Application of the Radioactive Tracer Log for Flow Measurement in Polymer Injection Wells*
S.P. Figliuolo1, F. Peñalba1, H.P. Burbridge1, M. Ichard1, M. Ravicule1, J.E. Juri1, and A.M. Ruiz Martinez1
Search and Discovery Article #41640 (2015)**
Posted June 30, 2015
*Adapted from oral presentation given at AAPG Latin America Region, Geoscience Technology Workshop, Extending Mature Fields’ Life Cycles: The Role of New
Technologies and Integrated Strategies, Buenos Aires, Argentina, May 11-12, 2015
**Datapages © 2015 Serial rights given by author. For all other rights contact author directly.
1
YPF Tecnologia S.A., Buenos Aires, Argentina (silvio.p.figliuolo@ypftecnologia.com)
Abstract
Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) technologies assessment aims to increase the recovery factor from mature fields. To achieve this objective the
work is directed to progressively reduce uncertainty by recording and evaluating laboratory and field information, as well as performing
forecasts using modeling and simulation. In this context of technological exploration, implementation of a polymer injection pilot project
challenges techniques and tools routinely used in secondary recovery.
One of these challenges is the measurement of polymer flow rate taken at each perforation. This parameter aids to optimize the efficiency of the
CEOR process by allowing the evaluation of the sweep efficiency per layer and its evolution over time.
As part of a pilot project in the San Jorge Gulf Basin (Argentina) a polymer injectivity test was conducted in Well A. During this test the
radioactive flow-log tool was used in an attempt to determine the fluid intake by perforations. This tool is commonly used for monitoring water
injection in secondary recovery projects.
In water injection wells the flow is turbulent, which promotes the diffusion of radioactive tracers into the main stream of the well. But when the
tool is used with polymer, due to the increased viscosity of the fluid, the flow regime becomes laminar, which impairs the tracer diffusion
process. Thus, for polymer injectors, the flow-log tool response complicates the determination of flow rate received by each perforation. In
order to better understand the process of measuring and estimating flow rates for each perforated interval in the well, the workflow applied
consisted of the following steps:




All records of operations carried out using the flow-log tool in Well A is thoroughly analyzed.
Literature on the theory and practice of the flow-log tool and tracers was reviewed.
Using the method proposed by the service provider and an alternative method, all records were reinterpreted, including both water and
polymer injection for Well A.
Computational fluid dynamic simulations (CFD) were conducted to better understand the phenomenon and evaluate the validity of the
proposed alternative method of interpretation.
Application of the Radioactive
Tracer Log for Flow Meassurement
in Polymer Injection Wells
Silvio Figliuolo - Fernando Peñalba - Horacio Burbridge - Mat
Ichard - Marcela Ravicule - Juan Juri - Ana María Ruíz
Introduction
Background
 Flow rate measurements by reservoir may contribute to determine polymer flooding project efficiency. Gerencia de
Proyectos Especiales y Manantiales Behr staff (YPF S.A.).
 Information provided by the flow-log tool in use for flow rate measurements, during polymer injection, is confusing and
difficult to interpret. The method used is not designed for the laminar flow conditions.
 Opportunity for identification/development of alternatives for EOR projects.
Objective
 To provide reliable measurements of polymer flow rate distribution, by reservoir. This information should allow to evaluate
polymer flooding efficiency.
Workflow
Injection Well Characteristics
Tool Specifications and
Operation Procedure
Alternatives
New Interpretation Method.
Logging Process Modification.
Tool reengineering and modification.
Alternative tools availbility.
New tool design project.
Measurement Process
Review
Analysis of Results
Feasibility
Possible
Solutions
Breakdown
Time for
Implementation
Cost $
I
Flow-Log Tool
YPF TECNOLOGfA
1-318" CAS IN G COLLAR L OCATO R
Diameter.
1-]; 6" (3A.9mm·l
Length·
2 1.5 '
PresOlU re Rating
20.000 psi (137.9 MPa )
(54 6 mm. )
Te mper.:J tu re Rating
350 F (176'C)
Operating Voltage:
100 Vde @ 15rnA
1-3/8" TR AC ER EJ EC TOR
•
Diameter
1-3,'8" (34.9mm·l
Leng tll
36.6a" (931 mrn.l
Capacity:
50 cc
Pressure Rating:
17.m)() psi (117.2 MPa)
Temperatu re Rating:
350 F (176q
Operating Voltage '
100 Vde Positive ..,. Fill
100 Vde Nega ti....e --7 Eject
I,
I
1-318"' GAMMA RAY DE T EC TOR
COPGO GE OIL&GAS ARGENTINA
Diame ter.
1-31S" (34.9mm.)
Length "
50.S"
Pres :rure Ratin'>1 :
20.000 psi (137 .9 MPa )
(1291 mm .l
Tempel<l tu re Ratin<;J:
350 F (176 'C )
Operating Voltage:
100 Vde @ 4 5 rnA
Logging Process Description
Rate = Volume / Time = Area * Length / Time = Area * Speed
Q
T
qB
Radioactive
Tracer Ejector
Detectors
T: Total flow rate Q.
t: qA flow rate time
qB= Q - qA
t
qA
I
Field Data: Water and Polymer
YPF TECNOLOGfA
I J_ I--
.+
r
rI l - I--
-
)) -
I L
,J1 ~
t--
-Il-
.... 1
f--;
,
,ro
~
T
I
r-
l-
.
t
CfT, IG<I'II
I-
I"
I
'<!lr
-
--!ll I-
100 ,-
ocr:IGOPli
-r-
-
t- -
t- -
HI" Y -
"'- --)
--)
!
'I
\
"'-
.....
,!!j) :lID
I
I V
.... ....
-~
I
]) -
-,
-
I
ll~
~o-
i"\
J
'o-
-''''-
-,
\10 I1-
G
,
I
r- ~
rI- ~
,-t
-
t--
-r-
t-
t
+I"-+-
I
-I
r
.....
I L b.
-
L
.
l-
~
J
--, -[-I
-
-I--
-t--
1+ -
~
--'-i",-
1-'-
. i-
~ -t-':...
1-
10-
-
'1-
-l'
C
'I
h-
IJlr
I
I,
I
I
I
1.
I
I
-" )
-
I
Laminar Flow Tracer Distribution - Literature
YPF TECNOLOGfA
EJECTIOH
PORT
~
"'
...J
l'
l'
'"z
'"'-'<
<
...J
o
o
....
•
...J
...J
as It pas
m e rst elector to e secon .
en we
re
flow was laminar, the tracer dispersion could be predicted with a
theoretical moclel and the experimental results compared well with
the theory. As would be expected. optimal results were obtained
when the bulk of the tracer was placed in the high-velocity. central
“Tracer-Placement Techniques for Improved Radioactive-Tracer Logging”, Hil, Boehm, Akers, SPE17317, 1988
I
Field Data Review
YPF TECNOLOGfA
Tracer concentration logs in polymer solutions
-+- -+-H;;:!::
.··
-"-
. "-
n°;.;~''"r
.,
"
~cr
r-+
-+t-+
II
"
I,
-+-V
··
·
L
I I
-+
'>
+
;
,
I I
DliT'''''''''',
==
,"
k .... <.:'
"'
~ l l ("~H)
'$)IJ TJW
"
,
DliT""""""
I ,
-,
- ;
T
""'"""""'I
b
+
t
~
,
•
t-
J
•
·
, <--
+:
-"- "
+.
,
"
...
-+
-+
"+: ,
!
1ft
1-'
+ +t+ + ,
I-t-
-+-+-
~
"0
'''!
+
00
t-+-';;"t-
1+ 1-+(
1+
•
"
·
ro
It-
•
t++t++-+
l-
I-,
0
"t-
,
t-r-:;
I
~
I00
r
I
--
I
:1=
·4=
-
00
00
_ I.
, oo
1+ H:-
---r-r--
Transit Time Estimation
Concentration peak method
Sensor 1
7,5 s Peak time
Sensor 2
Transit Time Estimation
Tracer breakthrough method
7,5 s estimado utilizando
el primer arribo.
Sensor 1
Sensor 2
Transit Time Estimation
Additional Information (not used!)
Tracer Ejection
Sensor 1
Sensor 2
CFD Simulation Set Up- 2D Model Preconditions
eyector
(z=0m)
Water/Polymer
flow in annular
space between
casing and tool
Eyector diameter
0.5 mm
Tracer ejection speed
3.18 m/s
Tracer ejection length
0.8 s
 Tracer concentration measured downstream
in:
 Detector 1 (z=-2.53 m)
 Detector 2 (z=-5.64 m)
 Distance between detectors: Δ=3.11 m
I
CFD Simulation Set Up – Tracer Difussion and Detection, Water
YPF TECNOLOGfA
H2o L.Mass Fraclon
Canouot
II
I
- -
- - Agua - Tiro 07. 11.2012 - 1029m
2.42o4e-OOt
Simuladon
2273&-001
2.121e-001
1.971Je..OO1
1.818e-001
-v
1.667&-001
1.515&-001
H
•
1.364&001
1.212e-OOI
1.0611rOO1
9.091e-002
7.57&-002
~ 6.06te-002
4.545e.()Q2
3.03()e..OO2
!i
1.515e-002
O.OOOe-tOOO
i I"
•
~
.'1
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
--
90
100
:<:
8.
E
•
;=
O..ao
0
0.""
(,.,
110
1 20
1 30
140
1 50
160
170
180
CFD Simulation Set Up – Tracer Difussion and Detection Polymer
 Polymer viscosity is modelled using Carreau law for specific
polymer and concentration, optimized for the reservoir.
CFD Simulation Set Up - Results
 CFD simulation succesfully reproduced
radioactive tracer disperssion:
 Turbulent flow in Newtonian fluids
(water injection).
 Laminar flow in Non-Newtonian fluids
(polymer injection)
Water Injection
Polymer Injection
CFD Simulation Tracer Breakthrough Flow Rate Estimation
1. CFD injection well model.
Flow rate distribution for each reservoir
Injection rate: 140
m3/d
TOOL 1
P1: 314 psi
TOOL 2
Reservoir pressure: hydrostatic
P1: 331 psi
CFD Simulation Tracer Breakthrough Flow Rate Estimation
2. Tracer difussion simulation and flow rate estimation (Tools 1 and 2).
TOOL 1
Streamlines en P1
th1_det1 = 13.4s ; th1_det2= 27.4s ; Δh1 =14.0s
TOOL 2
th2_det1 = 50s ; th2_det2= 106s ; Δh2 = 56s
CFD Simulation Tracer Breakthrough Flow Rate Estimation
3. Calculo de los caudales con el método de los primeros arribos.
Reservoir
Simulated
Rate
(m3/day)
Tracer
Breakthrough
Flow Rate
(m3/day)
Error
P1
105.9
105.3
<1%
P2
34.1
34.7
2%
Tracer Breakthrough Injection
Rate Estimation
Comparación de Caudales - Promedio y Desviación Std
03-abr
1027 mts
03-abr
1027 mts
03-abr
1027 mts
1040 mts
1040 mts
1040 mts
1054 mts
1054 mts
1054 mts
Csg
5 1/2
09-may
Csg
Comparación de Caudales - Promedio y Desviación Std
Q (Eyector - Detector 1)
197,9
1027 mts Q (Eyector - Detector 1)
Prom
y
Desv
std
Csg
5 1/2
09-may
Csg
Q (Eyector - Detector 2)Comparación
180,8
185,8- Promedio y Q
(Eyector - Detector
2)
de Caudales
Desviación
Std
Q (Eyector - Detector 1) 197,9
10,5 1027 mts Q (Eyector - Detector 1)
Prom y Desv std 09-may
Csg(Det1-Det2)
5 1/2
Csg(Det1-Det2)
Q
178,8
Q
Q (Eyector - Detector 2) 180,8
185,8
Q (Eyector - Detector 2)
Q (Eyector - Detector 1) 197,9
1027 mts Q (Eyector - Detector 1)
10,5
Q inf por COPGO
184,5
Q inf COPGO
Prom y Desv std
Q (Det1-Det2)
178,8
Q (Det1-Det2)
Q (Eyector - Detector 2) 180,8
185,8
Q (Eyector - Detector 2)
Q (Eyector - Detector 1) 183,2
10,5 1041 mts Q (Eyector - Detector 1)
Q inf por COPGO
184,5
Q inf COPGO
Prom y Desv std
Q (Det1-Det2)
178,8
Q (Det1-Det2)
Q (Eyector - Detector 2) 180,8
180,9
Q (Eyector - Detector 2)
Q (Eyector - Detector 1) 183,2
(Eyector - Detector 1)
2,2 1041 mts Q
Q inf por COPGO
184,5
Q inf COPGO
Prom
y
Desv
std
Q (Det1-Det2)
178,8
Q (Det1-Det2)
Q (Eyector - Detector 2) 180,8
180,9
Q (Eyector - Detector 2)
Q (Eyector - Detector 1) 183,2
1041 mts Q (Eyector - Detector 1)
2,2
Q info COPGO
164,7
Q inf COPGO
Prom y Desv std
Q (Det1-Det2)
178,8
Q (Det1-Det2)
Q (Eyector - Detector 2) 180,8
180,9
Q (Eyector - Detector 2)
Q (Eyector - Detector 1) 164,9
2,2 1053 mts Q (Eyector - Detector 1)
Q info COPGO
164,7
Q inf COPGO
Prom y Desv std
Q (Det1-Det2)
178,8
Q (Det1-Det2)
Q (Eyector - Detector 2) 153,2
154,3
Q (Eyector - Detector 2)
Q (Eyector - Detector 1) 164,9
(Eyector - Detector 1)
10,1 1053 mts Q
Q info COPGO
164,7
Q inf COPGO
Prom
y
Desv
std
Q (Det1-Det2)
144,8
Q (Det1-Det2)
Q (Eyector - Detector 2) 153,2
154,3
Q (Eyector - Detector 2)
Q (Eyector - Detector 1) 164,9
1053 mts Q (Eyector - Detector 1)
10,1
Q inf por COPGO
90,7
Q inf COPGO
Prom y Desv std
Q (Det1-Det2)
144,8
Q (Det1-Det2)
Q (Eyector - Detector 2) 153,2
154,3
Q (Eyector - Detector 2)
10,1
Q inf por COPGO
90,7
Q inf COPGO
Q (Det1-Det2)
144,8
Q (Det1-Det2)
5 1/2
197,9
5 1/2
Flow Rates Estimation, Mean and Std Dev212,1
197,9
5 1/2
217,2
212,1
197,9
170,7
217,2
212,1
206,1
170,7
217,2
212,1
206,1
170,7
217,2
212,1
206,1
212,0
217,2
212,1
164,9
212,0
217,2
180,8
164,9
212,0
196,2
180,8
164,9
168,3
196,2
180,8
168,3
196,2
Prom y Desv std
209,0
10,0
Prom y Desv std
209,0
10,0
Prom y Desv std
209,0
10,0
Prom y Desv std
211,8
5,5
Prom y Desv std
211,8
5,5
Prom y Desv std
211,8
Prom y Desv std
5,5
180,6
15,6
Prom y Desv std
180,6
15,6
Prom y Desv std
180,6
15,6
Results
 Review and analyzed Flow-Log rate measurement and estimation process.
 Tracer Breakthrough provides reliable information on water injection rate.
 Agreement between field data (water and polymer) and tracer breakthrough using CFD simulations.
 Using CFD simulation the accuracy of polymer injection rates by reservoir, estimated using tracer
breakthrough is 2%.
 Multiple sources of information (ejector-detector transit time) may contribute to measurements
reliability.
PCh Reservorios Octubre 2014
Next Steps
 Laboratory tests.
 Field test protocol.
 Technical support to provider.
 Field Test (design, implementation and evaluation) with field staff and provider.
 Documentation y final recomendations.