黑料网

Reservoir Evaluation; PLT tools; Alfa tools

Introduction

Alfa-temp-cfs spinner logs were recorded in well A-05 on 25th – 26th and 29th January 2020, across the Barremian S st. formation under 2 production conditions (32/65 & full choke) and time-lapse shut-in conditions. The time-lapse shut-in survey was done after 15 min, one and two hours after closing the well [1]. The intervention objective was to identify the production profile across the perforation intervals, to determine casing integrity and to evaluate any flow behind casing [2]. The data was acquired through the interval from 11,530 to 11,852 ft MD. This report details the Alfa-Temp-Cfs Spinner interpretation results and main findings of the flow geometry [3]. The main objective of Alfa-Temp-Plt in this well is to:

• To evaluate the production profile across the perforation intervals.
• To evaluate the cross-flow profile (if any), under shut in conditions.
• To evaluate the presence of behind casing channeling.
• To identify any source of leakage within the wellbore.

Alfa-temp log interpretation results

Two flowing passes were done under different choke sizes (32/65 and full choke), three transient passes (short-term

shut-in) and a long-term shut-in survey [4]. The shut-in and flowing temperature surveys were carried during down

passes at a speed of 15 ft/min. ALFA data was performed during up-pass stationary measurements for 40 seconds at

each station as per the sequence of events in the attachment chapter [5]. The data is of good quality and shows good

Repeatability throughout the whole survey [6]. Data was correlated using CCL across tubing with completion items

provided (Table 1).

Table 1: Data Quality

Job Performance

Alfa-temp log main findings

• Cross flows/channelings and behind-casing formation activities (Table 2) [7].

Well Condition	Log	Abbreviation
SHUT-IN	Alfa-temp-pres-ccl-yw	SI
Low Flow Rate (32/65)	Alfa-temp-pres-ccl-yw	LF
15 min after SHUT-IN (Transient)	Alfa-temp-pres-ccl-yw	T1
1 hour after SHUT-IN (Transient)	Alfa-temp-pres-ccl-yw	T2
2 hours after SHUT-IN (Transient)	Alfa-temp-pres-ccl-yw	T3
High Flow Rate (Full Choke)	Alfa-temp-pres-ccl-yw	HF
High Flow Rate (Full Choke)	Cfs spinner	CFS_high_flow
Low Flow Rate (32/65)	Cfs spinner	CFS_low_flow

Table 2: Job Performance

• Slower relaxation of transient temperatures and localized high amplitude Noise data associated with behind casing formation activity within the interval 11,694-11,700ft and channeling through behind casing towards the top perforation.
• There is no temperature anomalies and specific localized noise across top water saturated formation within 11,655-11,688ft which suggests no formation activity and no crossflow or channeling.
• Temperature matching below the depth 11,838ft in all good conditions and no localized noise suggest there is no behind casing channeling and inside wellbore fluid flow [8]. CFS spinner data confirms no fluid flow below the depth of 11,838ft.
• Formation activities/Production intervals from ALFA-TEMP data
• 11,694-11,700ft – Behind casing formation activity [9]. Detected from ALFA (localized high amplitude noise) and Temperature data.
• 11,715-11,720ft – across PERF1 formation activity. Detected from ALFA (localized high amplitude noise) and Temperature data [10].
• 11,727-11,730ft and 11,733-11,739ft - across PERF2 formation activity. Detected from ALFA (localized high amplitude noise) and Temperature data.
• 11,748-11,762ft – across PERF3 formation activity. Detected from ALFA (localized high amplitude noise) and Temperature data.
• 11,771-11,780.5ft – across PERF4 formation activity. Detected from ALFA (localized high amplitude noise) and Temperature data.
• 11,806.5-11,817.5ft – across PERF5 formation activity. Detected from ALFA (localized high amplitude noise) and Temperature data [11].
• 11,820-11,833.4ft – across PERF6 formation activity. Detected from ALFA (localized high amplitude noise) and Temperature data.
• PLT calculation was done in KAPPA EMERAUD using water hold-up sensor with 0-5% (air) and 100% (water) calibration values with correlation for the water-hydrocarbon vertical producer as well as PVT data provided by the client [12]. Spinner data shows a huge production rate across the two bottom perforations with approximately equal rate distribution. Qualitative water hold-up analysis shows a very weak hydrocarbon response across PERF6 and drastic hydrocarbon presence across PERF5 with almost equal rates as mentioned above [13]. Across production zones above PERF5 and PERF6 water hold-up shows a response change towards hydrocarbon with a production rate of 30% from the total value only. KAPPA calculation results match with qualitative data analysis [14]. In addition, PLT sensor results were confirmed by the Temperature and Spectral Noise tool. According to the flowing ALFA and Temperature data, there is approximately equal production from PERF5 and PERF6. Long-term-shut-in temperature shows the same heated gradient within the interval 11,814 – 11,840ft this might be associated with through formation communication between the bottom water saturated reservoir, PERF6 and PERF5 intervals [15]. In addition, there is no fast-transient temperature relaxation towards the geothermal gradient between the PERF5 and PERF6 that suggests communication between these intervals. Based on the above-mentioned points it was decided to use production distribution outputted from the KAPPA EMERAUD [16].
• Fracture/ Matrix flow: Theoretically, a big-size aperture (fracture) creates low-frequency noise and a small-size aperture (matrix) high-frequency noise [17]. In the downhole condition, everything is complicated, and it is not possible to differentiate micro-fractures from matrix flow [18]. High permeable fractures/faults can be differentiated from matrix flow by integration of PLT-TEMP-ALFA qualitatively. In this particular well a based on the integrated data package no high permeable fracture/fault flow is detected [19]. 

Well Bore Flow

The spinner flow meter was calibrated in intervals 11,551.9-11,570.4 ft. (multiphase flow zone) and 11,831.6 11,839.5ft (no flow zone) [20]. The calibration was done in 7” casing and 2 7/8” tubing. The calibration cross-plot is shown below in figure and calibration parameters in the Table 3. Based on production logging results, the total Production rate was 2,879.5 STBPD with 34% of WC (at surface condition) when the well was at full choke production [21]. The main production interval is 11,807-11,816.8ft with around 59% of the total production value [22]. A detailed distribution determined by CFS is shown in Table 4.

Table 3: Production distribution according to CFS data (High Rate – Full choke)

Table 4: Production distribution according to CFS data (Low Rate – 32/65 choke)

Based on production logging results, the total Production rate was 2,170.9 STBPD with 51% of WC (at surface condition) when well was at 32/65 choke production. Main production intervals are 11,806.6-11,814.3ft and 11,820.9-11,824.8ft with around 77% of total production value. A detailed distribution determined by CFS is shown in Table 4.

Alfa-temp (high & low production) – inflow zone (Figure 1)

Figure 1: ALFA-TEMP (High & Low Production) – Inflow Zone.

Alfa-temp-spinner (high & low production) (Figure 2)

Figure 2: ALFA-TEMP-SPINNER (High & Low Production).

Alfa-temp-spinner (high & low production) – zoom – top zone (Figure 3)

Figure 3: ALFA-TEMP-SPINNER (High & Low Production) – Zoom – Top Zone.

Alfa-temp-spinner (high & low production) – zoom – bottom zone (Figure 4)

Figure 4: ALFA-TEMP-SPINNER (High & Low Production) – Zoom – Bottom Zone.

Alfa-Temp (Shut-In) (Figure 5)

Figure 5: ALFA-TEMP (SHUT-IN).

Spinner (high & low production) (Figure 6)

Figure 6: SPINNER (High & Low Production).

Spinner (high & low production) (Figure 7)

Figure 7: SPINNER (High & Low Production).

Conclusions

The total Production rate was 2,879.5 STBPD with 34% of WC (at surface condition) when well was at full choke production. Main production interval is 11,807-11,816.8ft with around 59% from total production value. According to the water hold-up data water is being produced from the intervals 11,807-11,816.8ft and 11,820.9-11824.8ft bottom perforation intervals. A detailed distribution determined by CFS is shown in the table 3.

• The total production rate was 2,170.9 STBPD with 51% of WC (at surface condition) when well was at 32/65 choke production. Main production intervals are 11,806.6-11,814.3ft and 11,820.9-11,824.8ft with around 77% from total production value. According to the water hold-up data water is being produced from the intervals 11,806.6-11,814.3ft and 11,820.9-11,824.8ft bottom perforation intervals. A detailed distribution determined by CFS is shown in the table 4.
• Temperature and Noise data show behind casing formation activity within the interval 11,694-11,700ft.
• No behind casing channeling/crossflow is detected above perforation intervals from the top water saturated formations.
• No behind casing channeling/crossflow is detected below perforation intervals from the bottom water saturated formations.
• No wellbore fluid flow is detected below 11,838ft. No plug integrity issue.
• The pressure and temperature at 11,716 ft MD under shut in (long term), low production and high production are as follows:
• Shut in (long term): 5,013.7 psi and 265.2 degF
• Flowing (32/65): 4,127.1 psi and 267.5 degF
• Flowing (Full choke): 3,843.8 psi and 267.8 degF

References

1. Abualkhir, Eders A (2016)  . AAPG GEO 2016, The 12th Middle East Geosciences Conference and Exhibition March 7-10 Manama, Bahrain.
2. Aurélien Saussay (2018) . Energy Eco 69: 295-306.
3. Charles FM, Lucija AM, Sheila MO (2015) . Resources for the Future, 1616 P St. NW Washington, DC 202: 328-5000.
4. .
5. EIA (2011) . Washington, DC: US Depart Energy.
6. Euzen T (2011) . IFP Technologies(Canada) Inc.

,

7. Hallett D, Daniel CL (2016) . 2nd Edn 9780444635174.
8. Hassan HS, Kendall CCG, Marlow L, Kendall C, Yose L (2014) 106: 101-141.

,

9. Ibeda A, Abosith MF, Alemad A, Elkharrim K, Belghyti D (2014) . WIT Transact Ecol Environ 178: 1743-3541.

,

10. Ibrahim Md, Abdul M, Mahazan  AA (2013) . Australian J Basic App Sci 7: 537-540.
11. Jauda RJH, Marlia MH, Wan ZWY (2017) . Malaysian J Sustainable Agri 1: 2-5.
12. Kamel D, Riadh A, Jamel AO (2019) . Oil Shale 2: 337-352.

,

13. Li WNM (2019) . Int J Scient Res Pub 9: 2250-3153.
14. Marcelo NF, Edson OP, Paulo RJr, Victor Ede MV (2016) Feasibility analysis of the development of an oil field: a real options approach in a production sharing agreement. Rev Bus Manag 19: 574-593.

,

15. Nuno MCF, Li W (2019) . Int J Sci Res Pub 9: 2250-3153.

,

16. Rashrash S, Farag HS (2016) . J Water Res Protect 8: 1191- 1209.

,

17. Rusk DC, Downey MW, Threet JC, Morgan WA (2001) . AAPG Memoir 74: 429-452.
18. Sikander H, Basu S, Ertug K, Wafa F (2010) .
19. Stefan L, Matthias A, Sofia C, Zsolt M, Werner W, et al. (2011) . 2011-2017.
20. Valentina I (2015). . Rom Stat Rev.
21. Wright EP, Benfield AC, Edmunds WM, Kitching R (1982). . Quar J Eng Geo Hydro 15: 83-103.

,

22. Zhiltsov SS, Semenov AV (2017) Shale Gas: History of Development. S.S. Zhiltsov (edn Shale Gas: Ecol Pol Eco Hdb Env Chem 52: 9-16