Analytical and Interpretive Problems of Production Logging
LYNN D. JONES* CARDINAL SURVEYS, I N C .
MEMBER AlME
Abstract
Analysis o f down-hole fluid movement surveys cannot
be cataloged. Although there are a f e w so-called "cook
book" methods designed to provide an easy, rapid analysis
for some surveys, these should be used sparingly. W h e n
standardized interpretations are applied to fluid movement
surveys with total disregard t o the seemingly infinite n u m -
ber o f variables affecting analysis, misleading results can
and d o occur. C o o k book interpretations can cause erron-
eous r e ~ u l twith
~ the flowmeter or spinner surveys, easiest
of all the down-hole fluid movement surveys t o interpret.
T h e v a r i o u ~ types o f tracer and temperature surveys
should never be analyzed with any sort o f standardized
interpretation. Some o f the more c o m m o n problems re-
sulting from standardized interpretive procedures are pre-
sented in this article. Possible results o f misinterpretation
are presented t o provide a background for more effective
analysis of down-hole fluid movement surveys.
Introduction
Production logging, the analysis of down-hole fluid
movement, generally requires more interpretation than
primary logging before satisfactory results are reached.
Some standard interpretation procedures have evolved in '
an effort to simplify the analysis of fluid movement logs.
As long as these cook book procedures are recognized as
being simply a basis for initiating the complete interpre-
tation, then valid, usable results will be obtained. If a
standardized form is used for the complete interpretation,
the analysis of that particular production log is only
partially complete, and the results may not indicate what
is actually happening.
Many things affect analysis of down-hole fluid move-
ment. A few down-hole variables include hole size, lami-
nar flow, counter or crossflow, tool efficiencies, logging
speed and even, in some cases, improper running of the
survey itself. Although all of these factors do not always
affect the analysis of all of the various types of production
logs, their effect should not be indiscriminately neglected.
This article is not intended to imply that a more thor-
ough analysis of the down-hole fluid movement survey
will give the complete picture every time. However, more
Original manuscript received i n Society of Petroleum Engineers office
March 13, 1967. Revised manuscript received July 3, 1967. Paper ( S P E
1781) was resented a t S P E 6th Permian Basin Oil Recovery Confer-
ence
.--. in Midland. Tex.. Mav 8-9. 1967. O C o a y r i ~ h t1967 American
. he!d ---
Institute of Mining, ' ~ e t a l l u r g i ~ a sad
l, Petraeu& Engineers, Inc.
,%Presentlywith Texas Pacific Oil Go., Midland, Tex.
AUGUST, 1967 Reprinted f r o m A u ~ u s t , 1967, Issue of JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY
MIDLAND, TEX.
thorough analysis will minimize unnecessary remedial
work to both injection wells and producing wells which
often results from cook book methods of interpretation.
Flowmeter Surveys
This discussion on flowmeters is limited to the packer-
type tool since analysis of the continuous flowmeter or
spinner survey is generally recognized as being highly in-
terpretive. The packer flowmeter is a very accurate tool
for down-hole fluid measurement. Its major limitation is
that it can measure fluid in only the pipe or borehole.
The flowmeter can provide neither information about the
distribution of the fluid after it leaves the borehole in in-
jection wells nor information concerning the location of
the flow channels prior to entering the borehole in pro-
ducing wells. A unique problem involving profiling open-
hole injection wells with a flowmeter was discussed by
Jones.' In this case, natural vertical fractures in the for-
mation precluded an accurate profile by the flowmeter.
Fluid flow through the spinner section of the tool created
enough friction pressure to cause the fluid to bypass the
flowmeter through the vertical fractures. The reduction in
measured rate through the flowmeter indicated that a zone
above it was taking fluid, when actually the water was re-
entering the borehole below the flowmeter and going on
down the hole.
Although the problems of obtaining accurate production
profiles are less numerous and severe, one problem war-
rants consideration. For optimum results, flowmeter pro-
duction profiles require much more down-hole information
on intermittent gas-lift wells than on wells utilizing con-
tinuous gas-lift systems. The producing rate during each
cycle of intermittent systems is considerably greater than
the PI of the well. Consequently, an instantaneous down-
hole rate obtained by a flowmeter would be totally inac-
curate since the well would be pumping off.
Trace A on Fig. 1 is a 15-second flowmeter recording at
a point above all producing intervals, indicating a producing
rate of 480 BJD. Since this is an intermittent gas-lift well
and does not produce at a steady rate, a 15-second recording
represents little more than an instantaneous rate. Trace B
presents the flowmeter recording during the entire 6%-
minute lifting period. The average producing rate for Trace
B is 288 B/D, but the picture is not complete until the entire
gas-lift cycle is monitored by the flowmeter. Trace C pre-
sents the entire 10-minute cycle. During the last 3% min-
'References given a t end of paper.
993
Utes of the cycle, flow is downward- the result of the
fluid in the tubing seeking the lifting fluid level. Over the
entire cycle, fluid was rising a t an average rate of 288
B / D for 6% minutes and falling at an average rate of 263
B/D for 3% minutes for a net surface producing rate of
109 B/D. The average daily producing rate from this well
prior to the survey was 100 B/D.
This example used a procedure which could be classi-
fied as standardized. The actual mathematics involved in
calculating the producing rate is standardized, but the way
the information was obtained is not. The entire cycle
shown in Fig. 1 was only one of many obtained on the
well. Sufficient cycles should be monitored a t different
depth levels to insure a stabilized producing rate.
Tracer Surveys
Several methods and tools can be categorized under
tracer surveys, all of which are to provide ultimately an
injection or production profile. Johnson and Morris' pre-
sented various methods of obtaining velocity surveys (con-
trolled interval log, controlled time log and tracer-ejector
velocities). Of these three, only the tracer-ejector lends
itself to a standard analytical procedure with minimum
possible interpretive error. A high degree of accuracy
is maintained when making velocity measurements with a
centralized tracer-ejector tool as long as the velocity is
Fig, 1-Flowmeter recordings comparing 15-second (A),
6%-minute (B) and 10-minute (C) cycles.
above 0.075 ft/sec.' However, velocity measurements alone
do not result in a complete survey.
Logging or tracing runs should always s~ipplementthe
velocity measurements. These measurements generally pro-
vide the quantitative portion of the survey while the log-
ging runs provide only the qualitative portion of the sur-
vey. Attempts have been made to adopt procedures where-
by quantitative results could be obtained by the logging
runs. Two of these methods have been used rather ex-
tensively, one utilizing an insoluble radioactive isotope
(matched density beads) and the other utilizing a soluble
isotope (Self method). A standardized procedure is used
to interpret both methods, and under ideal conditions both
will give fairly reliable results. Since ideal conditions rarely
exist, the limitations of these methods should be recog-
nized.
The matched density beads method is based on the prin-
ciple that the beads will plate out on the formation face
in the same proportion that the interval is taking fluid.
The resultant radioactive buildup as seen by the gamma
ray trace represents the profile. Quantitative values are
assigned to the various intervals after planimetering the
increase in radioactive intensity above base log. Connolly'
showed how fractures in the formation greatly affect in-
terpretation by this procedure.
The Self method is a proposed procedure for obtaining
quantitative results in shot holes. The intensity of gamma
ray responses to a slug of soluble radioactive isotope mov-
ing down the hole is compared through a series of logging
or tracing runs. The sum, in inches, of the height and
base of the gamma ray response on the logging paper for
each tracing run is the basis of comparison. The sum of
the height and base of the 100 percent rate (established
well above the first possible zone of entry) is established
as the basis for calculating the profile. As fluid is lost to
the formation, the radiation intensity of the succeeding
gamma ray trace will be less. Consequently, the height-base
sum will be less than the 100 percent rate by some propor-
tionate amount. However, highly irregular boreholes are
a major problem in trying to obtain a quantitative profile
by tracer surveys. It is ironic that the Self method is pro-
claimed to be the answer to the irregular borehole when
this one condition is the greatest cause of interpretive error.
A brief review of the basic properties of gamma rays
provides the answer to why this happens. Gamma rays are
high-energy electromagnetic waves with energies expressed
in units of million electron volts." When passing through
matter they are gradually absorbed, each additional inch
of material reducing their intensity by a given percentage.
The absorbing power is generally expressed as the half-
value thickness (HVT) which is the thickness of material
required to reduce a gamma ray to half of its intensity.
The H V T of water for 1-131, the most common radio-
active isotope used for tracer surveys, is approximately
2% in. Obviously the number of HVT's can vary con-
siderably with large variations in borehole diameter.
Abrupt hole size variations from 12 to 25 in. are very com-
mon in shot holes. Test data indicate that soluble 1-131
spreads readily in the fluid being traced, and the assump-
tion that radioactivity spreads evenly through the borehole
horizontally is valid. It could be deduced from the above
that a reduced radioactive response would be seen' with
relatively large increases in borehole sizes without any loss
of fluid to the formation.
Fig. 2 presents a theoretical case to simplify the ex-
planation of this phenomenon. In the upper portion of the
figure, the induced radiation is confined to 1 H V T and, for
simplicity, a gamma count of 400 counts/second is assumed.
The lower portion of Fig. 2 shows this same amount of movement of the tracing tool through the slug as it moves
radiation spread out over a borehole radius of 4 HVT's. down-hole.
Each H V T now contains an equal amount of isotope equi- Fig. 3 is test proof that the above theoretical example is
valent to one-fourth of the radiation intensity of the bore- valid. The same amount of radioactivity was recorded by
hole radius of 1 HVT. The gamma detector now records a scintillation gamma ray detector in 2 % - , 12- and 24-in.
100 counts/second for HVT A, 50 counts/second for HVT pipe. The reduction in radiation counting rate is a direct
B, etc., for a total count of 187.5 counts/second, less than result of the increased number of HVT's between 2 % -
half of the original count. Consequently, the height of and 24-in. boreholes. The height of deflection in the 2 % -
deflection on the recording chart would be reduced by over in. pipe is 7 in. and the height of deflection in the 12-in.
one half. The height-base sum of the radioactive response pipe is 3 in. If no fluid were being lost to the formation,
would indicate a loss in fluid if the base of the response did the base of the radioactive response would have to increase
not increase in width proportionately. Vertical spreading of by 4 in. to indicate no loss by the Self method. On stand-
radioactive slugs occurs due to both laminar flow and ard logging paper with API chart divisions, 4 in. would
represent 80 ft on a 5-in. logging scale. In other words,
if no fluid were being lost to the formation and the radia-
tion response were reduced by 4 in. due to hole enlarge-
ment, the radioactive slug that was being traced would
have to spread vertically in the hole at least 80 ft. Although
not impossible, this is highly improbable.
GAMMA RECORD l N G OF Since there is no way of knowing if fluid loss to the
DETECTOR formation is actually occurring, the above method cannot
possibly produce quantitative results over shot sections.
In cased holes and fairly gauge open holes where the bore-
hole sizes change very little, this method gives fairly good
results. It can also provide limited qualitative interpretive
data in highly irregular boreholes, but should be limited
I I I to qualitative results only.
100 1 100 1 100 / 100
GAMMA CPS 1 CPS 1 CPS 1 CPS Absolute Temperature Surveys
I I I
DETECTOR
ACTUAL 100
COUNTING R A T E
50
I
' 25
I
125-1875CPS
Interpreting temperature surveys is perhaps the most
controversial subject in the entire realm of production log-
ging today. Many physical factors, in addition to human
error, affect interpretation of both absolute and differential
Fig. 2-Example case showing the theoretical effect of temperature surveys. The basic theory and interpretation of
HVT on gamma radiation. temperature logs have been presented by N o w a k , 3 i r d 6
and others, so only problems affecting interpretation will
be discussed.
Probably the greatest physical problem in obtaining sat-
isfactory static temperature surveys is that of down-hole
counterflow. This condition will exist in all injection wells
in which the zone being flooded is a stratified formation
with large variances in permeability. Most of the carbon-
ate reservoirs in the Permian Basin fall in this category.
In some wells, counterflow may exist only a short period
of time; in others, it is known to exist for over 48 hours.
The extremity of counterflow is dependent on cumulative
injected volumes, injection rates and pressures, degree of
reservoir fill-up and reservoir stratification. There is cur-
rently no known method of predicting the degree of coun-
terflow other than an actual measurement with either a
flowmeter or tracer survey.
The series of tracing runs in Fig. 4 shows the severity of
counterflow in an injection well under supposedly static
conditions. A series of radioactive slugs was ejected be-
tween the various zones taking fluid and monitored over
a period of 1 % hours. With the exception of the top slug
which was moving upward due to backflow, the rest of
the fluid was moving downward to the lowest zone. For-
tunately, counterflow presents interpretative problems for
temperature surveys only in those wells with large gross in-
tervals. If only short zones are being flooded (10 to 20 f t ) ,
temperature surveys still give good qualitative results even
if counterflow is occurring within this interval. The log
will definitely indicate if the fluid is being confined to the
pay section. This problem is a strong argument for also
running an injecting temperature survey.
Fig. 3-Test case proving the effect of HVT on gamma One major problem of temperature log interpretation is
radiation. positively discerning between channeling in the borehole

A U G U S T , 1967
and channeling out in the formation. Utilizing data de-
termined by Ramey' and evaluating over 300 after-fractur-
ing temperature logs, both theoretically and empirically,
Agnew8 concluded that sharply defined temperature anom-
alies actually denote fractured rock. If the anomaly ex-
tends either above or below the zone of interest and ad-
verse conditions result therefrom (i.e., excessive water pro-
duction) then very little can be done to remedy the situa-
tion. If anomalies are broken by a return to the approxi-
mate gradient by the temperature traverse, a borehole
channeling condition is indicated.
Figs. 5 and 6 show temperature logs depicting these con-
ditions. Fig. 5 shows a sharply defined anomaly extending
well below the productive zone. This indicates that the
fracture is in the rock; if the lower extremity of the frac-
ture has penetrated a prolific water-bearing zone, cement
squeezing is unlikely to be successful.
Fig. 6 shows the condition which can be repaired. The
temperature curve returns almost to the gradient above
the productive zone before indicating another zone of
fracture. This is indicative of a borehole channel which
is more easily remedied than the vertical fracture out in
the rock.
There is one condition denoted by after-fracturing tem-
perature logs which does not fit the previous interpreta-
tions. When sharply defined anomalies are not seen and
the temperature traverse gradually returns to gradient
either above or below the zone of interest, a definite con-
clusion cannot be reached. It is impossible to tell if the
anomaly is the result of a fracture well out in the for-
mation or a borehole channel.
Note the gradual return to gradient above the anomaly
Fig. 4--Measuring counterflow in injection well under apparent static conditions.
in Fig. 7. This condition is diflicult to interpret by tem-
perature logs alone. A tracer survey, because of its depth-
of-investigation limitation, would tell if this represented
a remedial conditiori. If an upward movement were traced
with scintillation detectors, a borehole channel would
exist. The volume of fluid leaving the pipe at this point
would govern the need for remedial operations. If no up-
ward movement of fluid wcre traced, the fluid move-
ment would be out in the formation, thus minimizing the
possibility of corrective measures. This is a prime example
where more than one survey is required to pinpoint the
problem.
Identifying channeling conditions by temperature sur-
veys in water injection wells is more difficult than identi-
fying channeling conditions by after-fracturing tempera-
ture logs. Primarily, this is due to the large difference in
volumes of fluid that have been pumped into the wells.
Even with "River-fracs", the volume of treating fluid will
seldom exceed 10,000 to 12,000 bbl, whereas injection wells
will have cumulative injection volumes of several hundred
thousand barrels. Assuming that the injection presswes
are maintained below that required to induce formation
fracturing, the primary heat transfer mechanism when
injection ceases will be unsteady-state radial conduction.
There will also be a certain amount of heat transfer due
to unsteady-state linear conduction, but it will not be the
result of fracturing. Vertical flow of heat between the zone
of intake and adjacent zones will be linear. In addition,
there could be some fluid crossflow between zones. The
net result is generally a temperature traverse similar to that
shown in Fig. 7.
Many water input wells were hydraulically fractured
JOURNAL O F PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY
 prior to conversion to injection service. However, if
enough fluid has been injected into the well to extend the
effective temperature borehole radius to the horizontal ex-
tent of the fracture, then the temperature traverse will
still be primarily affected by unsteady-state radial conduc-
tion. There is no way of knowing when any of the above
conditions exist to the extent that they control the tem-
perature anomaly. Consequently, when analyzing injection
well temperature logs, the additional factors involved cre-
ate many more interpretive problems.

Differential Temperature Suweys

Fig. 5-Temperature curve indicating fracturing in
the rock.
Differential temperature surveys can provide good sup-
plemental information to absolute temperature logs, but
only in a qualitative manner. There are essentially two
types of differential tools: those utilizing two sensing ele-
ments and those utilizing a single sensing element. The A
Priori differential tool uses the single-element principle and
is an improvement over the two-element principle because
the temperature of undisturbed fluid is being measured
and recorded at all times. A current fallacy is the quanti-
tative interpretation being applied to it.
The suggested theory supporting quantitative analysis
by the A Priori differential tool is totally contrary to all
previous temperature logging theories contributed by the
industry. Previous work supports the theory that the bore-
hole temperature of water moving by zones of intake will
remain constant. The proponents of the A Priori differen-
tial temperature theory "suggest" that the old theory is
wrong and "suggest" that the borehole temperature of the
water will decrease across zones of intake (provided the
fluid flow is laminar) and the temperature traverse will

Fig. 7-Example of temperature curve which cannot be

conclusively interpreted; indicates need for other
Fig. &Temperature curve indicating a borehole channel. surveys to isolate problem.

A U G U S T , 1967
have a negative slope across these zones." Since the A Pri-
ori tool has been designed to successfully measure negative
slope, it is "suggested" that only the differential deflection
to the left of some indiscriminately selected vertical line
represents fluid intake, with quantitative volumes being
determined by the area under the differential deflection.
All of this new theory has been advanced after making the
assumption that thermal conductivity occurs only within
the zone of intake and that none occurs between the zone
of intake and adjacent zones. This assumption eliminates
from consideration the one variable which creates the prin-
ciple interpretive problem of analyzing injection well tem-
perature logs. Consequently, a standardized interpretation
is derived, apparently through the additional assumption
that an ignored problem does not affect the final analysis.
The A Priori tool is a step in the right direction in that
a highly sensitive, single-element, differential temperature
tool has been needed. But the quantitative claims tend to
create doubt in the validity of all the data which can be
obtained with this tool.
Conclusions
There is no single production logging tool or survey on
the market today that will consistently give a complete
analysis of down-hole fluid movement. Standardized inter-
pretive procedures many times tend to hinder rather than
aid proper interpretation. Knowledge of the limitations of
the various tools available will provide the basis of good.
sound analysis, resulting in more efficient and economical
operations in both primary and secondary phases of pro-
duction.
References
1. Jones, L. D.: "Proper Tool Selection for Refined Production
and Injection Well Profiling". paper presented at the Southvest-
ern Petroleum Short Course, Lubbock, Tex. (April 21-22, 1966).
2. Johnson, W. B, and Morris, B. P.: "Review of Tracer Surveys",
Paper 906-9-E, A P I Southwest Dist., Div. of Prod., Midland,
Tex. (March 18. 1964).
3. Connolly, E. T.: "Reiume and Current Status of the Use of
Logs in Production", paper presented a t SPR'LA Logging Sym-
posium, Dallas (May 4-7, 1965).
4. Introduction to Schlurnberger Yell Logging, Schlmnberger Well
Surveying Corp. Document 8 (1958) 83.
5. Nowak, T. J.: "The Estimation of Water Injection Profiles f ~ o m
Temperature Surveys", Trans., AIME (1953) 198, 203-212.
6. Bird, J. M.: "Interpretation of Temperature Logs", Drill. and
Prod. Prac., A P I (1954) 187.
7. Ramey, H. J., Jr.: "Wellbore Heat Transmission", .I.
Pet. Tech.
(April, 1962) 427-435.
8. Agnew, R. G.: "Evaluation of Fracture Treatments with Tem-
perature Surveys", J. Pet. Tech. (July. 1966) 892-898.
9. Johns, Earl: "Tracing Fluid Movements With a New Tempera-
ture Technique", paper S P E 1750 presented at S P E Sympociurn
Fort Worth (March 5-7, 1967). ***
on Mechanical Engineering Aspects of Drilling and Production,
L Y N ND. JONESis a petroleum en-
gineer with Texas Pacific Oil Co. re-
sponsible for evaluating performance o j
secondary recovery operations. H e was
previously a sales engineer with Cardi-
nal Surveys Co. in Odessa, Tex., active
in sales and evaluation of production
logs. Jones was a petroleunz enginecr
with Pan American Petroleum Corp.
from 1957 to 1965 working in all phases
o f production engineering, primary and sec&ary' reser-
voir engineering and unitization work. A registered profes-
sional engineer in Texas, he received his BS degree in
petroleum engineering from The U . o f Texas in 1957.