate
Logging in Horizontal Wells Using Chemical Markers
and a Pulsed-Neutron Tool, paper SPE 36230
presented at the 7th Abu Dhabi International
Petroleum Exhibition and Conference, Abu Dhabi,
UAE (October 1316, 1996).

Middle East & Asia Reservoir Review

Number 7, 2006

21