Patent Grant
9038715
The present invention relates to hydraulic fracturing operations, and more specifically to methods for identifying an induced subterranean formation fracture and any associated frac-pack or gravel pack material in the vicinity of the borehole using pulsed neutron capture (PNC) logging tools
In order to more effectively produce hydrocarbons from downhole formations, and especially in formations with low porosity and/or low permeability, induced fracturing (called “frac operations”, “hydraulic fracturing”, or simply “fracing”) of the hydrocarbon-bearing formations has been a commonly used technique. In a typical frac operation, fluids are pumped downhole under high pressure, causing the formations to fracture around the borehole, creating high permeability conduits that promote the flow of the hydrocarbons into the borehole. These frac operations can be conducted in horizontal and deviated, as well as vertical, boreholes, and in either intervals of uncased wells, or in cased wells through perforations. In some frac operations, frac material, including proppant or sand, is packed not only in a fractured region outside the casing in the well, but is also packed into the annular space between the casing and a liner inside the casing in a so-called cased-hole frac-pack. In some other situations in an uncased wellbore, in a so-called open-hole frac pack, frac material is placed outside a perforated liner or a screen in the region around the liner/screen, and also out into induced fractures in the formation. In yet other situations in cased holes, frac material is placed only in the annular space between the casing and an interior screen or perforated liner, in a so-called gravel-pack. In yet other situations in cased holes, frac material is placed only in the annular space between the casing and an interior screen or liner, in a so-called gravel-pack. In some other situations in an uncased wellbore, in a so-called open-hole fracturing, frac-packing, or gravel packing operation, frac material is placed outside a perforated liner or a screen. In open-hole fracturing and frac-packing, frac material is also placed out into induced fractures in the formation. In all of these situations, it is desired to know where the packing material has been placed, and also where it has not been placed.
In cased boreholes in vertical wells, for example, the high pressure fluids exit the borehole via perforations through the casing and surrounding cement, and cause the formations to fracture, usually in thin, generally vertical sheet-like fractures in the deeper formations in which oil and gas are commonly found. These induced fractures generally extend laterally a considerable distance out from the wellbore into the surrounding formations, and extend vertically until the fracture reaches a formation that is not easily fractured above and/or below the desired frac interval. The directions of maximum and minimum horizontal stress within the formation determine the azimuthal orientation of the induced fractures. Normally, if the fluid, sometimes called slurry, pumped downhole does not contain solids that remain lodged in the fracture when the fluid pressure is relaxed, then the fracture re-closes, and most of the permeability conduit gain is lost.
These solids, called proppants, are generally composed of sand grains or ceramic particles, and the fluid used to pump these solids downhole is usually designed to be sufficiently viscous such that the proppant particles remain entrained in the fluid as it moves downhole and out into the induced fractures. Prior to producing the fractured formations, materials called “breakers”, which are also pumped downhole in the frac fluid slurry, reduce the viscosity of the frac fluid after a desired time delay, enabling these fluids to be easily removed from the fractures during production, leaving the proppant particles in place in the induced fractures to keep them from closing and thereby substantially precluding production fluid flow therethrough.
In frac-pack or gravel-pack operations, the proppants are placed in the annular space between well casing and an interior screen or liner in a cased-hole frac pack or gravel pack, and/or in an annular space in the wellbore outside a screen or liner in open-hole fracturing, frac-packing, or gravel packing operations. Pack materials are primarily used to filter out solids being produced along with the formation fluids in oil and gas well production operations. This filtration assists in preventing these sand or other particles from being produced with the desired fluids into the borehole and to the surface. Such undesired particles might otherwise damage well and surface tubulars and complicate fluid separation procedures due to the erosive nature of such particles as the well fluids are flowing.
The proppants may also be placed in the induced fractures with a low viscosity fluid in fracturing operations referred to as “water fracs”. The fracturing fluid in water fracs is water with little or no polymer or other additives. Water fracs are advantageous because of the lower cost of the fluid used. Also when using cross-linked polymers, it is essential that the breakers be effective or the fluid cannot be recovered from the fracture effectively restricting flow of formation fluids. Water fracs, because the fluid is not cross-linked, do not rely on effectiveness of breakers.
Proppants commonly used are naturally occurring sands, resin coated sands, and ceramic proppants. Ceramic proppants are typically manufactured from naturally occurring materials such as kaolin and bauxitic clays, and offer a number of advantages compared to sands or resin coated sands principally resulting from the compressive strength of the manufactured ceramics and their highly spherical particle configuration.
Although induced fracturing, frac-packing, and gravel-packing have been highly effective tools in the production of hydrocarbon reservoirs, there is nevertheless usually a need to determine the interval(s) that have been fractured after the completion of the frac operation, and in packing operations, the intervals in the borehole region that have been adequately packed. It is possible that there are zones within the desired fracture interval(s) which were ineffectively fractured or packed, either due to anomalies within the formation or problems within the borehole, such as ineffective or blocked perforations or gravity segregation of pack material solids. It is also desirable to know if the fractures extend vertically across the entire desired fracture interval(s), and also to know whether or not any fracture(s) may have extended vertically outside the desired interval. In the latter case, if the fracture has extended into a water-bearing zone, the resulting water production would be highly undesirable. In all of these situations, knowledge of the location of both the fractured and unfractured zones would be very useful for planning remedial operations in the subject well and/or in utilizing the information gained for planning frac jobs on future candidate wells.
There have been several methods used in the past to help locate the successfully fractured and packed intervals and the extent of the fractures in frac operations. For example, acoustic well logs have been used. Acoustic well logs are sensitive to the presence of fractures, since fractures affect the velocities and magnitudes of compressional and shear acoustic waves traveling in the formation. However, these logs are also affected by many other parameters, such as rock type, formation porosity, pore geometry, borehole conditions, and presence of natural fractures in the formation. Another previously utilized acoustic-based fracture detection technology is the use of “crack noise”, wherein an acoustic transducer placed downhole immediately following the frac job actually “listens” for signals emanating from the fractures as they close after the frac pressure has been relaxed. This technique has had only limited success due to: (1) the logistical and mechanical problems associated with having to have the sensor(s) in place during the frac operation, since the sensor has to be activated almost immediately after the frac operation is terminated, and (2) the technique utilizes the sound generated as fractures close, therefore effective fractures, which are the ones that have been propped open to prevent closure thereof, often do not generate noise signals as easy to detect as the signals from unpropped fractures, which can generate misleading results.
Arrays of tilt meters at the surface have also been previously utilized to determine the presence of subterranean fractures. These sensors can detect very minute changes in the contours of the earth's surface above formations as they are being fractured, and these changes across the array can often be interpreted to locate fractured intervals. This technique is very expensive to implement, and does not generally have the vertical resolution to be able to identify which zones within the frac interval have been fractured and which zones have not, nor can this method effectively determine if the fracture has extended vertically outside the desired vertical fracture interval(s).
Microseismic tools have also been previously utilized to map fracture locations and geometries. In this fracture location method, a microseismic array is placed in an offset well near the well that is to be hydraulically fractured. During the frac operations the microseismic tool records microseisms that result from the fracturing operation. By mapping the locations of the mictoseisms it is possible to estimate the height and length of the induced fracture. However, this process is expensive and requires a nearby available offset well.
Other types of previously utilized fracture location detection techniques employ nuclear logging methods. A first such nuclear logging method uses radioactive materials which are mixed at the well site with the proppant and/or the frac fluid just prior to the proppant and/or frac fluid being pumped into the well. After such pumping, a logging tool is moved through the wellbore to detect and record gamma rays emitted from the radioactive material previously placed downhole, the recorded radioactivity-related data being appropriately interpreted to detect the fracture locations. A second previously utilized nuclear logging method is performed by pumping one or more stable isotopes downhole with the proppant in the frac slurry, such isotope material being capable of being activated (i.e., made radioactive) by a neutron-emitting portion of a logging tool run downhole after the fracing process. A spectroscopic gamma ray detector portion of the tool detects and records gamma rays from the resulting decay of the previously activated “tracer” material nuclei as the tool is moved past the activated material. The gamma spectra are subsequently analyzed to identify the activated nuclei, and thus the frac zones. One or both of these previously utilized nuclear-based techniques for locating subterranean fractures has several known limitations and disadvantages which include:
In the case of frac-pack and gravel-pack operations, a variety of methods have been suggested for detecting pack material located in the borehole region. Most of these methods are based on the use of nuclear logging tools with either gamma ray sources or continuous chemical neutron sources, and containing gamma ray or thermal neutron detectors, and are described in U.S. Pat. No. 6,815,665, the entire disclosure of which is incorporated herein by reference. However in all cases these methods are specifically designed to detect pack material inside the well casing, and to exclude to the degree possible the detection of proppant/sand outside the casing, including any material packed into fractures in the formation. Further, to the present applicants' knowledge, in none of these methods has there been any effort to determine the relative signal from proppant/sand packed into the borehole region relative to material packed into the formation and fractures outside the wellbore, which is vital information in evaluating both conventional fracturing and frac-packing operations. U.S. Pat. No. 8,100,177, issued to inventors of this patent application and the disclosure of which is incorporated herein by reference, discusses recent induced fracture detection methods using compensated and pulsed neutron logging technologies, and provides pulsed-neutron methods to detect downhole proppant signals from both formation and borehole regions, but does not discuss methods to distinguish the pack material located in formation fractures from pack material in the borehole region in frac-packs or gravel-packs.
As can be seen from the foregoing, a need exists for subterranean fracture location detection methods which alleviate at least some of the above-mentioned problems, limitations and disadvantages associated with previously utilized fracture location detection and frac-pack and gravel-pack evaluation techniques as generally described above.
The methods described herein do not use complex and/or high resolution gamma ray spectroscopy detectors. In addition, spectral data analysis methods are not required, and the depth of investigation is deeper than nuclear techniques employing downhole neutron activation. There is no possible hazard resulting from flowback to the surface of radioactive proppants or fluids, nor the contamination of equipment at the wellsite. The logistics of the operation are also very simple: (1) the proppant can be prepared well in advance of the required frac operations without worrying about radioactive decay associated with delays, (2) there are no concerns related to radiation exposure to the proppant during proppant transport and storage, (3) any excess proppant prepared for one frac job could be used on any subsequent frac job, and (4) the logging tools required are widely available and generally inexpensive to run. Also, slow logging speed is not an issue and there is no need for sophisticated gamma ray spectral deconvolution or other complex data processing (other than possible log normalization).
Moreover, the cost of the procedure when using PNC tools is lower than methods requiring expensive tracer materials, sophisticated detection equipment, high cost logging tools, or sophisticated data processing.
Embodiments of the present invention include a method for determining the location and height of a fracture in a subterranean formation region, and/or the pack material in the vicinity of the borehole, in frac-pack and gravel-pack operations using a PNC logging tool. The method includes obtaining a pre-fracture data set, hydraulically fracturing and packing the formation fractures, and/or packing portions of the borehole region, with a slurry that includes a liquid and a proppant (defined to also include sand or other conventional pack material) in which all or a fraction of such proppant includes a thermal neutron absorbing material, obtaining a post-fracture data set, and comparing the pre-fracture data set and the post-fracture data set. This comparison indicates the location and radial distribution of the proppant in the fracture relative to the proppant placed in the borehole region. This proppant location/distribution is then correlated to depth measurements of the borehole. In this way, the location and height of the fracture is determined from tagged material indicated to be in the fracture, and a simultaneous estimate can be made of the proppant which has been placed in the pack zone in the annular space either outside the outer wellbore tubular or between two wellbore tubulars.
The pre-fracture and post-fracture data sets are each obtained by lowering into a borehole traversing a subterranean formation, a neutron emitting tool including a pulsed fast neutron source and one or more thermal neutron or gamma ray detectors, emitting neutrons from the neutron source into the borehole and formation, and detecting in the borehole region thermal neutrons or capture gamma rays resulting from nuclear reactions of the source neutrons with elements in the borehole region and subterranean formation. For purposes of this application, the term “borehole region” includes the logging tool, the borehole fluid, the tubulars in the wellbore and any other annular material such as cement that is located between the formation and the tubular(s) in the wellbore.
According to certain embodiments using a PNC tool, the pre-fracture and post-fracture data sets are used to distinguish proppant in the formation from proppant in the wellbore.
According to certain embodiments of the present invention which utilizes a PNC tool, the PNC logging tool generates data that includes log count rates, computed formation thermal neutron capture cross-sections, computed borehole thermal neutron capture cross-sections, and computed formation and borehole decay component count rate related parameters and/or gated count rates in selected time intervals following the neutron bursts.
According to certain embodiments of the present invention, the pre-fracture and post-fracture data sets are normalized prior to the step of comparing the pre-fracture and post-fracture data sets. Normalization involves adjusting the pre-fracture and post-fracture data for environmental and/or tool differences in order to compare the data sets.
According to certain embodiments of the present invention, the frac slurry (or “frac-pack slurry” or “gravel-pack slurry” depending on the fracing or packing operation being performed) includes a proppant containing the thermal neutron absorbing material. The proppant is illustratively a granular material which, when respectively used in a fracing, frac-packing or gravel-packing operation, may be referred to herein as comprising (1) “fracing particles” positionable in a subterranean formation outside of a well bore, (2) “frac-pack particles” positionable in a “frac-pack zone” within a wellbore in conjunction with a frac-packing operation, or (3) “gravel-pack particles” positionable within a “gravel-pack zone” within a wellbore in conjunction with a gravel packing operation. The proppant doped with the thermal neutron absorbing material has a thermal neutron capture cross-section exceeding that of elements normally encountered in subterranean zones to be fractured. According to certain embodiments of the present invention, the proppant containing the thermal neutron absorbing material has a macroscopic thermal neutron capture cross-section of at least about 90 capture units, and preferably up to 900 capture units or more. Preferably, the proppant material is a granular ceramic material, with substantially every grain of the proppant material having a high capture cross section thermal neutron absorbing material integrally incorporated therein.
According to yet another embodiment of the present invention, the thermal neutron absorbing material is boron, cadmium, gadolinium, iridium, samarium, or mixtures thereof.
Suitable boron containing high capture cross-section materials include boron carbide, boron nitride, boric acid, high boron concentrate glass, zinc borate, borax, and combinations thereof. A proppant containing 0.1% by weight of boron carbide has a macroscopic capture cross-section of approximately 92 capture units. A suitable proppant containing 0.025-0.030% by weight of gadolinium oxide has similar thermal neutron absorption properties as a proppant containing 0.1% by weight of boron carbide. Some of the examples set forth below use boron carbide; however those of ordinary skill in the art will recognize that any high capture cross section thermal neutron absorbing material, such as gadolinium oxide, can be used.
According to certain embodiments of the present invention, the proppant utilized includes about 0.025% to about 4.0% by weight of the thermal neutron absorbing material. According to certain embodiments of the present invention, the proppant includes a concentration of about 0.1% to about 4.0% by weight of a boron compound thermal neutron absorbing material. According to certain embodiments of the present invention, the proppant includes a concentration of about 0.025% to about 1.0% by weight of a gadolinium compound thermal neutron absorbing material.
According to embodiments of the present invention, the proppant may be a ceramic proppant, sand, resin coated sand, plastic beads, glass beads, and other ceramic or resin coated proppants. Such proppants may be manufactured according to any suitable process including, but not limited to continuous spray atomization, spray fluidization, spray drying, or compression. Suitable proppants and methods for manufacture are disclosed in U.S. Pat. Nos. 4,068,718, 4,427,068, 4,440,866, 5,188,175, and 7,036,591, the entire disclosures of which are incorporated herein by reference.
According to certain embodiments of the present invention, the thermal neutron absorbing material is added to the ceramic proppant during the manufacturing process such as continuous spray atomization, spray fluidization, spray drying, or compression. Ceramic proppants vary in properties such as apparent specific gravity by virtue of the starting raw material and the manufacturing process. The term “apparent specific gravity” as used herein is the weight per unit volume (grams per cubic centimeter) of the particles, including the internal porosity. Low density proppants generally have an apparent specific gravity of less than 3.0 g/cc and are typically made from kaolin clay and alumina. Intermediate density proppants generally have an apparent specific gravity of about 3.1 to 3.4 g/cc and are typically made from bauxitic clay. High strength proppants are generally made from bauxitic clays with alumina and have an apparent specific gravity above 3.4 g/cc. A thermal neutron absorbing material may be added in the manufacturing process of any one of these proppants to result in proppant suitable for use according to certain embodiments of the present invention. Ceramic proppant may be manufactured in a manner that creates porosity in the proppant grain. A process to manufacture a suitable porous ceramic is described in U.S. Pat. No. 7,036,591, the entire disclosure of which is incorporated by reference herein. In this case the thermal neutron absorbing material is impregnated into the pores of the proppant grains to a concentration of about 0.025 to about 4.0% by weight.
According to certain embodiments of the present invention, the thermal neutron absorbing material is incorporated into a resin material and ceramic proppant or natural sands are coated with the resin material containing the thermal neutron absorbing material. Processes for resin coating proppants and natural sands are well known to those of ordinary skill in the art. For example, a suitable solvent coating process is described in U.S. Pat. No. 3,929,191, to Graham et al., the entire disclosure of which is incorporated herein by reference. Another suitable process such as that described in U.S. Pat. No. 3,492,147 to Young et al., the entire disclosure of which is incorporated herein by reference, involves the coating of a particulate substrate with a liquid, uncatalyzed resin composition characterized by its ability to extract a catalyst or curing agent from a non-aqueous solution. Also a suitable hot melt coating procedure for utilizing phenol-formaldehyde novolac resins is described in U.S. Pat. No. 4,585,064, to Graham et al, the entire disclosure of which is incorporated herein by reference. Those of ordinary skill in the art will be familiar with still other suitable methods for resin coating proppants and natural sands.
Accordingly, the methods of the present invention may be implemented with ceramic proppant or natural sands coated with or otherwise containing the thermal neutron absorbing material. According to certain embodiments of the present invention, a suitable thermal neutron absorbing material is either boron carbide or gadolinium oxide, each of which has an effective thermal neutron absorbing capacity at a low concentration in tagged proppant or sand. The concentration of such thermal neutron absorbing materials is generally on the order of about 0.025% to about 4.0% by weight of the proppant. For boron compounds such as boron carbide, the concentration is about 0.1% to about 4.0% by weight of the proppant, and for gadolinium compounds such as gadolinium oxide, the concentration is about 0.025% to about 1.0% by weight of the proppant. These concentrations are low enough such that the other properties of the tagged proppant (such as crush strength) are essentially unaffected by the addition of the high capture cross section material. While any high capture cross-section thermal neutron absorbing material may be used in the embodiments of the present invention, in some embodiments of the present invention which employ PNC tools, boron carbide or other boron containing materials may be used because thermal neutron capture by boron does not result in measurable gamma radiation in the detectors in the logging tool. Also, in embodiments of the present invention which employ PNC tools, gadolinium oxide or other gadolinium containing materials may be used because a smaller amount of the gadolinium-containing tagging material is required relative to boron containing materials. The weight percentage required to produce similar thermal neutron absorption properties for other high thermal neutron capture cross section materials will be a function of the density and molecular weight of the material used, and on the capture cross sections of the constituents of the material.
A manufactured ceramic proppant containing about 0.025% to about 4.0% by weight of a thermal neutron absorbing material can be cost effectively produced, and can provide useful fracture, frac-pack, or gravel-pack identifying signals when comparing PNC log responses run before and after a frac job. These signals are capable of indicating and distinguishing between the intervals that have and those that have not been fractured, propped, and/or packed.
As shown in
According to embodiments of the present invention, the induced hydraulic fracture and packed interval identification process using a proppant having a thermal neutron absorbing material and measurements from a PNC logging tool includes:
1. Preparing proppant doped with a thermal neutron absorbing material by fabricating the proppant from starting materials that include a thermal neutron absorbing material, by coating the thermal neutron absorbing material onto the proppant or by impregnating or otherwise incorporating the thermal neutron absorbing material into the proppant.
2. Running and recording, or otherwise obtaining, a pre-frac (defined to include pre gravel-pack) PNC log across the potential zones to be fractured to obtain a pre-frac data set, and preferably also including zones outside the potential fracture zones.
3. Conducting a hydraulic fracturing, frac-packing, or gravel-packing operation in the well, incorporating the proppant having a thermal neutron absorbing material into the slurry pumped downhole.
4. Running and recording a post-frac (defined to include post gravel-pack) PNC log, if possible utilizing the same tool type as used in the pre-frac log, across the potential zones of interest, including one or more fracture, frac-pack or gravel-pack intervals to obtain a post-frac data set, and preferably also including zones outside the interval where fracturing, frac-packing, and/or gravel-packing was anticipated. The logs may be run with the tool centered or eccentered within the casing or tubing. The pre-frac and post-frac logs are preferably run in the same condition of eccentricity.
5. Comparing the pre-frac and post-frac data sets from the pre-frac and post-frac logs (after any log normalization), to determine location (both vertical and radial) of proppant. Normalization may be necessary if the pre-frac and post-frac logs were run with different borehole conditions, or if different tools or sources were used. This may be especially true if the pre-frac log was recorded at an earlier time in the life history of the well, using wireline, memory, and/or logging-while-drilling (LWD) sensors. Normalization procedures compare the log data from zones preferably outside of the possibly fractured and/or packed intervals in the pre-frac and post-frac logs. Since these zones have not changed between the logs, the gains and/or offsets are applied to the logs to bring about agreement between the pre-fracture and post-fracture logs in these normalization intervals. The same gains/offsets are then applied to the logs over the entire logged interval. Differences in the data indicate the presence of proppant in the fracture and/or the borehole region in the vicinity of the fracture, and also indicate the presence of the proppant in the fracture relative to the proppant in the packed annular region of the borehole.
For PNC tools, increases in computed formation and/or borehole capture cross-sections, and decreases in the computed borehole and/or formation component count rates in selected time intervals between the neutron bursts in the post-frac log relative to the pre-frac log indicate the presence of proppant containing a thermal neutron absorbing material. Comparisons between the various PNC measurement parameters having different formation vs. borehole sensitivities, can be used to indicate the relative radial position of the tagged proppant (i.e., the relative distribution of the proppant in the annular packed zone in the borehole vs. the proppant out in fractures in the formation.
6. Detecting the location and height of the propped fracture and the location of proppant packed in the borehole region by correlating the differences in data from step (5) to a depth measurement of the borehole.
Further embodiments of the present invention include changes in the methods described herein such as, but not limited to, incorporating multiple pre-frac logs into any pre-frac versus post-frac comparisons, or the use of a simulated log for the pre-frac log (such simulated logs being obtained for instance using neural networks to generate simulated PNC log responses from other open or cased hole logs on the well), or the use of multiple stationary logging measurements instead of, or in addition to, data collected with continuous logs.
In additional embodiments of the invention, first and second post-frac (defined to also include post-gravel pack) data sets are obtained and utilized to determine the differences, if any, between the quantities of proppant in the fractured and/or packed zones before producing a quantity of well fluids from the subterranean formation and the quantities of proppant in the corresponding zones after such production by comparing the post-frac (defined to also include post gravel pack) data sets. The determined proppant quantity differences are utilized to determine one or more production and/or fracture-related characteristics of the subterranean formation such as: (a) one or more of the fracture zones and/or packed zones is not as well filled with proppant material as it was initially, (b) production from one or more of the producing zones is greater than the production from the other zones, and (c) one or more of the intended producing zones is not producing. This post-frac (or post gravel pack) procedure may be carried out using a pulsed neutron capture logging tool, possibly augmented with other wellsite information or information provided by other conventional logging tools, such as production logging tools.
According to certain embodiments of the thermal neutron logging method, fast neutrons are emitted from a neutron source into the wellbore and formation, and are rapidly thermalized to thermal neutrons by elastic and inelastic collisions with formation and borehole region nuclei. Elastic collisions with hydrogen in the formation and the borehole region are a principal thermalization mechanism. The thermal neutrons diffuse in the borehole region and the formation, and are eventually absorbed by one of the nuclei present. Generally these absorption reactions result in the almost simultaneous emission of capture gamma rays; however, absorption by boron is a notable exception. The detectors in the PNC logging tool either directly detect the thermal neutrons that are scattered back into the tool, or indirectly by detecting the gamma rays resulting from the thermal neutron absorption reactions (used in most commercial versions of PNC tools). Most PNC tools are configured with a neutron source and two detectors arranged above the neutron source which are referred to herein as a “near” detector and a “far” detector. According to embodiments of the present invention, pulsed neutron capture tools may be used that include one detector, or more than two detectors. For example, a suitable PNC tool could incorporate a pulsed neutron source and three detectors arranged above the neutron source, which are referred to herein as the near, far, and “extra-far” or “xfar” detectors such that the near detector is closest to the neutron source and the xfar detector is the farthest away from the neutron source. It is also possible that one or more of the neutron or capture gamma ray detectors may be located below the neutron source.
A pulsed neutron capture tool logging system measures the decay rate (as a function of time between the neutron pulses) of the thermal neutron or capture gamma ray population in the formation and the borehole region. From this decay rate curve, the capture cross-sections of the formation Σfm (sigma-fm) and borehole Σbh (sigma-bh), and the formation and borehole decay components can be resolved and determined. The higher the total capture cross-sections of the materials in the formation and/or in the borehole region, the greater the tendency for that material to capture thermal neutrons. Therefore, in a formation having a high total capture cross-section, the thermal neutrons disappear more rapidly than in a formation having a low capture cross-section. This appears as a steeper slope in a plot of the observed count rate versus time after the neutron burst.
The differences between the PNC borehole and formation pre-frac and post-frac parameters can be used to distinguish proppant in the formation from proppant in the wellbore.
The PNC data used to generate
The following examples are presented to further illustrate various aspects of the present invention, and are not intended to limit the scope of the invention. The examples set forth below were generated using the Monte Carlo N-Particle Transport Code version 5 (hereinafter “MCNP”). The MCNP is a software package that was developed by Los Alamos National Laboratory and is commercially available within the United States from the Radiation Safety Information Computation Center (http://www-rsicc.ornl.gov). The MCNP software can handle geometrical details and accommodates variations in the chemical composition and size of all modeled components, including borehole fluid salinity, the concentration of the thermal neutron absorbing material in the proppant in the fracture, and the width of the fracture. The MCNP data set forth below generally resulted in statistical standard deviations of approximately 0.5-1.0% in the computed count rates.
In some of the following illustrations, the proppant was doped with either boron carbide or gadolinium oxide; however other suitable thermal neutron absorbing materials may be used. In some applications, the desired proppant is a granular ceramic material into substantially every grain of which the dopant is integrally incorporated. In other applications, not all proppant grains have to be tagged, and in some applications, sand or other hard granular materials may be utilized, with the tag material applied as a coating.
For the purposes of most of the following examples,
In
A PNC system having a 14-MeV pulsed neutron generator was modeled using MCNP to determine the height of a fracture in a formation from detecting tagged proppant material deposited the formation fractures and/or to detect the placement of proppant/pack material into the desired annular borehole region in frac-pack and gravel-pack applications. Decay curve count rate data detected in thermal neutron or gamma ray sensors are recorded after the fracturing/packing operation. As in the case of neutron and compensated neutron tools in previously referenced U.S. Pat. No. 8,100,177, the observed parameters are then compared to corresponding values recorded in a logging run made before the well was fractured/packed, again preferably made with the same or a similar logging tool and with the same borehole conditions as the post-frac log. The formation and borehole thermal neutron absorption cross-sections are calculated from the observed two-component decay curves. Increases in the formation and/or borehole thermal neutron absorption cross-sections in the post-frac PNC logs relative to the pre-frac logs, as well as decreases between the logs in count rates selected time intervals between the neutron bursts, and also decreases in count rates in computed formation and/or borehole component count rate integrals are used to identify the presence of boron or gadolinium doped proppant in the induced fracture(s) and/or in the packed annular borehole region, generally in the vicinity of the fractured zone. Selections of, and/or comparisons of, the PNC measurement parameters with differing relative formation vs. borehole region sensitivities are made to obtain indications of the relative presence of tagged proppant in formation fractures vs. frac-packed or gravel-packed packed annular spaces within the borehole.
A PNC tool can be used for data collection and processing to enable observation of both count rate related changes and changes in computed formation and borehole thermal neutron capture cross-sections so as to identify the presence of the neutron absorber in the proppant.
In current “dual exponential” PNC tools, as disclosed in SPWLA Annual Symposium Transactions, 1983 paper CC entitled Experimental Basis For A New Borehole Corrected Pulsed Neutron Capture Logging System (Thermal Multi-gate Decay “TMD”) by Shultz et al.; 1983 paper DD entitled Applications Of A New Borehole Corrected Pulsed Neutron Capture Logging System (TMD) by Smith, Jr. et al.; and 1984 paper KKK entitled Applications of TMD Pulsed Neutron Logs In Unusual Downhole Logging Environments by Buchanan et al., the equation for the detected count rate c(t), measured in the thermal neutron (or gamma ray) detectors as a function of time between the neutron bursts can be approximated by Equation 1:
c(t)=Abhexp(−t/τbh)+Afmexp(−t/τfm), (1)
where the cross-sections are in capture units and the decay constants are in microseconds.
An increase in the capture cross-section Σfm will be observed in the post-frac logs with proppant in the formation fractures relative to the pre-fracture pulsed neutron logs. Fortunately, due to the ability in PNC logging to separate the count rate signals from the borehole and formation, there will also be a reduced sensitivity in the formation capture cross-section to any unavoidable changes in the borehole region (such as borehole salinity or casing changes) between the pre-fracture and post-fracture pulsed neutron logs, relative to situations in which neutron or compensated neutron tools are used to make the measurements.
The formation decay component count rate (or the observed count rate in selected time-gated interval(s) between the neutron bursts) will also be affected (reduced) by the presence of neutron absorbers in the proppant in the fractures, especially in PNC tools having gamma ray detectors. These formation component or gated count rates will also be reduced with taggant present in the in the annular frac-pack or gravel-pack regions within the overall borehole region, since many of the thermal neutrons primarily decaying in the formation may actually be captured in the borehole region (this is the same reason a large number of iron gamma rays are seen in spectra from time intervals after the neutron bursts dominated by the formation decay component, although the only iron present is in the well tubular(s) and tool housing in the borehole region).
Since most modern PNC tools also measure the borehole component decay, an increase in the borehole capture cross-section Σbh and a change in the borehole component count rate in the post-frac log relative to the pre-frac log generally will indicate the presence of proppant in the vicinity of the borehole, including frac-packed or gravel-packed regions.
Table 1 displays the computed formation and borehole information from
The effects described in Table 1 can also be seen by visual observation of the decay curves in
This reduced borehole component sensitivity to the proppant in the fracture can also be seen in the data in Table 1, which shows Σbh and Abh*τbh, computed from the decay data in
PNC formation parameters, as described earlier, are less sensitive than neutron or compensated neutron parameters to changes in non-proppant related changes in borehole conditions between the pre-frac and post-frac logs (such as borehole fluid salinity changes or changes in casing conditions). This is due to the ability of PNC systems to separate formation and borehole components.
Modern multi-component PNC tools detect gamma rays, which can be used to compute the formation decay cross-section, Σfm, that is only minimally sensitive to most borehole region changes in conventional frac operations, as seen above. If a PNC tool measuring thermal neutrons instead of gamma rays is employed, Σfm will also be sensitive to formation changes (tagged fractures) and relatively insensitive to borehole region changes. As is the case with PNC tools containing gamma ray detectors, Afm*τfm will be sensitive to the presence of proppant in the borehole, in part since the thermal neutrons will be additionally attenuated traversing this high capture cross-section borehole annulus between the formation and the detectors in the logging tool. The borehole decay parameters (Σbh and Abh*τbh), like those measured in a PNC tool containing gamma ray detectors, are less sensitive than Σfm and Afm*τfm to changes in the formation, but borehole parameters, and especially Σbh, are very sensitive to tagged proppant in the cement region or in frac-pack or gravel-pack regions. Hence in a PNC tool containing thermal neutron detectors, the changes in all four parameters (Σfm, Afm*τfm, Σbh and Abh*τbh) will generally be affected in the same way by tagged proppant as PNC tools containing gamma ray detectors.
Changes in Σfm may be monitored if a difficult to quantify change in borehole region conditions (such as changes in borehole fluid salinity or casing conditions) has occurred between the log runs. Since Σfm is not very sensitive to changes in the borehole region, Σfm may be monitored if it is desired to emphasize detection of tagged proppant in the formation as opposed to tagged proppant in the borehole region. On the other hand, if some of the neutron absorber doped proppant is located in the cement region adjacent to an induced fracture, an increase in the computed borehole thermal neutron capture cross-section Σbh will be observed in the post-frac log relative to the pre-frac log (changes in the borehole decay component count rates and Abh*τbh would be less significant). These borehole parameter changes would be much less pronounced if the proppant had been in fractures in the formation. Another embodiment of the present invention provides for monitoring changes in Σbh and Afm*τfm, and in come cases, Abh*τbh, (and a lack of change in Σfm) to detect proppant located in the cement/borehole region.
There are several situations in induced fracturing and frac-pack applications when it may be desirable to know not only that tagged proppant is present in intervals of interest, but also to know the relative radial depth of proppant placement. In conventional frac operations, it is useful to know the relative proportion of proppant out in the fracture versus in the damaged zone in the immediate vicinity of the borehole, including the cement region outside the casing. In cased-hole frac-pack applications, it would be useful to be able to distinguish proppant in the annulus between the well casing and the screen/tubing from proppant placed outside the casing in the frac-packed zone and fracture. In uncased fracturing, frac-packing, and gravel packing applications in wells containing liners and screens, including those in horizontal wells, it would be useful to distinguish proppant in the near borehole region outside the liner/screen versus that placed out in the induced fractures. Proppant detection with a compensated neutron tool (CNT), although having a small depth of investigation signal difference between the near and far detector measurements, is generally not nearly as well suited to addressing this depth of measurement problem as pulsed neutron capture (PNC) tools. PNC measurements, due to the pulsed operation of the source and the count rate measurements made by the detectors in multiple time gates after each neutron burst, can resolve and measure: (1) borehole and formation capture cross-sections from gamma ray (or thermal neutron) die-away data following the neutron bursts, (2) count rates in selected time intervals relative to the neutron bursts, and (3) formation and borehole decay component magnitudes. These PNC measurements/parameters are well suited to resolving depth of proppant location issues. Three PNC based depth of proppant determination scenarios are described below relating to conventional frac, cased-hole frac-pack, and uncased liner/screen frac, frac-pack, and gravel pack applications.
Scenario 1—Conventional Frac Application:
The geometry in this scenario (see
fm(cu)
bh(cu)
When tagged proppant is also present in the borehole annulus (cement) region outside the casing as well as in the fracture, but not in the borehole fluid inside the casing (case 3), there is virtually no change in the formation sigma or borehole sigma values relative to the after frac log with tag material only in the fracture. (Note: the borehole component decay being measured is primarily influenced by the decay in the borehole fluid itself and not by the much more quickly decaying count rate in the tagged proppant in the annulus outside the casing . . . and hence the observed sigma-borehole does not change much in case 3 relative to case 2). On the other hand, the A-fm×Tau-fm value and the gate count rates in Table 3 and Table 2, respectively, show additional count rate decreases in case 3 relative to the after frac data with the tag only in the fracture (case 2). The fact that we see no significant effect of the tagged proppant slurry in the borehole region on the fm-sigma curve, but we do see the effect of the added borehole region proppant on both the A-fm×Tau-fm curve and on the gate count rate curves (big decreases), is providing a way to distinguish whether most of the proppant tag is in the near borehole region relative to that in the fracture itself. If there is tagged proppant in both the fracture and the near borehole region, the formation sigma will increase, and the formation component count rate related parameters (A-fm×Tau-fm and the gated counts) will decrease. With tagged proppant in the borehole region only (case 4), the formation sigma does not change much from the pre-frac case, but both gated count rates and formation component count rate related parameters decrease, although, not as much as if the tagged proppant/sand had also been out in the formation fracture. There should be a gradation of this effect as well, with sigma-formation gradually increasing (relative to the observed decreases in the gated count rates and count rate related parameters) as the percentage of the detected frac slurry present in the fracture relative to the borehole/cement region increases.
Scenario 2—Cased-Hole Frac-Pack Application:
Since the situation in a frac-pack is somewhat analogous to the situation described in scenario 1 above, the depth of proppant concept is also applicable to qualitatively and quantitatively determining radial proppant location related to cased-hole frac-pack operations in a vertical (or deviated or possibly horizontal) well. Detected parameters will include: the location of top and bottom of the frac-pack, the relative quality/location of frac-pack material inside the casing, and the location and height of the packed interval (primarily including the fracture) outside of the casing. Described herein are several modeled proppant placement situations related to frac-pack operations (same formation, borehole, and taggant as in Scenario 1). As seen in
Frac-pack case 2 in
Frac-pack case 3 has tagged proppant present in both the annulus between the screen and well casing, and also packed into the fractured region and fractures outside the casing. The modeled geometry of frac-pack case 3 is shown in both
The frac-pack scenario can be further illustrated in modeled decay curves computed using the geometries for the three cases in
In the second frac-pack case (case 2), tagged proppant/sand is only present in the annular space between the screen and the casing. Compared to the baseline case, little or no change was observed in the computed formation sigma, but the borehole sigma significantly increased. The amount of increase in Σbh will be inversely related to the salinity of the fluid present in the baseline case. On the other hand, the formation component A×Tau values and the gated capture gamma ray count rates exhibited significant decreases relative to the baseline case. The fact that we see no significant effect of the added tagged proppant slurry in the borehole region/annulus on the formation-sigma curve, but we do see the effect of the added borehole proppant on the A-fm×Tau-fm curve (and on the A-bh×Tau-bh curve, not shown), and also on the gated count rate curves (big decreases), is providing a way to determine the amount/extent of tagged proppant present and packed into the annular space between the tubing/screen and the well casing. If the magnitudes of the anticipated changes in these parameters as a function of percent fill can be determined, modeled, or otherwise calibrated ahead of time for the given borehole and casing conditions in a field situation, the percent fill in the annular space in the field situation can be determined. If calibration is not available, then relative parameter changes observed on the field log will qualitatively indicate the amount of fill. It should be noted that in gravel pack scenario (see discussion in scenario 2a, below), if there is no attempt made to fracture the formation when the proppant/sand/gravel is placed in the annular space outside the tubing/screen, the same interpretation methods can be used to provide information indicating the amount of fill present in the gravel pack.
The third frac-pack case (case 3) has tagged proppant present in the annulus between the tubing/screen and casing, and also packed into a fracture extending into the formation. In this situation, there will be a change (increase) in formation sigma relative to case 2, in which there is no tagged proppant in any fractures in the formation. The increase in formation sigma can be used to distinguish this situation from case 2, and to uniquely identify the presence of the tagged proppant in the fracture outside the borehole annular region. The magnitude of the increase in formation sigma will be directly related to the amount of tagged proppant present in fractures in the formation. In case 3 the A×Tau formation component count rate values and the gated count rates show additional decreases relative to the after-frac data with the tagged pack material only in the annular space (case 2). When there is tagged proppant in vertical fractures outside the borehole and also in the annular space between the tubing/screen and well casing (case 3), the formation sigma will increase, and the A×Tau component count rates and the gated count rates will decrease, all relative to the baseline case.
Scenario 2a—Cased-Hole Gravel Pack Application
It is important to note that in a conventional gravel packing operation, where essentially all of the pack material (comprising a gravel-pack slurry containing gravel-pack particles) is located in the annulus between the casing and screen (i.e. little or no pack material is intentionally placed outside the casing), the gravel pack geometry is identical to the geometry in frac-pack case 2 above, and the pre-gravel pack geometry is the same as the geometry in frac-pack case 1. Hence the comments above relating to determining the quality of fill in the frac-packed region in the annulus between the screen and casing by comparing changes in PNC measurements of sigma borehole, the A×Tau component count rates, and/or the time gated count rates between frac-pack case 1 and frac-pack case 2 equally well applies to interpreting percent fill in a gravel pack annulus when the gravel pack material contains a neutron absorber/tag, such as boron carbide or gadolinium oxide. On the other hand, since the PNC sigma formation measurements are not significantly affected by annular fill between the screen and casing, that measurement would be of little value in locating gravel in the annulus in conventional gravel pack applications. It should also be noted that prior MCNP modeling for interpreting neutron absorber tagged gravel packs using data from a compensated neutron tool (CNT) gave unreliable results, since CNT detector count rate decreases due to the neutron absorber/tag material in the proppant/sand in the gravel pack are partially or fully offset by CNT count rate increases when gravel is present due to the lower hydrogen index of the gravel pack material relative to the water in the annulus prior to pack placement. Hence, CNT count rate changes are difficult or impossible to interpret in determining % fill in frac-packs or gravel packs when the pack material contains a strong thermal neutron absorber. Since CNT tools are not well suited to tagged gravel applications, this gives added significance to the fact that PNC tools are able to evaluate percent fill in the casing-screen annulus in frac-packs and gravel packs when a neutron absorber is added into or onto the pack material.
Scenario 3—Uncased Liner (Including Horizontal Well) Fracturing, Frac-Packing, and Gravel Packing Applications:
This geometry in this scenario (see
In the second horizontal well case (Horizontal case 2), tagged proppant/sand is only present in the open-hole annular space between the liner/screen and the borehole wall. Compared to the baseline case, little or no change will be observed in the computed formation sigma, but the borehole sigma will significantly increase. The amount of increase in Σbh will be inversely related to the salinity of the fluid present in the baseline case (as in the frac-pack scenario 2 above), and will also be related to how closely the tool diameter (OD) approaches the inside wall diameter (ID) of the liner/screen. On the other hand, the formation component A×Tau values and the gated capture gamma ray count rates will exhibit significant decreases relative to the baseline case. We should see no significant effect of the added tagged proppant slurry in the borehole region/annulus on the formation-sigma curve, but we should see the effect of the added borehole proppant on the A-fm×Tau-fm curve, on the A-bh×Tau-bh curve, and also on the gated count rate curves (big decreases). These changes between the before-frac and after-frac logs, are providing a way to determine the amount of tagged proppant present and packed into the annular space between the liner/screen and the borehole wall. If the magnitudes of the anticipated changes in these parameters as a function of percent fill can be determined, modeled, or otherwise calibrated ahead of time for the given borehole and liner/screen conditions in a field situation, the percent fill in the annular space in the field situation can be determined. If calibration is not available, then relative parameter changes observed on the field log will qualitatively indicate the amount of fill. It should be noted that, similar to the cased-hole gravel pack scenario discussed above, if there is no attempt made to fracture the formation when the proppant/sand/gravel is placed in the annular open-hole space outside the liner/screen, the horizontal well frac or frac-pack scenario in Horizontal case 2 is identical to an analogous open-hole gravel pack situation in either a horizontal, deviated, or vertical borehole, and the same interpretation methods can be used to provide information indicating the amount of fill present in the gravel pack.
The third horizontal well fracturing case (Horizontal case 3) has tagged proppant present in the annulus between the liner/screen and borehole wall, and also packed into a fracture extending into the formation. In this situation, there will be a change (increase) in formation sigma relative to Horizontal case 2, in which there is no tagged proppant in any fractures in the formation. The increase in formation sigma can be used to distinguish this situation from Horizontal case 2, and to uniquely identify the presence of the tagged proppant in the fracture outside the borehole annular region. The magnitude of the increase in formation sigma will be directly related to the amount/extent of tagged proppant present in fractures in the formation. In Horizontal case 3, the A×Tau component count rate values and the gated count rates all will show additional decreases relative to the after-frac data with the tagged pack material only in the annular space (Horizontal case 2). When there is tagged proppant in vertical fractures outside the uncased borehole and also in the annular space between the line/screenr and borehole wall (Horizontal case 3), the formation sigma will increase, and the component count rates (A×Tau for fm or bh components) and the gated count rates will decrease, all relative to the baseline case. When the vertical fracture plane transversely (as shown in
Although the above discussion has focused on comparing pre-frac with post-frac logs to detect the location of proppant tagged with high thermal neutron capture cross section materials (e.g. B4C or Gd2O3) to indicate induced fractures or the presence of proppant in frac-pack and gravel-pack operations, a similar comparison of two (or more) PNC logs run at different times after the frac job can also provide useful information. If there is a reduction over time in the amount of tagged proppant in the fracture and/or borehole region, a reversal of the changes described above will be observed between a post-frac log run at one point in time after the frac operation with a similar log run at a later time (after making any required log normalization). Decreases in Σfm and/or Σbh, and increases in Afm*τfm and gated count rates, would indicate a reduction in the amount of tagged proppant/sand detected when the later post-frac log was run. This reduction in the amount of proppant in place can provide useful information about the well. Any proppant reduction is likely caused by proppant being produced out of the well together with the oilfield fluids produced from the formation. Proppant reduction could indicate that the fracture, frac-pack, or gravel pack is not as well filled with the packing material as it was initially (and hence the possible requirement for another frac job or other remedial action). Reduced proppant in the formation could also indicate the fractured zones from which most of the production is coming, since proppant will likely only be produced from producing zones. No change in formation proppant could conversely be indicative of zones that are not producing, and hence provide information about zones that need to be recompleted. Since PNC tools are used for these comparisons, it is also be possible to distinguish whether the proppant changes are coming from the frac-pack zone in the borehole or the formation fractures themselves, or both. If logs are run at multiple times after the first post-fracture log, then progressive changes could be monitored. Of course, it would also be useful to know whether a reduction in proppant detected was caused by a reduction in the quality of the propped fracture or caused by the zones with the highest production rates, or both. Resolving these effects might be possible by augmenting the post-frac proppant identification logs with: (1) conventional production logs, (2) gamma ray logs to locate radioactive salt deposition in zones resulting from production, (3) acoustic logs to detect open fractures, (4) other log data, and/or (5) field information. It should be noted that this type of post-frac information could not be obtained using fracture identification methods in which relatively short half life radioactive tracers are pumped downhole, since radioactive decay would make the subsequent post-frac logs useless. This would not be a problem with the methods described, since the characteristics/properties of boron or gadolinium tagged proppants do not change over time.
The foregoing detailed description is to be clearly understood as being given by way of illustration and example only, the spirit and scope of the present invention being limited solely by the appended claims.
| Number | Name | Date | Kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| 3240938 | Hall, Jr. | Mar 1966 | A |
| 3492147 | Young et al. | Jan 1970 | A |
| 3929191 | Graham et al. | Dec 1975 | A |
| 3943362 | Peelman | Mar 1976 | A |
| 4021666 | Allen | May 1977 | A |
| 4052613 | Murphy et al. | Oct 1977 | A |
| 4068718 | Cooke, Jr. et al. | Jan 1978 | A |
| 4078174 | Goldman | Mar 1978 | A |
| 4092536 | Smith | May 1978 | A |
| 4288696 | Peelman et al. | Sep 1981 | A |
| 4427068 | Fitzgibbon | Jan 1984 | A |
| 4440866 | Lunghofer et al. | Apr 1984 | A |
| 4495604 | Clavier et al. | Jan 1985 | A |
| 4585064 | Graham et al. | Apr 1986 | A |
| 4642460 | Wallace | Feb 1987 | A |
| 4658899 | Fitzgibbon | Apr 1987 | A |
| 4731531 | Handke | Mar 1988 | A |
| 4760252 | Albats et al. | Jul 1988 | A |
| 4825073 | Smith, Jr. et al. | Apr 1989 | A |
| 4879181 | Fitzgibbon | Nov 1989 | A |
| 4894285 | Fitzgibbon | Jan 1990 | A |
| 4926940 | Stromswold | May 1990 | A |
| 5156804 | Halverson et al. | Oct 1992 | A |
| 5243190 | Bandy et al. | Sep 1993 | A |
| 5322126 | Scott, III | Jun 1994 | A |
| 5404010 | Anderson et al. | Apr 1995 | A |
| 5410152 | Gadeken | Apr 1995 | A |
| 5441110 | Scott, III | Aug 1995 | A |
| 5536938 | Mills et al. | Jul 1996 | A |
| 5572021 | Heathman et al. | Nov 1996 | A |
| 5635712 | Scott, III et al. | Jun 1997 | A |
| 6207953 | Wilson | Mar 2001 | B1 |
| 6389367 | Plasek | May 2002 | B1 |
| 6725926 | Nguyen et al. | Apr 2004 | B2 |
| 6815665 | Storm et al. | Nov 2004 | B2 |
| 7036591 | Cannan et al. | May 2006 | B2 |
| 8100177 | Smith, Jr. | Jan 2012 | B2 |
| 20060192096 | Radtke | Aug 2006 | A1 |
| 20070011115 | Smith, Jr. et al. | Jan 2007 | A1 |
| 20070034373 | McDaniel et al. | Feb 2007 | A1 |
| 20080009425 | Pershikova | Jan 2008 | A1 |
| 20090205825 | Smith et al. | Aug 2009 | A1 |
| 20090210161 | Duenckel et al. | Aug 2009 | A1 |
| 20090224146 | Gilchrist et al. | Sep 2009 | A1 |
| 20110001040 | Smith, Jr. et al. | Jan 2011 | A1 |
| 20110272146 | Green et al. | Nov 2011 | A1 |
| 20110297818 | Thornton | Dec 2011 | A1 |
| Number | Date | Country |
|---|---|---|
| 102007267 | Apr 2011 | CN |
| WO 2005103446 | Nov 2005 | WO |
| WO 2007019585 | Feb 2007 | WO |
| WO 2009105306 | Aug 2007 | WO |
| WO 2010120494 | Oct 2010 | WO |
| WO 2011162938 | Dec 2011 | WO |
| Entry |
|---|
| International Search Report and Written opinion issued for PCT/US13/37979, dated Aug. 8, 2013, 16 pgs. |
| International Search Report mailed Jun. 1, 2010, by the ISA/US, in connection with International Application No. PCT/US2010/029207. |
| International Search Report mailed Feb. 27, 2009, by the ISA/US, in connection with International Application No. PCT/US2009/031878. |
| Written Opinion mailed Feb. 27, 2009, by the ISA/US, in connection with International Application No. PCT/US2009/031878. |
| International Preliminary Report on Patentability mailed Sep. 8, 2010, by the IPEA/US, in connection with International Application No. PCT/US2009/031878. |
| International Search Report mailed Sep. 16, 2011, by the ISA/US, in connection with International Application No. PCT/US2011/039236. |
| Written Opinion mailed Sep. 16, 2011, by the ISA/US, in connection with International Application No. PCT/US2011/039236. |
| Office Action mailed Aug. 31, 2010, by the USPTO, in connection with U.S. Appl. No. 12/358,168. |
| Office Action mailed Apr. 8, 2011, by the USPTO, in connection with U.S. Appl. No. 12/358,168. |
| Notice of Allowance mailed Sep. 27, 2011, by the USPTO, in connection with U.S. Appl. No. 12/358,168. |
| Office Action mailed Nov. 28, 2011, by the USPTO, in connection with U.S. Appl. No. 12/425,884. |
| Examiner Interview Summary mailed Mar. 20, 2012, by the USPTO, in connection with U.S. Appl. No. 12/425,884. |
| Correspondence from foreign counsel regarding Office Action dated Dec. 14, 2011, issued by the Eurasian Patent Office, regarding Eurasian Patent App No. 201001336. |
| W.E. Schultz et al.; Experimental Basis for a New Borehole Corrected Pulsed Neutron Capture Logging System (TMD); SPWLA Publications. |
| H.D Smith, Jr. et al.; Applications of a New Borehole Corrected Pulsed Neutron Capture Logging System (TMD); SPWLA Publications. |
| J.C. Buchanan et al.; Applications of TMD* Pulsed Neutron Logs in Unusual Downhole Logging Environments; SPWLA Publications. |
| Neutron activation analysis; Wikipedia, 6 pages. |
| Office action mailed Dec. 7, 2011, by USPTO in connection with U.S. Appl. No. 12/820,576. |
| Mark Mulkern et al, A Green Alternative for Determination of Frac Height and Proppant Distribution, SPE 138500, Oct. 12-14, 2010, 9 pages, SPE Eastern Regional Meeting held in Morgantown, West Virginia. |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 20130292109 A1 | Nov 2013 | US |
