SPE-172742-MS

Production Logging Interpretation Challenges in Evaluating Highly

Deviated Wells with Advanced ICD Completions
Irina Baca Espinoza, Roberto Vicario, and Imam Affandi, Baker Hughes

Copyright 2015, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Middle East Oil & Gas Show and Conference held in Manama, Bahrain, 8 –11 March 2015.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of informationcontained 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
In the last decade, more complex and efficient way to complete the wells has been used to maximize and
optimize the production in highly deviated/horizontal-reach wells. This requires adjustments to the
production logging (PL) interpretation methodology.
This paper demonstrates the complexity of PLT interpretation in highly deviated wells completed with
inflow control devices (ICD) and openhole packers in carbonate formations. The addressed issues and
solutions include downhole calibrations, holdup and velocity stream determination for different fluids in
the production tubing and accounting for the effect of wellbore inclination and inflow distribution from
several fluid entries per single isolated zone. Production logging is performed using standard and
advanced tools, such as multiple array modules and pulsed-neutron tools.
The ICD pre-installation design is strongly based on the availability of a permeability profile, which
is usually derived by static data logging interpretation. Consequently, the second objective of this paper
is to compare the initial permeability profile with the permeability profile derived by interpretation of
dynamic data such as PL.
The results from production logging analysis demonstrate that the standard method of PL interpretation
could be applied for advanced ICD completion evaluation by taking into consideration several factors
such as calibration, well deviation and associated holdup, flow regime and zonal inflow distribution for
multi-ICD inlets. The applicable software used for comparison of pre-design completion static-derived
productivity index (PI) is contrasted with dynamic-derived PI from production logging tool (PLT). The
pressure regime in the wellbore and annular pressures behind ICDs were used as additional input for better
understanding the fluid flowing nature and investigation of the productivity index.
The confirmed continuous permeability profile enables grid refining in a reservoir simulation study and
better planning of the well production performance. The technique and solutions described in this paper
can be widely used to evaluate and improve carbonate reservoir characterization for every deviated well
completed with inflow control devices.
Introduction
The new PL technology progress started with increased drilling of highly deviated wells about 30 years
ago. This technology introduced an array of tools for simultaneously flow measurements across the
2 SPE-172742-MS

wellbore: pulsed neutron technologies (PNC) for holdup determination and direct water phase velocities
measurements with oxygen activation tools. However, the complexity of fluid flow regimes and their
correction effect to the well are deliverables which worldwide scientists are struggling to determine.
The questions and scenarios described in this paper will be based on two-phase flow and focused in the
carbonate reservoirs of Middle East, where it is common to have an openhole production well without any
casing set.
Major challenges from PLT side will be addressed for the situations where there are two or more ICDs
per zone. The reason is that highly deviated wells have gravity effects on fluid holdups and corresponding
rapid phase velocity variations. A particular interest in these zones is the ability to provide various
interpretations, when reservoir engineers might misinterpret the information in fields study.
There are many studies of how to use the PLT data for reservoir modelling and its permeability
estimation. However, the main question to address is to validate that the PL interpretation is correct.
Ultimately, the evaluation can be done using comparison of PI derived from static-derived permeability
profile with PI coming from actual dynamic-derived production rates. Those two challenging topics will
be covered in this project.

PLT Physics and Downhole Calibration

In this section, the baseline for PLT tool is described to make the reader familiar with the technique that
will be used for velocity and phase holdup determinations. Some important aspects for shut-in tool
calibrations for highly deviated openhole and ICD completed wells are also highlighted. Eventually, for
the majority of sensors the calibration is made during shut-in conditions, when some minor cross-flow
could be detected due to the pressure stabilization between each ICD. After the data is loaded to the
applicable software it should be checked for depth matching between gamma ray (GR), casing collar
locator (CCL) and the completion schematic. The data should have a good repeatability and consistency
of the readings. Quick qualitative analysis may help to identify any pitfalls and corrective actions for
further PL sequence.

Spinner Flowmeters
The spinner-based continuous or multi-probe (MPT) PL tools still remain as the primary way to assess
flow velocity. Inline flowmeters have a small diameter and appear to be less sensitive in horizontal ICD
completed wells, even though tool records vary from case to case. For wells with high production or
low-ID restrictions, they are still recommended to use. Fullbore and turbine flowmeters have demon-
strated good sensitivity in highly horizontal ICDs and completed wells, and they could be run for a wide
range of flow rates and velocities. The calibration procedure is the same as for standard completions,
where the relation between rotations per second (RPS) and velocity depend on in-situ shut-in calibration.
The spinner’s calibration interval should be chosen in the non-flowing zone which should have the same
inside diameter as the zone of interest. One up and down continuous pass should be sufficient to determine
the velocity profile. However, if strong cross flow is observed, more passes should be added to the
program.
Due to the high cost of well shut-in or operational issues, it is still possible to do the calibration using
flowing data, but in this case the slope from the flowing survey and the threshold value from manufacturer
specification can be used. The velocity profile distribution will be adjusted to match the surface rate.

Holdup from MPT

The MPT holdup is mainly measured by different sensors and based on capacity and resistivity readings.
The data for each sensor are combined for all recorded passes to determine the individual sensor’s
response to the fluids downhole. Those responses are then used as the end-points for the final calibration.
SPE-172742-MS 3

The sensors that showed short-time effects of fluids sticking between the electrodes should be excluded
from evaluation. Intervals with reliable data only should be used.

Neutron Tools
The neutron tool used for PL measurements has been improved through several generations and different
applications, including pulsed neutron capture, carbon/oxygen logs, pulsed neutron activation water flow,
and the pulsed neutron holdup imager. The neutron tools work on the basis of detecting the hydrogen
content of the formation. The neutron is fundamental particle found in the nucleus of all atoms except
hydrogen, which contains only a proton. The neutron has approximately the same mass as the proton, but
it carries no electrical charge. These two properties, smallness of size and especially electrical neutrality,
make it an ideal projectile for penetrating matter. Neutrons pass through brick walls and steel plates easily.
They can pass through steel casing and penetrate rocks. It is logical, therefore, that they should find a place
in the arsenal of logging tools. The three main interactions that a neutron may undergo are: inelastic
scattering, elastic scattering, and thermal capture.

Pulsed Neutron Holdup Imager (PNHI)

The holdup images from the neutron uses inelastic neutron scattering measurements to image three-phase
holdups and has been used successfully in cased hole (including inside ICD) and openhole logging
applications. The pulse and detection timing for this mode are set for a high gamma ray energy or
discriminator setting. The measurement is based on observations that the inelastic near/far count rate ratio
is a strong function of the gas fraction of the borehole, and that the inelastic C/O ratio is a strong function
of the oil fraction of the borehole. A specific interval must be recorded with the well shut-in, with the
intent to provide calibration information of end points for water, oil and gas.
Different procedures apply for pulse-neutron holdup tool calibration in ICD completion, because the
tool resolution is not restricted to the wellbore only; the data are affected by fluid trapped in the annulus
between ICD inlets and wellbore. Fortunately, the tool can be programmed in the way to “see” the fluid
allocation behind the ICD as well. However, the primarily production logging objectives covers the
in-tubing holdup distribution.
The example below (Fig. 1) shows the PN tool shut-in calibration in the borehole where logging
calibration interval does not cover the 100-percent water end points. The light pink cloud is the actual data
and the dark red is the calibration adjusted to 100% water-to-oil envelope. The re-calibration for the PNHI
was reconfigured with MAPS shut-in holdup results.
4 SPE-172742-MS

Figure 1—The pulsed neutron holdup calibration and results comparison with array holdup measurements (green). A) Shows the
original calibration with water-to-oil end points and the results as the blue overlay curve. B) Shows the modified water end points and
the results as the red overlay curve.

Calibration is also affected by potentially some oil trapped in the top part of tubing and affected by
gravity-forced segregation behind the production tubing (Fig. 2). The array tools holdup in the zone where
both oil and water presents behind the ICD inlets is not affected.

Figure 2—The completion schematic with two inlets of ICDs in the isolated interval (by packers- black) and holdup distribution inside
and behind the production tubing. A) The zone for PNHI calibration in the tubing and B) The holdup distribution behind the ICD. The
red circle shows the tool resolution.
SPE-172742-MS 5

These two factors introduce a potential error to the PNHI calibration. To avoid and minimize the error,
it is suggested to use the longer calibration intervals in the ICD completed wells to cover the water-to-
water zone in and out of the ICD. The MPT holdup results become a sufficient service to calibrate and
adjust the PHNI shut-in model.

Pulse Neutron Capture (PNC)

Sigma is the macroscopic thermal neutron capture cross-section of the formation. If the formation contains
elements with high thermal neutron capture cross-sections such as chlorine, boron and gadolinium,
neutrons emitted into the formation will be captured in a very short time and the measured sigma will be
high. The sigma measurement can differentiate between saline water and oil, so that oil saturation in saline
water environments can be accurately calculated. However, the calculation is less sensitive in freshwater
reservoirs because the sigma of fresh water is similar to oil.
Carbonate reservoirs are often challenging to evaluate in terms of accurate water saturations due to the
inherent heterogeneities. Conventional resistivity-based water saturation estimates using Archie’s equa-
tion depend on petrophysical parameters strongly related to reservoir rock texture, pore structure and
wettability. These parameters are often not readily available at the time of evaluation, they require
time-consuming special core analysis to obtain, and they can vary significantly within and across
depositional sequences. Formation resistivity may also be affected by electrical current flow via paths of
least resistance offered by the presence of brine-filled microporosity and fractures. The sigma data usually
logged during shut-in and flowing conditions. The comparison is made to check whether the water
saturation changed during shut-in conditions as well as to check the consistency of tool reading.

Water Flow Log (WFL)

The WFL technique can detect water velocity flowing in both directions by changing the tool diagram.
Both continuous (Hydrolog) and stationary (Flowshot) data can be obtained for water velocity measure-
ments. The neutron from the source activates the oxygen in the flowing water and creates a proton and
a radioactive nitrogen-16, which decays to oxygen with a half-life of 7.13 seconds. Two gamma detectors
measure the gamma rays originating from this decay. The velocity of the nitrogen (and oxygen, i.e., water)
can be determined from the ratio of count rate at the two different distances from the source. The Hydrolog
method requires accurate knowledge of the background radioactivity and works well for a narrow range
of velocities (5 to 35 ft/min). The data can be acquired stationary as well as with the tool moving, which
allows extending the detectable velocity range by “following” the moving water. Stationary Hydrolog
measurements often show higher count rates and sometimes apparently lower annular (water) velocity
because of activation during the measurement. The Flowshot technique is based on the time of flight of
the activated water from one detector to another. The detectable velocity range is larger by nature of the
measurement and can be extended by placing multiple extra GR detectors downstream from the neutron
source.

PL Interpretation
The objective of production logging is to evaluate the conditions and integrity of reservoir model.
Fundamentally, production logging should be able to determine how much fluid is coming out or going
into the formation phase by phase and zone by zone, under what conditions at a given time.
There are a number of challenges addressed in PLT interpretation for highly horizontal wells in ICD
completed carbonate reservoirs. This paper is structured to address and describe possible solutions:
1. Carbonate reservoirs possess relatively consistent porosity distribution, however permeability
varies dramatically. Consequently, the continuous-phase rate profile is concluded based on
velocity distribution only. ICD entries enable the correct inflow zonal placement.
6 SPE-172742-MS

2. Deviation surveys play the key role in the holdup distribution. Most of highly deviated wells have
some circulation water presence that masks the effective contributing holdup. An incorrect holdup
picture results in the wrong phase contribution.
3. Water phase velocity variation by different tools and distributing sensors might have mismatch
results. This section suggests how to get the right velocity profile.
4. As observed from a number of horizontal wells, the sigma saturation is masked by water
re-invasion into the formation. Consequently, even the non-producing section might have increase
in saturation. This section suggests ways to interpret sigma data.
5. How the zones produce with different pressure regimes and chokes.
6. Production inflow allocation based on velocity might results in high-contrast rate distribution from
a single completion. This section describes the right way to represent production data from ICD.
Zonal Allocation Based on Velocity Variations
Having a good shut-in calibration, all apparent velocities readings from MPT and continuous spinners
should show the same increasing trend. Tool rotation and spinner rotation are usually sensitive enough to
react to any minor changes in the well and ID, as the wellbore is cased.
The ICD inlets are made at a known depth. However, there might be some issues with incorrect
corresponding velocity allocations. The completion might differ slightly due to the uncontrolled stretch
and compression while setting the tools. To check for proper depth match between reference and recorded
GR and completion, the alternative CCL is another solution. As a result, the interpreter decides to depth
shift to GR or to CCL and completion entry points. The spinner’s changing in trend response might be
tied to the openhole GR or to completion entries, as shown in Fig. 3. In case of a good correlation to the
entry ports, the zoned interpretation method could be applied. For the zoned method the errors between
simulated and measured channels are checked only on the calculated zones and using the strict slip model
compliance (Fig. 3, left).

Figure 3—The completion schematic shows the openhole wellbore with casing and isolated by packers (black) compartments; the inlet
ports are marked with red. The left picture shows the spinners response to the inlet part with same ID. The right picture shows the
continuous (blue) and array (green) single spinner rotation response for the ICD with lower ID in front of inlets.

The spinner rotations are very sensitive to the minor variation in diameter, thus could be used to depth
match as shown in Fig. 3, right. In this case, the continuous method of interpretation would be
SPE-172742-MS 7

recommended, as the errors are calculated everywhere on the schematic logs and not affected to the ID
variation.
The velocity from continuous flow meters (CFM) and MPT spinners will be slightly different. The
CFM gives the apparent velocity that will be corrected by the velocity profile correction factor (VPCF),
but the MPT result is the phase velocities without use the correction factor. For the majority of ICD
completed wells, both measurements are sensitive enough to result in similar flowing mixture velocity.
Well Deviation Role in Holdup Distribution
The majority of all drilled horizontal wells whether intentional or not has some undulation while drilling.
Particularly to highly deviating wells, even one degree of deviation changes the holdup and velocity
picture. If the water portion is trapped and does not have sufficient energy to overcome the undulation,
it stays stagnant or circulates inside the wellbore. In fact any holdup tool will have actual holdup
distribution inside the production tubing, regardless if water is produced or not.
Some software allows forcing the slippage velocities to be positive (or null) in upflow and negative (or
null) in downflow and entering a maximum slippage value. However, this does not have practical
implications. Essentially, the user should manually allocate water-producing zones. Having the ICD
completion design allows smoothing of the wellbore inclination and avoiding any possible water trapped
in the wellbore, and therefore has only the effective water holdup.
The deviation factor plays the key role in the fluid segregation that happens also behind ICDs. For cases
when the fluid flow nature is turbulent behind ICD, the several inlets could produce same mixture content,
but for stratified flow, one entry would be more or less affected by the gravity-distributed phase presence
behind the entry (Fig. 4). Judging only by holdup distribution behind the ICD and the corresponding
velocities in the tubing, the lower inflow will have more water production than high entry, where
accordingly the oil will tend to produce more. The top inlet shows the water fall down that is expected
due to the gravity effect, but should not be accountable as injection. The way to treat these cases will be
discussed later.

Figure 4 —Inflow distribution in the down-pointed deviated wellbore. Lower picture shows the fluid fraction and production quantity
corresponding to two individual ICDs that are isolated by packers.

The majority of horizontal wells exhibit snake-like trajectories that result in very complex flowing
regime and holdup variations. Consequently, at least two different methods of holdup determination are
8 SPE-172742-MS

recommended in the well that has expected water production. The time lapse for different passes and
measurements could become a serious issue when the well is not flowing stably, because the data are not
synchronized in time. This flow behavior is common for a slugs flow regime, and it could be recognized
during a real-time quality check between the first few continuous logged passes as shifted holdup. To
verify unstable flow regime the 15-minute stationary reading should be performed. Afterwards, the
interpreter should decide which measurement to use for further rate computations.
As seen from number of horizontal wells, almost all of them have a portion of water present in the heel
part. This water falls back due to the gravity and lack of drive energy; the wells cannot take the water up
to the surface. Deploying the artificial lift might help to eliminate the water presence in the heel sections.
As described above, the effective flowing holdup becomes a tricky task to manage. Still, the best way
to determine how much holdup water is efficiently produced is to compare the bottomhole water cut with
the surface reading and re-adjust the downhole produced water amount.

Phase Velocity Mismatch

Even though the flow regime behind ICDs can be turbulent, most horizontal wells have a stratified flow
regime in the production wellbore tubing. As describe earlier for the down-dip cases, the velocity on the
high side of the well will be lower than on the low side where water tends to flow fast with possible
effective holdup. Most probably the water phase will be so limited that most of the MPT and continuous
spinners will not detect it. Having this information indicates that the total mixture velocity will affect
actual water velocity. This effect has been observed in a number of wells. In such a case the spinner
rotation tool should be checked against the lowest-positioned spinners, because the spinners located in the
low side of the well will read the true water velocity. The situation is opposite for cases with a high water
holdup presence in the wellbore, as most of the spinners will be affected by water velocity. Only the
top-most allocated spinner might be used for oil phase velocity computation. In addition, the precise water
velocity can be checked using the stationary and continuous WFL.

Formation Saturation
A standard pulsed neutron capture (PNC) saturation analysis using the SEARCH algorithm can be used
to calculate water saturation for comparison with original saturation from resistivity logs to monitor
saturation changes for cases when the openhole resistivity was recorded prior ICD completion. The
difference in Sigma results should demonstrate the movable hydrocarbons and therefore help to identify
from which zone the water is producing.
After processing number of openhole and ICD-completed highly deviated wells, it is clear that stagnant
or circulation water asymmetrically re-invades to the low side of the horizon. This water causes an
additional increase in neutron capture (Sigma) and hence an increase in calculated water saturation that
is not representative for the reservoir away from the borehole. In other words, the water invasion into the
horizontal part tends to mask and overestimate the true saturation profile.
For the ICD completed wells the Sigma saturation can be masked in a number of places. One location
is the water allocation in the annulus between production tubing and the openhole, which cannot be
cleaned during production and stays trapped. Another location could be the blank intervals where the
completion fluid is trapped or if section has crossflow communication with another production unit.

Different Choke Sizes

Ideally, the PL should demonstrate how the well or the reservoir is performing under current or changed
conditions. It is a common practice to check and verify the production profile for two different chokes.
The results can give an overview of possible performance improvement and a further strategy that could
be applied. The production will increment from all inlets equally, or some additional zones may appear
SPE-172742-MS 9

to produce more. The final picture of the simulated velocity match should be carefully checked against
each inflow and fall in the agreement of the general velocity trend from both chokes.
Essentially, the lower choke will have lower drawdown pressure that might not be enough to flash some
of heavy-phase water from wellbore, thus the holdup vary. Additional measurements will be recom-
mended to confirm water velocity and holdup in low-choke conditions.
Sometimes telemetry errors and noisy data can introduce spikes which, after certain filtering, might
mask and false the true velocity picture. Filtering for the lower choke flow that has even fewer velocity
variations could indicate that a completion interval is closed, when in reality there is still a small
production occurring.

Rates Validation
As described previously, the continuous total rate is computing based on the phase velocities and holdup
distribution in the wellbore. Using these two variables inputs with constraint of only producing zones
interpretation; the picture might not be as close as the actual influx from the reservoir. Consequently, a
very important aspect in rate computation is that ICDs are positioned in the way that isolates a subsequent
zone. The production from that zone can be assumed to be average.
There are a numbers of factors that account for rate computation from each inflow zone. One of which
is the fluid segregation behind ICD. As the PLT can measure the rate only in the production tubing, the
precise interval of the openhole producing the fluid flows is unknown Having the permeability profile
across each zone might give a good understanding of zonal contribution. However, with current
technologies based on spinner rotation measurements, recognizing the inflow behind tubing remains
impossible. In addition to velocity distribution the holdup behind the tubing will stay unknown, because
the PL measures the holdup only in the production tubing. Adding the wellbore inclination issue into the
fluid segregation will completely mask and falsify the production effective wellbore holdup.
It will be a challenging for PL interpreter to allocate the right holdup with associated apparent velocity.
Fig. 5, left demonstrates the inflow contribution from an imaginary well that shows that the two ICD’s
production isolated by a single packer.
10 SPE-172742-MS

Figure 5—Imaginary well examples with different inflow interpretation approaches

The bottom-most ICD produces the majority of water and oil, and a minor contribution comes from the
upper ICD. One might interpret that the lower section of the isolated interval produces most of the fluid.
However, this is not accurate, because the exact entry is unknown. In these cases the contribution should
be equally distributed between both ICDs, as shown in Fig. 5, right. The same approach should be applied
to the rest of the production sections. The continuous total flow rate picture changes accordingly.
PLT in ICD overview
It is well-recognized that ICD completion improves overall well performance. In fact, in the majority of
openhole and cased hole, highly horizontal wells with production logging issues and problems, it is
recognized that advanced completion significantly aids in PLT interpretation. The summary results show
that:
1. The downhole rate computation is very sensitive to ID changes. It is a standard practice to use a
caliper that measures the hole diameter in two orthogonal directions in openhole completions to
verify the critical for interpretation ID measurement. The ICD helps avoid any potential hole size
variations, eliminating the need to run caliper measurements to provide confident rate calculation
results.
2. Deep, highly deviated wells have a limited access were 50% of openhole accessibility is
considered to be successful. The ICD completion allows full well accessibility for production
logging.
3. Almost every highly deviated well has stagnant water in the heel section, that chokes the well from
full production potential and introduces difficulties to PLT interpretation. The ESP completion
helps avoid stagnant or circulation water accumulation along the wellbore due to the extra
SPE-172742-MS 11

drawdown force.
4. Standard PLT horizontal openhole completed wells in carbonate reservoirs have one very impor-
tant unknown parameter: zonation. The inflow zonation is assumed to be where the velocity slope
changes or where the porosity varies. However, the first conclusion could be masked by holdup
changes (the velocity slows in water sumps) and the second porosity assumption is usually
universally constant all the way to TD. Consequently, having the ICD completion with entry points
allocation helps to define the zonal entries and distribution exactly. Having inflow zonation
information eliminates all guessing in production scenarios.
5. The benefit of an ICD completion is the clean wellbore. Horizontal openhole completed wells are
usually full of debris that blocks and eventually destroys the logging equipment. Having the clean
casing enables the use of very sensitive logging tools that produce very high-quality data that is
easy to interpret.

ICD Overview
The main objective of ICD is to delay early water or gas breakthrough, to manage unwanted fluid after
breakthrough and to improve the reservoir recovery. This could be achieved by playing with different
pressure regimes on flux which will influence the magnitude difference between reservoir and wellbore
pressures. The hardware equipment uses openhole packers to isolate sections with different productivity
index/permeability and Inflow Control Devices to regulate the flow through labyrinth channels, tubes or
orifices choking the flow and delaying early unwanted fluid breakthrough.
The ICD design and performance simulation is relatively quick process, once all the necessarily
parameters are obtained. However the carbonate reservoir performance evaluation, based on openhole
data, is risky and complicated due to the uncertainties in evaluating formation parameters.
This paper focuses on the ICD evaluation by using the PL pressure records and interpretation of
downhole production rate data for a number of working examples in Middle East and demonstrates some
vital recommendations for primarily ICD design.
The described ICD evaluation is working in reservoirs without fractures and based on the permeability
profile derived from openhole logging interpretations.

Evaluation of ICD flowing

The cumulative downhole rate is compared with the expected rate from openhole data and with the initial
ICD design. As the original simulated rate is based on the assumption of adequate valid permeability
profile, the comparison does not usually match precisely. In Fig. 6a) section B has PL profile completely
different from the expected one. This difference can be justified by a difference between the initial PI and
effective PI as per PL data.
12 SPE-172742-MS

Figure 6 —Simulated pressure a) and downhole rate b) overlap

Matching the PL flow profile will allow the user to identify the PI/permeability contrast among the
different analysed well sections.

Pressure
Once the PI/permeability contrast has been defined by matching the flow rate, it will be important to
match the PL flowing bottomhole pressure by modifying the initial permeability profile amplitude for all
the different sections between open hole packers. The result of the matching process will define the new
total PI of the well.
In our example the PL total flowing bottomhole pressure (Fig. 6b - green line) looks lower than the
simulated one. Since the pressure drop across the ICD is defined by the flow through the ICD itself, the
only way to match the green line in the simulated bottomhole flowing pressure is to reduce the PI of the
formation.

Comparison Permeability/PI Profiling

The final result of the PL match is a revised permeability/PI profile. In this stage will be important to
compare the initial profile with the PL profile. As per Fig. 7 it is possible to conclude that the initial
evaluation of the openhole data was good enough, especially in zone A and C, as ~60% of the initial
permeability is matching the PL results.
SPE-172742-MS 13

Figure 7—Permeability contrast comparison profile

The PL evaluation and the comparison with initial data give to the end user a qualitative estimation of
downhole production profile picture. Ultimately, the confirmed continuous permeability profile allows the
grid refining in reservoir simulation study and the ability to better plan the well production performance.
In Fig. 7 example, the difference in production in section B could be due to one or a combination of
the following reasons:
● Original permeability profile is questionable;
● Damaged and plugging highly permeable formations while drilling or completing the well;
● Inefficiency of the stimulation job in section B before opening the well for production;
● PLT interpretation;
● ICDs are partially closed, etc.

Conclusions
The majority of working examples has demonstrated that production logging in highly deviated ICD
completed wells have good quality of sensors responses, and therefore can provide good interpretation
results, compare to the openhole completion. By avoiding a few pitfalls described in this study, valid and
sufficient data can be obtained during real-time QC and interpretation. PL plays a key role in ICD
evaluation, allows better reservoir characterization and helps defining further remedial action plans.

Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the Baker Hughes Geoscience management for their permission to publish
this paper.

References
1. Gilchrist, W.A. Jr., Prati, E., Pemper, R., Mickael, M.W. and Trcka, D. 1999. Introduction of a
New Through-Tubing Multifunction Pulsed Neutron Instrument. Paper SPE 56803 presented at
the Annual SPE Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, Texas, October
2. Chace, D.M., Trcka, D.E. and Dawe, B.A. 1994. Applications and Interpretation of Continuous
Oxygen Activation Logs for Measuring Complex Water Flow Profiles in Injection Wells. Paper
SPE 28412 presented at the 69th Ann. Tech. Conf. And Exhibition, New Orleans, LA, USA,
25-28 September 1994
3. Trcka, D.E. and Maher, T. 1999. Inflow Fluid Typing in Screened Horizontal Completions Using
a Pulsed Neutron Holdup Imager. Paper SPE 56646 presented at the Annual SPE Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Houston, Texas, Oct 1999
14 SPE-172742-MS

4. EMERAUDE v. 2.60 online documentation and software used for graphical presentations,
KAPPA, 2013
5. Alberto Mendoza, William E. Preeg, Carlos Torres-Verdín, and Faruk O. Alpak, “Monte Carlo
Modeling of Nuclear Measurements in Vertical and Horizontal Wells in the Presence of Mud-
Filtrate Invasion and Salt Mixing”, PETROPHYSICS, VOL. 48, NO. 1 (FEBRUARY 2007); P.
28 –44
6. A. Ali Daneshy, Boyun Guo, Vitaly A. Krasnov, Sergey V. Zimin. 2010. ICD Design: Revisiting
Objectives and Techniques. Paper SPE 133234 presented at the Asia Pacific Oil & Gas Confer-
ence and Exhibition held in Brisbane, Queensland, Australia, 18-20 October 2010.