Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
SPE
Society of Petroleum EngineePS
A method of individual zone productivity and inflow performance The well is com pleted in a carbonate reservoir which is divided into
relationship testing has been employed in two prolific offshore oil fields. 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
The procedures involving downhole measurement of flow and
and log data indicates facies changes that could be significant to porosity
pressure data using production logging combination tools are explained.
and permeability relationships. Also, detailed correlations seem to
This testing approach conveniently obtains individual zone indicate tight barriers between productive streaks. As the barriers are
productivity information as well as general PI data, and is therefore not impermeable, the effects on production and pressure maintenance
useful for delineating important reservoir characteristics. Field results are not yet known.
from carbonate and sandstone reservoirs are presented and discussed.
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
INTRODUCTION adverse conditions and safety precautions because of high H,S content,
only short term pressure transient tests have been performed.
Pressure transient testing, production logging, and well production Interpretation has shown that the kh values derived from short term
testing are commonly used techniques for evaluating and improving flow tests may differ significantly from predictions of long term
well and reservoir performance. With enhanced recovery projects, performance. Finally, flowing profiles were routinely obtained at only
sophisticated sim ulation and modeling, as well as exploration and the well"s normal rate and no data is available to compare profiles
production increasing world wide, determining and monitoring dynamic obtained at different rates.
reservoir perform ance is hecom ing mandatory.
Field Case Well 2
Extensive data acquisition program s have been initiated in offshore
Saudi Arabian fields to provide input for facility planning and reservoir Well 2 is completed in a massive highly permeable sand (Main
modeling studies. The information required includes core, PVT, open Sand) which is overlain and underlain by a sand and shale sequence of
hole logs, production logs, inflow perform ance and pressure transient lesser permeability. These sands make up an oil reservoir which is
tests, and BHP data. The primary objective of this study is to establish overlain by a gas cap, and in portions underlain by water. The PVT
guidelines for proper reservoir management and future development. properties of the oil vary, and the bubble point, solution GOR and API
gravity decrease with depth.
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 Gas production has begun to increase in the field. This results in
enables the operator to determ ine downhole conditions and monitor the part from the existence of the gas cap and from flowing bottom hole
test ptogress. Two case histories are presented in which the tool pressures at or below the bubble point of the produced oils. In addition
provided specific data for well and reservoir evaluation. 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
HISTORY of equipment when choking back and when turning wells onto
prod uction.
The case histories discussed are in fields located offshore of Saudi
An extensive well logging program was begun to monitor and
Arabia, on the west flank of the prolific Middle East Basin.
evaluate the effects, and extent, of gas and sand production. The
logging package consisted of a Production Com bination Tool (PCT),
M ark of Schlum berger Thermal Decay Time Tool (TDT') and a Noise Log, coupled with a
297
PRODUCTIVITY TESTING USING PRODUCTION LOGGING TECHNIQUES SPE 9610
single rate production test. In general, these. logs have been helpful in IPR's should exhibit straight lines in the range of flow where the Darcy
monitoring free gas movement and in serving as a basis for evaluating equation applies, and in absence of free gas at reservoir depth. The
well performance. But because of the presence of free gas in the straight lines for individual zones a~e expected to intersect the IPR
reservoir, and having only a single rate test, nothing could be said pressure axis (zero flow) at their respeccive boundary pressures.
about the amount of productivity impairment in a well.
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
DATA ACQUISITION OBi ECTIVES
uniform as a consequence of depletion or injection. Crossflow may
disturb not only the planned reservoir drainage process, but also
The following objectives were developed to provide specific data and
contribute to erroneous transient pressure record evaluation since the
to assist in the evaluation of the data acquisition program:
record would represent the cross flow pressure rather than the boundary
pressure, Figure 2b. In the case of free gas or water production, a
1. Obtain multi-rate flowing profiles to confirm lithology and
selective IPR will help to estimate optim urn well operating conditions.
stratigraphy.
In addition, the location of such entries along the producing profile can
2. Obtain stabilized multi-rate inflow perform ance tests to com pare be found with prod uction logging tools in com bination with the PI
indices derived from short term tests with predictions of long term testing instrumentation. Partial or complete buildup or drawdown tests
performance. Determine onsite the flow period required for can be incorporated in the PI test routine without major additional
stabilized rate. costs.
3. Obtain pressure buildup and drawdown data to assist in PI Practical considerations in favor of PI testing with production
evaluation. Determine onsite the required shut-in time necessary logging techniques include:
for accurate kh and PI analysis.
Continuous, real time surface monitoring of (he test progress.
4. Obtain individual zone inflow performance. Analysis of this data
should confirm pressure gradients shown by RFT data. If zone Accurate depth control.
pressure data is not available, the analysis could dictate the need
Immediate repeat of tests where data is uncertain.
for zone testing with DST or RFT tools.
Observation of unusual flow entry patterns.
5. Obtain pressure versus rate data for facilities and artificial lift
modeling studies. Time saving since transient tests can be discontinued when
sufficiently developed.
6. Determine stirn ulation and completion requirements.
8. Obtain the above data with minim urn downtime and expense. The availability of a high precision, surface recording quartz
pressure gauge, in combinarion with production logging sensors, has led
It was recommended that a Combination Production Tool using a high.
to the new concept of downhole selective PI testing, permitting reliable
precision quartz pressure gauge with surface readout be utilized to
tests in conditions of small pressure drawdown and high flow rates.
achieve these objectives.
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,
DATA ACQUISITION are summarized in Table 1. The features included in the PL T make it
highly adaptable to well testing:
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.
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.
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.
Type of flowmeter
299
PRODUCTIVI1'Y TESTING USING PRODUCTION LOGGING TECHNIQUES SPE 9610
interval 8900-9020_ The bottom producing interval (zone 3) correlates facilities as well as for designing artificial lift requirements.
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 Field Case Well 2
8958-8962 on Figure 5.
This well was cased and com pleted in a sandstone reservoir as
The information needed to analyze the well and reservoir
shown in Figure 14. Flow profiles indicate that the well is producing
perform ance was obtained over a three-day period. Downhole flow
from three zones: zone I (5876-5925), zone 2 (5925-5993) and zone 3
rates and pressures were monitored in real tim e at the surface with the
(6004-6016).
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. Sand production in the field can be a problem and is increased by
The pressure response of the well over this test period is shown in non-uniform, high specific production rates within the perforations. On
Figure 7, where the "heavied-in" intervals on the response curve the flowmeter log shown on Figure 15, note the intervals 5897-5898,
identify when the actual pressure meaSurements were taken. Pressure 5909-5910, and 5911-5912 which have high specific production rates.
data recorded at 8860 ft. is shown in Tables lA, 2A, 3A, 4A, and 5A in These jetting entries probably contribute to sand production.
the appendix. For analysis, all pressures are referred to 8960 ft. which Recom m endations have been made to reperforate such wells in order to
is the midpoint of the producing interval. create more uniform flow profiles.
Plots of flowmeter (rps) versus cable speed (ft/min.), with the well Measured fluid velocity (Vm) and hence flow rate for zones 1, 2,
producing at different rates, are shown in Figures 8, 9 and 10. and 3 was obtained from Figures 16 and 17. Zone I includes a 4 ft.
Readings were recorded at 8895, 8950 and 8985 ft. for all three tests. stringer of rate dependent free gas production. The PI interpreted in
this zone disregards the free gas portion of production because of its
The tool response slope was established by drawing median lines
unknown characteristics. However, through interpretation of the
through the plotted points for each depth chosen. Effects of rate
Gradiomanometer, Figure 18, the amount of the free gas portion can
fluctuations or tool response variations are thus reduced by averaging.
be determined. For Test 1 the total production was 34% gas
(A linear regression equation applied with a pocket calculator does the
(5670MCFD) and for Test 2 it was 40% (l1740MCFD). The PI's for
Same job).
zones 2 and 3 are easily obtained with the selective method described
The difference in flowmeter rps between x-axis intercepts of the previously. The data needed to analyze the well is summarized in
zero flow line and the slope line at the dept~ chosen is divided by the Table 3.
slope to give measured fluid velocity Vm.
The IPR plot, Figure 19 indicates a slight pressure difference leading
The stock tank rate at the depth chosen is thus obtained from the to the suspicion of a slight crossflow from zone I to zones 2 and 3 with
following: the well in a stabilized shut-in condition. This cross flow seems to be
confirmed by other measurements as well. For example, the High
Q STB = 1.4 Vm C d 2 B;' Resolution Temperature log, Figure 20, exhibits down flow
temperature pattern with the well shut-in. The resolution of the
QSTB: Rate in B/d
flowmeter tool was not sufficient to verify the small crossBow. Note
Vm : Measured fluid velocity in ft/min 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
C : Turbulent flow front correction factor, usually .83
is the cross flow pressure and is prohibiting extended buildup
d Hole diam eter in inches (obtained from caliper log, evaluations.
Figure II)
Reservoir data gained from other wells in the field also support the
Bo: Formation volume factor occurence of the slight pressure difference indicated by the IPR plot.
Recent RFT results indicate that sands closer to the gas cap have higher
This tim e consum ing interpretation process can be handled by the
pressures. Also, flowmeter analysis from other wells indicate that zones
PLIEDE computer program.
close to the top of the massive sand are preferentially produced. On
The IPR plot for the well and for the three producing intervals is the basis of these and other findings, a new completion strategy has
shown in Figure 12. Being located in a new area of the field, no been developed, part of which is to complete wells away from the top of
significant pressure differences seem to exist between the individual the massive sand.
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. CONCLUSION
Analysis of the IPR for the three zones shows that the productivity
The selective PI testing method provides essential reservoir
indices vary with different rates. Prior testing in the field (without
parameters. The technique meets all of the data acquisition objectives
sim ultaneous flow profiles) also indicated that the total well PI varied
'discussed, and provides valuable information for reservoir modeling,
significantly with changing rates. Usually the PI increases as the rate
.artificiallift studies and proper reservoir management.
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 The Com binadon Production Logging Tool has proven to be an
did not confirm this theory and additional testing must be perform ed to efficient tool for productivity testing. The two case histories
explain the changing productivity indices. demonstrate the ability of the tool to provide data for evaluating zone
IPR.
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
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
helpful for modeling purposes.
The long flowing and buildup times will aid in determining future The authors wish to thank the Arabian American Oil Company and
testing requirements and for analyzing and comparing previous short Schlum berger for perm iss ion to use and publish the necessary data in
term tests. The data will also be he.lpful for modeling the well and this paper.
300
SPE 9610 E. N. WEISS,J. G. TAYLOR, R. M. TORONYI
REFERENCES TABLE 4A
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
",.
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
...""
PROD INDEX FAOM EPR ST81D/PSI
TOTAL LENGTH PRODUCING fT
AVERAGE SPEC PI STB/DIPSllfT "
."
I
CALCULATED PI STBID PSI '.9
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
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
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
WELL No.1
~_ _ PRESSURE RECORDING
GALVANOMETER
RECORDER
DEPTH 8860-11.
Fig. 3 - Simultaneous Production Logging Device. Fig. 4 - Completion - Field Case Well 1.
FIELD CASE WELL 1
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.
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 ~. /'./"
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
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
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
WELL No.2
IPR PLOT
" ........,
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
-~
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