Geochemical Allocation of

Commingled Production

Mark A. McCaffrey, Ph.D.

Houston, TX, October 19, 2010

Canada Brazil Australia

United States Mexico Kuwait India
Trinidad Libya Malaysia
Venezuela Oman Thailand
Norway New Zealand
Saudi Arabia
United Kingdom
United Arab Emirates
Kazakhstan
For contact information, please visit our website: www.weatherfordlabs.com
Outline

• Introduction
• Examples
• Mechanics of Method

© 2009 Weatherford Laboratories. All rights reserved.

Geochemical Allocation of Commingled Production

• Premise: Naturally occurring geochemical

differences can be used to distinguish oils (or
gases) from discrete reservoirs.

• These geochemical differences can serve as

natural tracers for the contribution of each
reservoir to commingled production from a group
of reservoirs.

© 2009 Weatherford Laboratories. All rights reserved.

Why do Oils from Separate Reservoirs have
Different Fingerprints?
• Even if oils in separate reservoirs have the same source, those oils
will not have been generated at precisely the same maturity or from
precisely the same facies.
• As a given piece of source rock matures, the oil it generates
continually changes, imparting differences to oils in separate
compartments.
• Which interval (source facies) is generating also changes through
time.
• Because discrete compartments differ in size and location, they
necessarily have slightly different filling histories.
• Inter-compartment differences in post-migration processes (water
washing, biodegradation, fractional evaporation, etc.) create
unique compositions.
• Two oils can be 99% similar, and still have 50 compositional
differences, and each one of those differences can serve as a
natural tracer. for that oil.

© 2009 Weatherford Laboratories. All rights reserved.

 Two Primary Advantages of Geochemical
Production Allocation vs. Production Logging

 I - Less expensive than production logging

• $600-$1,800/ geochemical allocation vs. >$60,000 for PLT
• Does not interrupt production
• More practical for long term monitoring
 II - Can be used in cases where production logging
cannot
• Can be used even on pumping wells
• Deviation of well is not an issue
• Rapid technique
 Requirements:
• Samples of the end member oils

© 2009 Weatherford Laboratories. All rights reserved.

Motivation for Allocation of Commingled Production

• Quantify Zone Contributions for Royalty

Calculations or Regulatory Requirements
• Monitor Effects of MBE’s
• Test if IsoSleeves are Set
• Control Water Production
• Monitor Effects of Water Injectors
• Optimize Production From Multilaterals
– Identify Sanded Out Intervals for FCO
– Identify Competition Between Laterals

• Monitor Effect of Initiation of Gas Lift

© 2009 Weatherford Laboratories. All rights reserved.

Example: NK-43 Comparison of Geochemical
Allocation Results with PLT results

NK-43 Sag vs NOP Oil Splits

100.0%

90.0%

80.0%

70.0%

60.0%

50.0%

40.0%

30.0%

20.0%

10.0%

0.0%
10/25/2005 2/2/2006 5/13/2006 8/21/2006 11/29/2006 3/9/2007 6/17/2007

Sag Geochem NOP Geochem Sag PLT NOP PLT

© 2009 Weatherford Laboratories. All rights reserved.

Example: Geochemical Allocation More Accurate
than PLT’s

Viscous Oil Well

1J-166 Production Example #2Results
Allocation
B-IsoSleeve Installed B IsoSleeve Removed
100.0 7/25/-8/18/08 9/20/09
90.0

80.0

70.0

60.0 PLT Sand 1

Wt %

50.0 10/10/08 Sand 2

Sand 3
40.0

30.0

20.0

10.0

0.0
10/3/2006
12/3/2006
2/3/2007
4/3/2007
6/3/2007
8/3/2007
10/3/2007
12/3/2007
2/3/2008
4/3/2008
6/3/2008
8/3/2008
10/3/2008
12/3/2008
2/3/2009
4/3/2009
6/3/2009
8/3/2009
10/3/2009
4/3/2006
6/3/2006
8/3/2006

Date

© 2009 Weatherford Laboratories. All rights reserved.

Example: Controlling Water Production

• “Well X” was Commingled Sand I/Sand II

• Geochemistry indicated all oil was Sand I
• Sand II was then shut in
– Oil Production remained the same
– 5000 bbl water/day were eliminated

© 2009 Weatherford Laboratories. All rights reserved.

Example: Monitoring Water Floods

Viscous Oil Well

1E-121 Production Example #1 Results
Allocation
100.0 Sand 2 Water Injection
Shut in 6/6/06
90.0

80.0

70.0

60.0 19.8
Wt %

50.0 Sand 2
17.9 Sand 3
40.0

30.0

20.0

10.0

0.0

Date

© 2009 Weatherford Laboratories. All rights reserved.

 Example: Monitoring Water Floods

100

90

80

70

60
Percentage

50

40

30

20
Increased production due to
support from new injector
10

0
01/01/03 07/02/03 12/31/03 06/30/04 12/29/04 06/29/05 12/28/05
Date

© 2009 Weatherford Laboratories. All rights reserved.

Example: Diagnosing Problems with Multilaterals

100

Increased contribution due to inappropriate

90
production conditions for 1 of the 3 laterals
80

70

60
Percentage

50

40

30

20

10

0
01/01/05 01/21/05 02/10/05 03/02/05 03/22/05 04/11/05 05/01/05 05/21/05 06/10/05 06/30/05
Date

© 2009 Weatherford Laboratories. All rights reserved.

Example: Identifying when IsoSleeve not set

IsoSleeve not effective, B Primary Decline

MBE
3/22/06 B IsoSleeve
9/07/07
1E-168 Production Allocation Results Sand A

100.0 23.0 Sand B Discussion

Sand D • Geochem solution dismissed
90.0
B kL/µ 22.0 API
when it continued to show B
80.0
D kL/µ
contribution after isoSleeve
21.0
70.0
• Now determined IsoSleeve
20.0
did not set
60.0

API
50.0 19.0
Wt %

A2 kL/µ
40.0
18.0

30.0
17.0
20.0

16.0
10.0

0.0 15.0
Se 0 5

Se 6

Se 7

Se 8

Se 0 9
M 04

Ju 5

D 05

M 5

Ju 6

D 06

M 6

Ju 7

D 07

M 7

Ju 8

D 08
M 08

Ju 9

D 9
M 09
0

Date
-0

-0
-0

-0
-0

-0
-0

-0

-1
0

0
-

p-

p-

p-

p-

p-

-
n-

n-

n-

n-

n-
ec

ec

ec

ec

ec

ec
ar

ar

ar

ar

ar

ar
D

© 2009 Weatherford Laboratories. All rights reserved.

Calculated Allocation Results Compared to Actual
Compositions for Artificial Mixtures of Oils or Gases
Calculated Actual composition of Difference between Geochemical
Number Type Allocation Artifical Mixutre Calculated and Parameters Blind
Location of Zones Result Prepared by Laboratory Actual Composition Used Test?
Well NK-43 2 Oil 13.4% / 86.6% 15.0% / 85.0% 1.6% 48 Yes
Well NK-43 2 Oil 47.5% / 52.5% 50.1% / 49.9% 2.6% 48 Yes
Well NK-43 2 Oil 78.9% / 21.1% 79.9% / 20.1% 1.0% 48 Yes
Well S-26 2 Oil 68.8% / 31.2% 75.0% / 25.0% 6.20% 132 Yes
Well S-26 2 Oil 46.1% / 53.9% 50.0% / 50.0% 3.90% 132 Yes
Well S-26 2 Oil 20.9% / 79.1% 25.0 % / 75.0% 4.10% 132 Yes
Undisclosed Alaska A 2 Oil 65.1% / 34.9% 66.5% / 33.5% 1.4% 209 Yes
Undisclosed Alaska A 2 Oil 87.1% / 12.9% 87.85% / 12.15% 0.75% 209 Yes
Undisclosed 0140 2 Oil 48.0% / 52.0% 50.1% / 49.9% 2.1% 40 Yes
Undisclosed 0140 2 Oil 51.5% / 48.5% 50.2% / 49.8% 1.3% 40 Yes
Undisclosed 0140 2 Oil 50.5 %/ 49.5% 49.9% / 50.1% 0.6% 40 Yes
Undisclosed 1053 2 Oil 90.4% / 9.6% 91.4% / 8.6% 1.0% 171 Yes
Undisclosed 1053 2 Oil 59.9% / 40.1% 59.6% / 40.4% 0.3% 171 Yes
Undisclosed 1053 2 Oil 87.2% / 12.8% 86.4% / 13.2% 0.8% 171 Yes
Undisclosed 1053 2 Oil 45.4% / 54.6% 44.3% / 55.7% 1.1% 171 Yes
Undisclosed 1053 2 Oil 60.2% / 39.8% 59.9% / 40.1% 0.3% 171 Yes
Undisclosed 1053 2 Oil 70.9% / 30.4% 70.2% / 29.8% 0.7% 171 Yes
Average error of allocation of 2-zone artifical mixtures of oils in this table: 1.8%
Undisclosed 1100 2 Gas 50.6% / 49.4% 50.0% / 50.0% 0.6% 8 No
Undisclosed 08834 3 Oil 60.2% / 39.8% / 0% 64.5% / 35.5% / 0% 4.3% / 4.3% / 0% 158 Yes
Undisclosed 08834 3 Oil 33.5% / 46.7% / 19.8% 39.1% / 40.9% / 20.0% 5.6% / 5.8% / 0.2% 158 Yes
Undisclosed 08692 3 Oil 49.2% / 28.9% / 21.9% 48.1% / 29.7% / 22.2% 1.1% / 0.8% / 0.3% 93 Yes
Undisclosed 08692 3 Oil 12.9% / 17.2% / 69.9% 10.8% / 19.7 % / 69.5% 2.1% / 2.5% / 0.4% 93 Yes
Undisclosed 0140 3 Oil 10.0% / 31.0% / 59.0% 15.0% / 29.9% / 55.1% 5.0% / 1.1% / 3.9% 40 Yes
Undisclosed 0140 3 Oil 54.0 %/ 15.0 %/ 31.0% 55.0% / 15.1% / 29.9% 1.0% / 0.1% / 1.1% 40 Yes
Undisclosed 48345 3 Oil 28.3% / 30.5% / 41.2% 31.0% / 29.9% / 39.1% 2.7% / 0.6% / 1.1% 138 Yes
Undisclosed 48345 3 Oil 20.1% / 22.2% / 57.7% 19.6% / 20.4% / 60.0 % 0.5% / 1.8% / 2.3% 138 Yes
Average error of allocation of 3-zone artifical mixtures of oils in this table: 2.0%
Undisclosed 0140 4 Oil 10.0% / 18.0% / 29.0% / 43.0% 10.0% / 19.9% / 29.8% / 40.3% 0.0% / 1.9% / 0.8% / 2.7% 40 Yes
Undisclosed 0140 4 Oil 18.0% / 25.0% / 36.0% / 19.0% 19.8% / 29.9% / 39.1% / 10.6% 1.8% / 4.9% / 3.1% / 8.4% 40 Yes
Undisclosed 0140 4 Oil 42.0% / 7.0% / 17.0% / 34.0% 40.1% / 10.2% / 19.8% / 29.9% 1.9% / 3.2 % / 2.8 %/ 4.1% 40 Yes
Undisclosed 48345 4 Oil 30.7% / 25.9% / 11.0% / 32.4% 30.0% / 30.0% / 10.0% / 30.0% 0.7% / 4.1% / 1.0% / 2.4% 137 Yes
Undisclosed 48345 4 Oil 30.0% / 43.1% / 7.7%/ 19.2% 26.3% / 43.7% / 12.7% / 17.2% 3.7% / 0.6%/ 5.0% / 2.0% 137 Yes
Undisclosed 48345 4 Oil 9.6% / 10.3% / 39.1% / 41.0% 10.0 % / 10.0% / 40.0% / 40.0% 0.4% / 0.3% / 0.9% / 1.0% 137 Yes
Undisclosed 48345 4 Oil 21.0% / 26.9% / 22.7% / 29.4% 20.3% / 29.5% / 20.0% / 30.2% 0.7% / 2.6% / 2.7% / 0.8% 137 Yes
Average error of allocation of 4-zone artifical mixtures of oils in this table: 2.3% © 2009 Weatherford Laboratories. All rights reserved.
Conceptually the Same Approach Used for Oil,
Water, and Gas Allocation: Only Input Data Differs

Oil:
 Whole Oil GC Data
 Stable Isotope Data (δ13C)
Water:
 Major Ion Composition (Cl-, Br-, Na+, Mg2+ , etc.)
 Stable Isotope Data (δD, δ18O, 86Sr/87Sr)
Gas:
 Gas Component Abundances (e.g., %C1, C2, CO2, N2, etc)
 Stable Isotope Data (δD, δ13C)

© 2009 Weatherford Laboratories. All rights reserved.

Analytical Method: Gas Chromatography

© 2009 Weatherford Laboratories. All rights reserved.

Agilent 6890 GC-FID

© 2009 Weatherford Laboratories. All rights reserved.

GC-capillary column

Column resolution related to:

• Column length
• Column ID
• Type of phase
• Thickness of phase
• Condition of phase
60m DB-1, 0.25mm ID, 0.25um
film thickness

© 2009 Weatherford Laboratories. All rights reserved.

 GC Fingerprint of a whole oil:

Shows the relative abundance of compounds

with different molecular weights
FID1 A, (REF_OIL\6017-1.D)
Gasoline
MCH

pA

1600

Kerosene
1400
n-C7

1200
Diesel Fuel
M&P Xylene
n-C8

1000

Heavy Gas Oil

n-C14
n-C13

n-C15
n-C9

800
Toluene

n-C11

n-C16
n-C10

n-C12

n-C17
Pristane

Lubricating Oil
Phytanen-C18

600
n-C19
n-C20
O-xylene

n-C21
n-C22

400
n-C23
n-C24
n-C25
n-C26
n-C27
n-C28
n-C29
n-C30
n-C31
n-C32
n-C33
n-C34
n-C35
200

n-C40
0
© 2009 Weatherford Laboratories. All rights reserved.
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 min
 8
1
80
.0
821.

4
823.93

0
.0
829.832.8 6 827.3
836.
838.
839. 02 1
840.846.8 2
847.6 844.8

8
7
853.5

0
856. 3

.0
858.864.54
867.869.865.
39 871.4 9
875.3

9
00
885. 883.2 0
.0
889.6
897.0 NC9
9
30

914. 911.
1 908.
7 8
916. 9
.0

919.
922.49 925.2
931.929.57935.4
940. 6 938. 3
9

942. 3
60
.0

944.948.3 1 946.2
954.
955.
956. 951.
7 0
6 5
Reveal Hundreds’s of “Interparaffin” Peaks

958. 3
961.965.2 962. 9
6
9

969.971.1 9
90

977. 9
.0

979.
983. 982.
9 9 4
Expanded Views of a Whole Oil GC Chromatogram

985. 3
© 2009 Weatherford Laboratories. All rights reserved.

987.99276
9957
 8

8
1

1
0

0
.0

.0
8

8
821. 821.823.93

4
823.93

0
.0

.0
829.832.8 6 827.3 829.832.8 6 827.3
836.
838.
839. 02 1 838.
839. 836.
02
840.846.844.8 2 8 1
840.846.8 2
847.6 844.8

8
847.853.6 5

7
853.5
0

0
856. 3
.0

.0
858.864.54 858.856.5 3864.4
867.869.865.39 871.4 9 869.9875.865.3 871.9
875.3 9

883.0

9
0

0
885. 2
0

0
885. 883.2 0
.0

.0
889.6 889.6
897.0 NC9 897.0
908. 8
9

911. 7

9
3

908.914.8911.1 7

3
914. 1
0

0
916. 9
.0

.0
919. 916.919.9 4
922.49 925.2 922.9 925.2
931.929.57935.4 931.929.57 935.4
940. 6 938.3 940.
9

9
942. 3 938.942.6 33
6

6
0

0
944.948.39146.2
.0

.0
944.948.3 1 946.2
954.
955. 951.
0
6 5 951.
954.
955. 5
6
956.
958. 7
3 958.961.956.237 0 962.9
961.965.2 962. 6 9 969.1 965.971.69
9
differences between oils from each interval

969.971.1 9
9

9
0

977.9
.0

977. 9
.0
Expanded views of GC chromatograms reveal

979.
983. 982.
9 9 4 979.
982. 49
985. 3
987.99276 987.985.983.992.639 7
9957 9957
© 2009 Weatherford Laboratories. All rights reserved.
Mathematics of Allocation

• Gas 1 is 10% Ethane

• Gas 2 is 20% Ethane

• A mixture of Gas 1 and Gas 2 was found to be

15% Ethane

• How much of Gas 1 is in the mixed gas?

© 2009 Weatherford Laboratories. All rights reserved.

Mathematics of Allocation

This is a system of 2 equations in 2 unknowns.

β1 = fraction of Gas 1 in the mix
β2 = fraction of Gas 2 in the mix

β1 + β2 = 1.0
1.0
β1*0.1 + β2*0.2 = 0.15
0.75
β2 Solution: x1 = 0.5
x2 = 0.5

1.0 1.5
β1
© 2009 Weatherford Laboratories. All rights reserved.
Mathematics of Allocation

 m end-members
 Analyze by GC the same amount of each end member and
comminlged oil
 n peaks: P1, P2 , …, Pn
• xij = height of peak i in end-member j
• yi = height of peak i in commingled oil
 Commingled oil consists of:
• β 1 of end-member 1 (fraction)
• β 2 of end-member 2 (fraction)
• …
• β m of end-member m (fraction)
 Problem: Determine values of β given the height of the n peaks
in each end-member and the commingled oil

© 2009 Weatherford Laboratories. All rights reserved.

Mathematics of Allocation

 Peak heights mixes linearly. Therefore, we have n

equations. The ith equation is:
• xi1 × β 1 + xi2 × β 2 + … xim × β m = yi
 Implicit constraint: β 1 + β 2 … + β m = 1

© 2009 Weatherford Laboratories. All rights reserved.

Illustration:2 end-members, 3 peaks (ideal)

β2 6000 × β 1 + 4000 × β 2 = 5000

β1 + β2 = 1

β 1 = β 2 = 0.5

3000 × β 1 + 4000 × β 2 = 3500

1000 × β 1 + 2000 × β 2 = 1500

β1

© 2009 Weatherford Laboratories. All rights reserved.

Illustration:2 end-members, 3 peaks (real)

Effect of errors:
β2
NO UNIQUE SOLUTION!!

β1

© 2009 Weatherford Laboratories. All rights reserved.

Illustration:2 end-members, 3 peaks (real)

β2

… and you believe in this peak …

… then this is your unscaled solution …

If you believe in this peak …

β1
… and this is your scaled solution

© 2009 Weatherford Laboratories. All rights reserved.

Illustration:2 end-members, 3 peaks (real)

But if you have no reason to believe

β2
any one peak more than you believe in
any other …

… then any solution in this region is “possible”

β1

© 2009 Weatherford Laboratories. All rights reserved.

Approach Developed by OilTracers LLC Uses a
Linear Algebra to Find the Best Allocation Answer

End member oils Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4

ppm compound A 5 10 1 3
ppm compound B 10 6 3 2 = Matrix X
ppm compound C 8 4 1 1
ppm compound D 1 4 5 7

Commingled oil
ppm compound A 3.5
ppm compound B 5.2
ppm compound C 3.4 = Matrix Y
ppm compound D 4.1
Allocation Result
Fraction from Zone 1 0.3
Fraction from Zone 2 0.1 = Matrix β
Fraction from Zone 3 0.4
Fraction from Zone 4 0.2

T -1 T
β = a linear algebra function of X and Y β = [X X] X Y

© 2009 Weatherford Laboratories. All rights reserved.

OilTracers Method for Finding the “Best” Solution
for the Unmixing Problem

 Y = Xβ is an overconstrained system of equations

 β* = (XTX)-1XTY is the “least squares” solution to Y = Xβ
• If Y = Xβ has a unique solution, β* is that solution
• If Y = Xβ has no solution, β* is the value that minimizes ||Y -
Xβ||2
 We project β* onto the “Implicit constraint” to find the solution
 Significantly better estimates of β can be derived by (1) applying
certain scaling techniques to X and Y, (2) utilizing information
revealed by the structure of the variance within the dataset, and
(3) eliminating from consideration GC peaks with certain
specific characteristics. Those optimization techniques are
proprietary.

© 2009 Weatherford Laboratories. All rights reserved.

Example of Why End Members Are Essential

Solution 1 Solution 2
Oil 1 Mix B Mix C Mix H Mix D Mix E Oil 2 Oil 1 Mix B Mix C Mix H Mix D Mix E Oil 2
%Oil 2 0 5 10 15 20 25 100 %Oil 2 0 18.52 37.04 55.56 74.07 92.59 100
Height Peak 1 114.00 121.75 129.50 137.25 145.00 152.75 269.00 Height Peak 1 114.00 121.75 129.50 137.25 145.00 152.75 155.85
Height Peak 2 158.00 164.30 170.60 176.90 183.20 189.50 284.00 Height Peak 2 158.00 164.30 170.60 176.90 183.20 189.50 192.02
Height Peak 3 126.00 130.50 135.00 139.50 144.00 148.50 216.00 Height Peak 3 126.00 130.50 135.00 139.50 144.00 148.50 150.30
Height Peak 4 236.00 232.40 228.80 225.20 221.60 218.00 164.00 Height Peak 4 236.00 232.40 228.80 225.20 221.60 218.00 216.56
Height Peak 5 277.00 275.40 273.80 272.20 270.60 269.00 245.00 Height Peak 5 277.00 275.40 273.80 272.20 270.60 269.00 268.36
Height Peak 6 130.00 132.25 134.50 136.75 139.00 141.25 175.00 Height Peak 6 130.00 132.25 134.50 136.75 139.00 141.25 142.15
Height Peak 7 283.00 282.35 281.70 281.05 280.40 279.75 270.00 Height Peak 7 283.00 282.35 281.70 281.05 280.40 279.75 279.55
Height Peak 8 172.00 169.05 166.10 163.15 160.20 157.25 113.00 Height Peak 8 172.00 169.05 166.10 163.15 160.20 157.25 156.07
Height Peak 9 143.00 147.55 152.10 156.65 161.20 165.75 234.00 Height Peak 9 143.00 147.55 152.10 156.65 161.20 165.75 167.57
Height Peak 10 149.00 150.60 152.20 153.80 155.40 157.00 181.00 Height Peak 10 149.00 150.60 152.20 153.80 155.40 157.00 157.64

© 2009 Weatherford Laboratories. All rights reserved.

Example of Why End Members Are Essential

Solution 1
300.00

250.00
GC Peak Height

Peak 1
Peak 2
200.00
Peak 3
Peak 4
150.00 Peak 5
Peak 6
Peak 7
100.00
Mix C

Mix E
Mix D
Mix H

Peak 8
Mix B

Peak 9
50.00 Peak 10

0.00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

% Oil 2 in Mixture

© 2009 Weatherford Laboratories. All rights reserved.

Example of Why End Members Are Essential

Solution 2
300.00

250.00
GC Peak Height

Peak 1
Peak 2
200.00
Peak 3
Peak 4
150.00 Peak 5
Peak 6
Peak 7
100.00
Mix C

Mix E
Mix D
Mix H
Peak 8
Mix B

Peak 9
50.00 Peak 10

0.00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

% Oil 2 in Mixture

© 2009 Weatherford Laboratories. All rights reserved.

Mathematics of Allocation

What if both concentrations AND isotopes are measured in the samples?

Abundance ‰

End Member C1 C2 δ13C1 δ13C2

1 0.9 0.1 -70.00 -50.00

2 0.8 0.2 -60.00 -40.00

Commingled
Gas 0.85 0.15 -65.29 -43.33

© 2009 Weatherford Laboratories. All rights reserved.

 Mathematics of Allocation

What if both concentrations AND isotopes are measured in the samples?

β1 + β2 = 1.0 0.1 * β1 +0.2 * β2 = 0.15 0.9 * β1 +0.8 * β2 = 0.85
0.1 * ((-43.33) - (-50)) * β1 + 0.2 * ((-43.33) - (-40)) × β2 = 0
0.9 * ((-65.29) - (-70)) * β1 + 0.8 * ((-65.29) - (-60)) × β2 = 0

1.0
β1 = fraction of Gas 1 in the mix
0.75
β2 = fraction of Gas 2 in the mix
β2

1.0 1.5
β1
© 2009 Weatherford Laboratories. All rights reserved.
 Mathematics of Allocation

What if both concentrations AND isotopes are measured in the samples?

β1 + β2 = 1.0 0.1 * β1 +0.2 * β2 = 0.15 0.9 * β1 +0.8 * β2 = 0.85
0.1 * ((-43) - (-50)) * β1 + 0.2 * ((-43) - (-40)) × β2 = 0
0.9 * ((-66) - (-70)) * β1 + 0.8 * ((-66) - (-60)) × β2 = 0

1.0
x1 = fraction of Gas 1 in the mix
0.75
x2 = fraction of Gas 2 in the mix
β2

1.0 1.5
β1
© 2009 Weatherford Laboratories. All rights reserved.
Summary of Advantages vs Production Logging

 Cost advantages relative to conventional e-line PLT

 Advantages relative to coiled tubing or tractor-
conveyed e-line PLT
 Detection of zone performance problems at any point
during the life of a well.
 Applicability to vertical, deviated and horizontal
wells.
 Applicability to pumping wells
 Ability to quantify uncertainty
 Zonal Production vs. wellbore entry
 No risk of sticking a logging tool

© 2009 Weatherford Laboratories. All rights reserved.

Related Applications of Geochemistry
Geochemistry solves problems throughout the lifespan of a field

EXPLORATION DEVELOPMENT PRODUCTION FIELD ABANDONMENT

Characterizing charge
Risk (source, maturity, Assessing reservoir
timing, gas vs oil compartmentalization
potential)
Oil/gas property
prediction (API, viscosity)

Identifying missed pay

Identifying Production
fluid contacts allocation

Identifying completion
Identifying induced
problems (tubing string
fracture geometry
leaks, poor cement jobs,
ineffective stimulations)
Flood monitoring –
Assessing sweep
Flow Assurance: Prevent
Sludge/Asphaltene/ Wax
Deposition Environmental site
assessment and
remediation
© 2009 Weatherford Laboratories. All rights reserved.