SPE 154221

Production Logging on Coil Tubing in a Marcellus Shale Horizontal

Completion
A. McCluskey, Shell Exploration and Production

Copyright 2012, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE/ICoTA Coiled Tubing & Well Intervention Conference & Exhibition held in The Woodlands, Texas, USA, 2728 March 2012.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have not been
reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to
reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
Production logging plays an important role in understanding the impact that well trajectory, completion practices
and trials, and well placement have on EUR. The data can further help to characterize the reservoir in new plays.
This is particularly true in the case when both water and gas production deviate dramatically from expectations.
Logging helps to answer the questions: Are all zones and perforating clusters producing equally? Is the toe
unloading? What is the flow regime? Is water production isolated to a particular interval? Can it be shut off?
In traditional vertical wells, electric line logging is most often used to acquire production data. In a horizontal well,
both active and memory tools can be deployed on coil tubing to acquire production data. Using coil tubing for
production logging has its own unique challenges, one of which is getting to TD without damaging the tools. The
difficulty of this challenge can be compounded by long lateral lengths and high dog leg severity.
Well trajectory, well flow regime, water rate, and gas rate all have an effect on choice of logging tools and method
for deployment. This paper will discuss two production logging attempts: 3 successful logs with active tools and 1
failure with memory tools. The one failed attempt involved a low gas rate, low pressure, high water rate well with
severe dog legs near the heel where the coil could not reach the logging interval.
The sections in this paper will discuss the role of an effective cleanout and how to achieve its success as well as
best practices for acquiring high quality production data. Each of the four logging jobs will be discussed in detail
with results provided.

Hole Prep/Cleanout Run

The first step in acquiring a high quality production log in a horizontal Marcellus well is the cleanout. Often times,
this step may be devalued and skipped reducing the probability of success. The purpose of the cleanout is to
remove any debris or fill, such as frac sand or residual plug parts, from the wellbore. This debris is often
encountered in the heel of the well or in any low spot along the lateral. If the debris is not properly removed, the
logging passes may become difficult, the logging tools may become damaged, and TD may not be reached. This
debris can limit the ability to log the entire completion interval, preventing the tools from collecting the data
necessary for a quality interpretation.
The biggest challenge during the cleanout run is maintaining consistent gas flow and wellhead pressure, especially
in a low pressure, low rate environment. If consistent returns are not maintained during the cleanout, solids may
not be properly lifted out of the well. Pumping an excessive volume of fluid into the well can kill the well,
compounding this problem. This was the case with our first attempt on well A. Too much fluid was introduced into
the well which killed the well and allowed solids to pile up in the heel. This, paired with the high dog legs, later
prevented the logging tools from passing through the heel.

SPE 154221

Logging the well under normal flowing conditions provides the most representative data. If excessive fluid is
introduced during the cleanout, the well may require more time to return to normal flowing conditions.
Pumping high quality nitrogen foam during the cleanout can help to maintain well pressure and keep the well
flowing. Targeting 80 quality foam will still lift the solids and debris out of the well and ensure that even a lower
pressure Marcellus well will keep flowing. This was very successful in three of the wells later described. Previous
cleanouts on a typical 9000 MD Marcellus well with a 4000 lateral have required between 500,000 and 600,000
scf of nitrogen. Depending on the service provider, two transports may be required and therefore should be
available on-site. In the case of Well A, sufficient nitrogen was not available on site, and therefore the quality of
the cleanout was compromised. Due to the large amount of nitrogen being pumped, the returns will foam
significantly. Having de-foamer on location with a method of application is essential to control returns and prevent
spills.
A wash nozzle was used for the cleanout runs described in this paper. A drawing of the BHA can be seen below:

Figure 1: Cleanout BHA

Other tools and BHAs will work, but this BHA was very successful in lifting fill and debris out of the wells. Unlike a
wash nozzle, other tools require a motor, which may not be compatible with the high quality nitrogen foam. The
wash nozzle is also relatively low cost compared to other options. If the initial coil tubing plug drillout was
thorough, the wash nozzle should be sufficient. Otherwise, a near drift motor and mill should be used.
For the cleanouts described in this paper, the flowback rig up included the following:

SPE 154221

Figure 2: Flowback Rig Up for Cleanout

3iron was used coming off of the tree to prevent any plugging during the cleanout. In all cases, the well had been
previously on production through a sales line. Therefore, a flare was rigged up to handle the gas and nitrogen in
the returns, which cannot be sent into the sales line.
Once all necessary equipment was rigged up and the coil tubing and BOPs were pressure tested with water, the
fluid was pumped out of the reel to an open top tank and replaced by 80 quality N2 foam. This may seem trivial
but has proved very successful. This helped to prevent prematurely killing the well at the beginning of the clean
out run.
The successful cleanout runs have been executed based on the following guidelines:
- RIH @ +/-90fpm.
- Minimize pump rates while RIH unless obstruction is tagged or CT weights are suspicious. Only
introduce fluid into the well when necessary for cleaning up the wellbore.
- Perform weight checks every 2500.
- Upon reaching a depth of 500 above the kick off point, begin pumping 70-80 quality foam.
For the wells described in this paper, downhole conditions dictated the following pump rates for 80Q N2 foam to
establish circulation:
Fluid Rate
0.25 bbl/min
N2 Rate
600 scf/min
During the cleanout, bbl in = bbl out was maintained to aide in circulation. It is crucial to keep the well choked back
as much as is reasonably practical. If the well is allowed to flow excessively, it can bring in more sand and debris,
potentially sticking the coil tubing in the lateral.
At the kick off point, the RIH speed was reduced and pump rates were increased to begin washing. See target
fluid rates (based on estimated reservoir pressure) for washing below:
Target Fluid Rate
Target N2 Rate
CT RIH Speed

0.5 bbl/min
1650 scf/min
35 fpm

The lateral was washed in two sections with a short trip back to the vertical in between. After washing to TD, a
bottoms up circulation was performed. The coil tubing was slowly pulled out of the well. It is important to not
outrun the fluid. See example annular velocity calculations for 2 CT inside 5-1/2 20# casing:
Equivalent Pump Rate (bbl/min)
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0

Annular Velocity (ft/min)

82
109
137
164

SPE 154221

The exact steps of a cleanout will vary from well to well. However, these guidelines have been implemented on all
successful cleanouts and will continue to be used.
After the cleanout is finished, the well should be flowed back. The goal of this flowback is to remove nitrogen from
the wellbore and return the well to normal flowing conditions. The duration of this flowback is a bit unknown and
will be well specific. For the wells described in this paper, the flowback time ranged from 1-3days. This duration,
however, was driven more by operational constraints and facilities coordination than actual well flowing conditions.
Despite the sub-optimal flowback practices executed, the log quality did not suffer.

Logging Procedure
A coil tubing unit should then return to location to perform the logging passes. The logging company and type of
tool selected will dictate the following steps. For the wells described in this paper, both active and memory logging
tools on coil tubing were used. The following practices were followed on all successful logging operations.
After the coil tubing unit was rigged up, the coil tubing was pressure tested with nitrogen for production logging.
This reduced the volume of fluid introduced into the well. During the logging, it is important to keep the well flowing
and limit any excessive disturbances to the well (i.e. pumping unnecessary fluid).
Once the coil tubing was pressure tested, the logs were run using the following guidelines:
- RIH Speed @ +/- 120fpm in the vertical
- Reduce the RIH speed to 90fpm through the deviated section
- Reduce RIH speed further to initial logging speed (usually 30 fpm) 200 above the logging interval.
- The logging interval is described as 200 above the top perforation to PBTD. Begin logging and
perform multiple passes as described in the procedure.
Each well may be different, but the following is how the logs in this paper were executed:
o Log down and then up@ 60fpm
o Log down and then up @ 90fpm
o Log down and then up @ 120fpm
o Log down @ 30fpm if time permits. This pass is important for temperature data.
Two minute stationary stops were performed between all stages during the first logging pass down. During the job,
flowing well head pressure, flowing gas rate, and flowing water rate were recorded every 15 minutes.

Results
All wells discussed in this section were hydraulically fractured with slickwater and conventional plug and perf
methodology. Proppant selection, proppant concentration, and stage spacing were varied from well to well, but
remained consistent within a wellbore. The execution of such designs, however, varied slightly from stage to stage
due to operational challenges. Any dramatic deviations from plan to execution than may have affected production
will be discussed during the sections below. Production logs were run as previously described in this paper. The
results are below:
Well A
Casing: 5-1/2 20# P110 casing
KOP: 4660 ft

Landing: 5900 ft

Stages completed: 13 stages

TMD: 9607 ft

TVD: 5415 ft

Deepest perforation: 9461 ft

Goal: Run a production log with memory tools and understand the gas distribution
Result: Data was not captured for this well. During the cleanout, high quality foam was not maintained due to lack
of nitrogen availability. The coil tubing was pressure tested with water and then the was not pumped out of the coil
prior to RIH. This introduced even more fluid into the well. The well was killed initially and returns were lost during
the cleanout. Excessive fill was encountered in the heel of the well. Memory logging tools were run 2 days after
the cleanout and could not pass through the heel. The producing interval could not be logged. This attempt was
not successful due to a sub-optimal cleanout.

SPE 154221

Well B
Casing: 5-1/2 20# P110 casing
KOP: 3026 ft

Landing: 4983 ft

Stages completed: 14 stages

TMD: 8248 ft

TVD: 4688 ft

Deepest perforation: 8000 ft

Flowing conditions: 750MSCF/day, 115BWPD, casing pressure 198 psi

Figure 3: Well A Trajectory

Goal: Run a production log with active tools and understand why this well produces different from expectations.
Post completion, this well flowed at a significantly lower gas rate than expected and produced more water than
other wells.
Result: This was the first successful production log run. Fill was encountered in the heel during the cleanout.
High quality foam was maintained during the cleanout with steady wellhead pressure. The well was flowed for +/24 hours between the clean out and the production log. The plan was to flow the well for 3 days, but problems with
the facilities on location set back the flowback timing.
The log was successfully run to TD. High quality data was obtained and very little fill was encountered in the heel.
The log showed fairly even distribution across the lateral. Even the shallowest stage contributed. In general, the
stages that produced the most gas, also seemed to produce water. There was no specific wet zone seen. There
was a decent amount of water in the lateral but no obvious culprits. See results below:
Stage #

Gas Contribution (%)

Water Contribution

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

4.90
11.90
14.70
10.50
7.70
3.50
2.80
13.30
7.00
9.80
3.50
6.30
4.20
trace

Trace
Trace
Trace
Trace
-

Figure 4: Well B Production Log Stage Distribution

% of Perfs
Contributing
25
50
100
100
50
25
50
100
75
75
50
25
75
Could not determine

SPE 154221

Figure 5: Well B Production Logging Results

Gas and water contribution appear to be distributed throughout the lateral with the exception of the toe of the well.
The water encountered in this section can be explained by the well trajectory. The toe down profile may hinder the
wells ability to bring the liquids to surface, especially with such low pressures and gas rates. When considering
the entire lateral, wherever the wellbore dipped, a higher concentration of water was seen with the logging tools.
This confirmed speculation that water does sit in the low spot of the well.
DTS data was also captured in conjunction with this production log. The conventional logging tools were run first,
followed by 12 hours of DTS data capture, 4 hours flowing and 8 hours shut in. The DTS data showed a similar
trend to the data acquired with the production logging tools. The flow distribution was relatively even across the
lateral. However, the well was slugging significantly when the DTS was run so the absolute values were difficult to
compare.
Prior to this log being run, there was speculation that the water might be coming from the toe and could be shut off
with a plug. However, this log showed that the water was coming from multiple zones. This data prevented us
from accidentally shutting off gas production along with the water.
Well C
Casing: 5-1/2 20# P110 casing
KOP: 4105 ft

Landing: 5834 ft

TMD: 9940 ft

Stages completed: 19 stages (plug and perf method)

TVD: 5489 ft
Deepest perforation: 9780ft

Flowing conditions: 8,042MSCF/day, 416BWPD, casing pressure 1500psi

SPE 154221

Figure 6: Well C Wellbore Trajectory

Goal: Well C and Well D were both on the same pad. This well produced at a higher rate than compared to Well
D and an older existing well on the pad. This log was run in conjunction with Well D to understand why this well
was stronger.
Result: The cleanout of this well was successful. No excessive fill was encountered. The well was flowed for only
two days between the cleanout and the logging run due to operational constraints. In addition, this well was
compressor limited and therefore choked back slightly during the log. Ideally, a longer flow period with less back
pressure would have brought the well back to a more representative flow rate and pressure. However, the data
was still high quality.
This log also showed fairly even distribution across the lateral. Once again, the shallowest stage also contributed.
See results below:
Stage
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

Gas Contribution (%)

Water Contribution (%)

5.92
15
9.56
0
0.00
0
6.37
0
8.17
40
7.60
3
7.97
12
3.27
0
7.28
0
9.17
0
1.33
0
6.85
0
4.74
0
3.76
0
2.75
0
1.78
0
0.33
0
4.42
0
8.73
30
Figure 7: Well C Production Log Distribution Reults

% Perf Clusters
Contributing
75
66
0
66
100
25
75
25
66
40
66
100
66
100
66
33
33
66
33

SPE 154221

Figure 8: Well C Production Log Results

Based on the results of this log, all stages except stage 3 were contributing to the gas production at the time of the
logging run. During the frac, a sharp drop in pressure indicated that the plug may have slipped during this stage.
Stage 3 was pumped to completion. The proppant intended for stage 3 could have been pumped into stage 2
below, resulting in a lack of production from stage 3.
During the breakdown of both stages 6 and 10, design rate could not be reached at a suitable treating pressure.
As a result two perforation clusters were added above these stages to aid with injection. After these perforations
were added, the frac jobs were pumped to completion. In both cases, the only perforations that contributed to the
gas production were the additional clusters added after the first breakdown attempt. There are a few other stages
where only the shallowest perf clusters contributes. These were not re-perforated stages.
Well D
Casing: 5-1/2 20# P110 casing
KOP: 4489 ft

Landing: 5834 ft

TMD: 9458 ft

Stages completed: 14 stages (plug and perf method)

TVD: 6780 ft
Deepest perforation: 9300ft

Flowing conditions: 497 MMSCF/day, 1265BWPD, casing pressure 500psi

SPE 154221

Figure 9: Well D Wellbore Trajectory

Goal: Well D was on the same pad as Well C. These water and gas rates varied significantly from each other.
The goal of this log was to understand why it was a low producer. The only design different between Wells C and
D was the perforation strategy. Well D had one more cluster per stage than Well C.
Result: The cleanout of this well was successful. Significant fill was encountered and lifted out of the wellbore.
This was critical as it was a low pressure high water rate well. The flow was very similar to Well B in this paper.
This well was flowed back for three days after the cleanout run. See logging results below:
Stage
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

Gas Contribution (%)

Water Contribution (%)

0.30
0
0.85
0
0.00
0
0.26
0
0.00
0
1.26
0
6.35
0
6.48
0
12.16
6
7.42
14
11.87
16
22.35
23
22.89
11
7.82
30
Figure 10: Well D Production Log Distribution Results

% Perf Clusters
Contributing
25
75
0
25
0
50
100
50
75
50
50
75
75
75

10

SPE 154221

Figure 11: Well D Production Log results

Based on the production log, only stages 6-14 are significantly contributing to the flow. Each stage in this well was
treated with the same frac design, proppant loading, stage spacing, and perforation strategy. No operational
challenges prevented the proppant from being pumped into the reservoir. The bottom third of the well seemingly
does not produce. The wellbore trajectory is significantly toe down. At TD, the deviation is 41 degrees. Stage 6
(+/- 8000 MD) correlates to where the deviation shifts significantly from 65 degrees to 41 degrees, which is held
fairly constant until TD. This well profile potentially prevents a low pressure, low rate well from unloading the toe.
This could explain the lack, of production from the bottom +/-1000 of lateral.
Another explanation is currently being explored. While the gamma ray signature of the bottom 1000 of the well is
similar to the Marcellus formation, recently acquired 3D seismic shows structural complexity not common to the
Marcellus in the area where Well D was drilled. This remains to be speculative and further evaluation is required to
fully understand subsurface reasons for the lack of production.
Moving forward, a well specific artificial lift design will be implemented into this well in the coming months to see if
production can be improved and toe can be unloaded. This log provided the high quality data that will allow such a
system to be designed.
Additionally, the production log showed that within reason a difference in number of perforation clusters does not
necessarily affect the % of perforation clusters producing. When considering stages 6-14, the flow distribution and
% of perforation clusters contributing seems to match previous logs and potentially shows that effective fracs are
being placed.

Summary
The first campaign of production logs in the Marcellus yielded positive and promising results.
Both failed and successful logging attempts continue to highlight the important role of the cleanout run. These
practices will continue to be carried on to other production logging projects. Future logging attempts will include a
plan to improve the flowback process between the cleanout and the logging run. Field coordination and facility
constraints have dictated this process on past attempts. In the future, these stumbling blocks will be removed,
further improving the quality of data.
The logging results discussed in this paper provided key insight into the effect that completions trials have on
production. For example the varying perforation strategy between Wells C and D did not seem to affect the % of
perforation clusters contributed. However, within well C, when perforation clusters were added post breakdown
and the frac was pumped to completion, the additional perforations seemed to dominate the production
contribution for that stage. Both of these require further investigation and experimentation.

SPE 154221

11

The logging results showed that the wellbore trajectory can significantly affect the ability of the well to lift liquids to
surface, especially in Wells B and D which were toe down. These results begin to paint that picture that one size
does not necessarily fit all when it comes to artificial lift. There may be value in a more well-specific approach.
In every successful log run, the shallowest stage contributed to the gas production. Because of these results, the
completion plan will continue to including the section of the well directly above the heel, despite the deviation being
less than 75 degrees.
Moving forward, production logs will be run in conjunction with other technology trials to better understand how frac
placement, well location, and wellbore trajectory affect production.

Acknowledgements
This project would not have been possible without the hard work and dedication of the following people:
Craig Wasson and Mark Miller, SLB Coil Tubing Horseheads, NY
Chris McCann and Quincy Smith, SLB Wireline Graham, TX
Alex Menkhaus, SLB CoilTOOLS (Active Tools)
Beau Woodward , Shell On-Site Supervisor
John Harrod, Shell Production Technologist