Well Integrity Log Interpretation

(Magnetic Thickness Detector and 56-Arm Multi-Finger Caliper)

Company:
Well:
Field:
Province: Alberta
Country: Canada
License:
UWI:
Logging Date: 21-Mar-2015
Report Date: 21-Mar-2015
Reference:
Analyst:
 Company:
MTD and MFC Log Interpretation UWI:
Reference:

Table of Contents
1. Objective and Conclusions ....................................................................................................................................... 3
1.1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................... 3
1.2. Objectives ........................................................................................................................................................ 3
1.3. Job Details........................................................................................................................................................ 3
1.4. Conclusions ...................................................................................................................................................... 4
1.5. Log Quality Control........................................................................................................................................... 7
1.6. Log Interpretation ...........................................................................................................................................24
2. Appendix B: Tool Specification ................................................................................................................................32
2.1. MFC Tool Specifications & Logging Modes .......................................................................................................32
2.2. MTD Tool Specifications & Logging Modes ......................................................................................................33
2.3. Tool String Diagram .........................................................................................................................................34
3. Appendix C: Definition of Terms in Pipe Analysis Report ..........................................................................................35
3.1. Pipe Dimensions..............................................................................................................................................35
3.2. Maximum Penetration ....................................................................................................................................36
3.3. Wall Loss .........................................................................................................................................................37
4. Appendix D: Data Processing/Data Display ..............................................................................................................40
4.1. Data Processing ...............................................................................................................................................40
4.2. Description of Post Processed Presentation .....................................................................................................41
4.3. Media & Listing of Files ...................................................................................................................................41

Page 1 of 41
 Company:
MTD and MFC Log Interpretation UWI:
Reference:

LEGAL NOTICE

This report was prepared by GOWell Oilfield Technology Canada Ltd.or by it affiliates or subsidiaries (“GOWell”) at the request of ‘BOREAL E-LINE’

This report is GOWell’s interpretation of the information provided by You and the interpretation, analysis, recommendations, advise and conclusions contained in the
report are opinions based on inferences from measurements, empirical relationships, assumptions and industry practice (the “Interpretations and/or
Recommendations”), which inferences, assumptions and practices are not infallible, and with respect to which professional geologists, engineers, drilling consultants,
and analysts may differ and there may be a number of possible interpretations and conclusions.

Accordingly, GOWell does not warrant the accuracy, correctness, or completeness of any such Interpretations and/or Recommendations, or that Your reliance or any
third party’s reliance on such Interpretations and/or Recommendations will accomplish any particular results. YOU ASSUME FULL RESPONSIBILITY F OR THE USE OF
SUCH INTERPRETATIONS AND/OR RECOMMENDATIONS AND FOR ALL DECISIONS BASED THEREON (INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION DECISIO NS BASED ON ANY OIL
AND GAS EVALUATIONS, PRODUCTION FORECASTS AND RESERVE ESTIMATES, FURNISHED BY GOWELL TO YOU HEREUNDER), AND YOU HEREBY AGREES TO RELEASE,
DEFEND, INDEMNIFY AND HOLD HARMLESS GOWELL FROM ANY CLAIMS ARISING OUT OF THE USE OF SUCH INTERPRETATIONS AND/OR RECOMMENDATIONS.

Page 2 of 41
 Company:
MTD and MFC Log Interpretation UWI:
Reference:

1. Objective and Conclusions

1.1. Introduction

A Magnetic Thickness Detector (MTD) and a 56-Arm Multi-Finger Caliper Tool (MFC56) were logged in the
**** well on 21-Mar-2015.This interpretation is based on the main pass of the above mentioned well.

1.2. Objectives

The objective of the job was to inspect the 244.5 mm, 59.5 kg/m production casing using GOWell 56 Finger
Caliper Tool (MFC56) and Magnetic Thickness Detector (MTD).

1.3. Job Details

Ground Level (GL) elevation is 621.4 m. KB to GL distance is 5.0 m. No correlation log provided. Log zeroed at
Ground Level/CF instead of KB. Magnetic Thickness Detector (MTD) and 56 Arm Multi-Finger Caliper Tool
(MFC56) were deployed directly through the 244.5 mm production casing via e-line (free fall).A total of 2
passes were recorded during the job. The main pass was recorded from 542.4 mKB to Surface. The repeat
pass was recorded from 542.4 mKB to 460.0 mKB.Well details are as per log header information provided by
the client.

Page 3 of 41
 Company:
MTD and MFC Log Interpretation UWI:
Reference:

1.4. Conclusions

244.5 mm Casing Condition from Magnetic Thickness Detector and 56 Arm Multi-Finger Caliper:

Good casing condition was observed through most of the logged interval 4.5 m - 538.0 m. Both MFC56 &
MTD showed breach/Possibly parted casing around 90 m in the vicinity of a collar. The temperature ranged
from 21°C near surface to 97°C at 538.0 m. Temperature changes were observed around the breach area and
217.0 m – 300.0 m.

56-Arm Multi-Finger Caliper (MFC56):

Casing breach/Possibly Parted casing was observed around 90.12 m. 100% penetration and 100% wall loss was
recorded at this depth. The breach is occurring in the vicinity of collar. The vertical height of the breach is
around 0.05 m
Apart from the breach around 90.12 m, the MFC56 run in the 244.5 mm production casing mostly showed very
light (Less than 10%) to light (10% - 25%) penetration Figure.1a.

The casing joints showed penetration from 5.4% - 31.7%. MFC56 recorded a maximum penetration of 31.7%at
171.40 m The MFC56 penetration joints are detailed in Table 1.1.

The MFC56 run in the 244.5 mm production casing showed very light (Less than 12%) wall loss.

Casing joints showed wall loss from 0.1%-8.9%.MFC56 recorded a maximum of 8.9% wall loss at 171.4 m. MFC
joints with the wall loss are detailed in Table 1.1.

Higher pipe ovality/deformation was observed at 171.4 m. Penetration of 31.7% and wall loss of 8.9% was
observed at this interval.
The Intervals 153.46 m-191.92 m and 489.16 m-538.0 m showed slightly higher penetration (16%-31.7%) and
wall loss (5.1%-8.9%) as compared to the other casing joints.

Magnetic Thickness Detector (MTD):

MTD also detected the breach around 90.18 m. The breach/parted casing signature was pronounced on the
BB, B and C Channels and the ANoise.

Apart from the breach around 90.18 m The MTD showed very light (Less than 12%) wall loss in the 244.5 mm
production casing Figure.5a.

Most of the joints showed wall losses from 1.8%-8.4%.MTD recorded a maximum of 8.4% wall loss at 537.5 m
Casing joints (244.5 mm) with wall loss determined from the MTD are detailed in Table 1.2.

Page 4 of 41
 Company:
MTD and MFC Log Interpretation UWI:
Reference:

The Interval 489.16 m-538.0 m showed slightly higher wall loss (6.4%-8.4%) as compared to the other casing
joints.

Breach/Possibly Parted Casing Confirmed by MFC56 & MTD

In order to investigate the breach/Parted Casing in the vicinity of a collar around 90 m, statistical analysis was
run over this area. For this purpose casing body length of 26 m (Approximately) was assumed.

MFC56 Analysis: MFC56 showed 100% penetration and 100% wall loss around 90.12 m

Min Min
Top Bottom Body Max Pen Max Pen Max Pen Max Loss Max
Diam Diam
Body(m) Body(m) Length(m) Depth(m) (mm) (%) Depth(m) Loss (%)
Depth(m) (mm)
77.34 103.42 26.08 90.12 254.1 100.0 90.11 100.0 90.53 219.0

244.5 mm OD

MTD Analysis: MTD showed 100% wall loss around 90.18 m

Nom
Top Bottom Body Min Thk Max Loss Max
Thk
Body(m) Body(m) Length(m) (mm) Depth(m) Loss (%)
(mm)
77.41 103.09 25.68 10.030 0.000 90.18 100.0

Page 5 of 41
 Company:
MTD and MFC Log Interpretation UWI:
Reference:

Page 6 of 41
 Company:
MTD and MFC Log Interpretation UWI:
Reference:

1.5. Log Quality Control

Table 1 – MFC56 Log Quality Control

LQC Area Result
1
Are all fingers in contact with inner pipe wall (raw data)? Yes
2
Before and after calibrations performed and within specification? Yes
3
Excentralization correction applied? Yes
4
Is tool excentralization acceptable? Yes
5
Does average radius approximate theoretical nominal radius (in good pipe)? Yes
6
Are inner wall manufacturing patterns clearly visible (in good pipe)? Yes
7
Any sticking/reconstructed fingers? No
8
Connections/collars identifiable on all finger traces? Yes
9
Is the level of tool rotation acceptable? Yes
10
Has the correct master calibration (MTC) been applied? Yes
11
Does the repeat pass correlate with the main pass? Yes

LQC Comments
1

8
Collars/Connections were difficult to identify
9

10

11

Additional Comments
A good level of repeatability exists between the main log and repeat section

Page 7 of 41
 Company:
MTD and MFC Log Interpretation UWI:
Reference:

Table 2 – MTD Log Quality Control

LQC Area Result
1
Are all MTD curves free from abnormal noise Yes
2
Is the AI curve reading above 300 throughout the log and free from sudden spurious jumps? Yes
3
Is the Anoise curve centred at 2000 and free from intervals of noise? Yes
4
Do the raw curves (particular A channels) respond consistently with the well schematic? Yes
5
Is the wellbore temperature curve showing typical geothermal trend and free from noise? Yes
6
Is the depth of major well schematic features consistent with the MTD log responses? Yes
7
Are inner and outer pipe collars clearly identified in the raw A & C curves? Yes
8
Is the correct logging speed maintained and consistent throughout the log? Yes

Specific LQC Comments above

1

3
Yes, however a sharp jump in ANoise was observed due to the breach around 90 m
4

Additional LQC Comments

A good level of repeatability exists between the main log and repeat section.

Page 8 of 41
 Company:
MTD and MFC Log Interpretation UWI:
Reference:

Supporting Well Information

Required Received? Optional Received?
LAS File Yes Well History Yes

Field Print Yes Production History No

Job Log Yes Well Status No

Well Diagram Yes GR Log No

Completion Diagram Yes Cement Evaluation Log No

Toolstring Diagram Yes Borehole Fluid Type Yes

Logging Program Yes Well Trajectory Survey Yes

Job Objectives Yes DB File Yes

Page 9 of 41
 Company:
MTD and MFC Log Interpretation UWI:
Reference:

Figure.1a (MFC56) Full Logged Interval.

Page 10 of 41
 Company:
MTD and MFC Log Interpretation UWI:
Reference:

Figure2a Breach Detected at 90.12 m

Page 11 of 41
 Company:
MTD and MFC Log Interpretation UWI:
Reference:

Figure.2b Breach detected at 90.12 m (zoomed-in)

Page 12 of 41
 Company:
MTD and MFC Log Interpretation UWI:
Reference:

Figure.2c 3D Side View of Breach detected at 90.12 m

Figure.2d 3D Side View of Breach detected at 90.12 m

Page 13 of 41
 MTD and MFC Log Interpretation

Figure.2e 3D Slanted View of Breach detected at 90.12 m

Figure.2f 3D Fly Down View of Breach detected at 90.12 m

Page 14 of 41
 MTD and MFC Log Interpretation

Figure.2g 3D Cut Away View of Breach detected at 90.12 m

Figure.2h 3D Side View of Breach detected at 90.12 m with masked OD

Page 15 of 41
 MTD and MFC Log Interpretation

Figure.3a Ovality observed around 171.4 m

Page 16 of 41
 MTD and MFC Log Interpretation

Figure.3b 3D Side View of Ovality observed around 171.4 m

Figure.3c 3D Side View of Ovality observed around 171.4 m

Page 17 of 41
 MTD and MFC Log Interpretation

Figure.3d 3D Slanted View of Ovality observed around 171.4 m

Figure.3e 3D Fly Down View of Ovality observed around 171.4 m

Page 18 of 41
 MTD and MFC Log Interpretation

Figure.4a Logged interval 153.46 m-191.92 (Ovality)

Page 19 of 41
 MTD and MFC Log Interpretation

Figure.4b Logged interval 489.16 m-538.0 m (Ovality)

Page 20 of 41
 MTD and MFC Log Interpretation

Figure.5a (MTD) Full Logged Interval

Page 21 of 41
 MTD and MFC Log Interpretation

Temperature

244.5 mm Casing Thickness

244.5 mm Casing Collar

GR

ANoise

Figure.5b MTD Logged interval (zoomed-in)

Page 22 of 41
 MTD and MFC Log Interpretation

Figure.5c Breach/Possibly Parted casing observed at 90.18 m

Page 23 of 41
 MTD and MFC Log Interpretation

1.6. Log Interpretation

Grade Penetration
Max Penetration % Pie Graph - MFC56 244.5 mm Casing Comment
C Color %
2.33% A <10% Very Light
B 10>-25% Light
A C 25>-50% Moderate
27.91% D 50>-75% Significant
E >75% Intensive

< Nominal
R <0%
IR

Grade Joints
A 12
B 30
B
C 1
69.77% D 0
E 0
R 0

Figure.6

Max Penetration Percent Per Joint - MFC56 244.5 mm Casing

100%

90%

80%

70%
% Penetration

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Depth (meters)

Figure.7

Page 24 of 41
 MTD and MFC Log Interpretation

Max Loss % Pie Graph - MFC56 244.5 mm Casing

Grade
Color Wall Loss % Comment
A <12% Very Light
B 12>-20% Light
C 20>-30% Moderate
D 30>-40% Significant
E >40% Intensive

G <Nominal Undergauge

Grade Joints
A 43
B 0
C 0
D 0
E 0
G 0
A
100%

Figure. 8

Max Wall Loss % Per Joint - MFC56 244.5 mm Casing

50%

40%

30%
% Wall Loss

20%

10%

0%

-10%
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Depth (meters)

Figure.9

Page 25 of 41
 MTD and MFC Log Interpretation

Minimum Diameter Per Joint - MFC56 244.5 mm Casing

225.0

224.0

223.0
Diameter (mm)

222.0

221.0

220.0

219.0

218.0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Depth (meters)

Minimum Diameter Per Joint Nominal ID

Figure.10

Radius*2 Per Joint Profile - MFC56 244.5 mm Casing

300

250
Radius*2 (mm)

200

150

100

50
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Depth (meters)
Mean Radius per Joint Max Radius Per Joint Minimum Radius Per Joint Nominal ID Nominal OD

Figure.11

Page 26 of 41
 MTD and MFC Log Interpretation

Max Loss % Pie Graph - MTD 244.5 mm Casing Grade

G Color Wall Loss % Comment
2.33%
A <12% Very Light
B 12>-20% Light
C 20>-30% Moderate
D 30>-40% Significant
E >40% Intensive

G <Nominal Undergauge

GRADE JOINTS
A 42
B 0
C 0
D 0
A E 0
97.67%
G 1
Figure.12

Max Wall Loss % Per Joint -MTD 244.5 mm Casing

50%

40%

30%
% Wall Loss

20%

10%

0%

-10%
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Depth (meters)

Figure.13

Page 27 of 41
 MTD and MFC Log Interpretation

244.5 mm Casing Joint Table from MFC56

Table 1.1

Min Min
Top Bottom Body Max Pen Max Pen Max Pen Max Loss Max
Diam Diam
Body(m) Body(m) Length(m) Depth(m) (mm) (%) Depth(m) Loss (%)
Depth(m) (mm)
2.94 16.15 13.21 8.30 225.8 7.0 5.92 0.8 16.15 222.4
16.25 27.04 10.79 26.42 225.9 7.3 26.72 0.4 16.25 221.9
27.16 40.26 13.09 38.83 226.3 9.5 38.60 3.4 27.20 222.6
40.39 53.36 12.97 52.63 226.5 10.4 45.87 2.2 50.67 222.4
53.49 64.13 10.64 56.01 227.2 13.7 61.07 4.3 53.49 222.8
64.26 77.19 12.93 73.46 226.7 11.3 69.75 3.0 64.27 222.4
77.34 90.05 12.71 87.68 226.5 10.4 83.86 2.3 77.57 222.5
90.16 103.45 13.29 97.33 226.8 11.7 102.71 2.8 90.53 219.0
103.57 115.90 12.33 112.74 226.2 8.9 104.26 1.8 115.90 222.6
116.02 128.34 12.32 126.82 226.8 11.9 126.65 2.3 117.36 222.4
128.44 141.53 13.09 133.74 226.7 11.5 132.85 2.8 141.51 222.3
141.64 153.36 11.72 150.57 226.3 9.6 142.38 1.6 151.68 222.1
153.46 166.14 12.68 160.03 228.8 22.0 160.04 5.3 153.46 222.7
166.25 179.57 13.32 171.40 230.8 31.7 171.41 8.9 171.38 219.2
179.68 191.92 12.24 181.05 227.8 16.7 181.10 5.2 181.60 222.6
192.04 204.27 12.23 198.53 226.3 9.5 198.63 2.2 198.40 222.3
204.39 215.97 11.59 205.21 225.5 5.4 205.26 0.5 206.96 221.7
216.09 228.38 12.30 219.57 226.4 9.9 219.38 1.9 219.32 222.3
228.49 240.03 11.54 229.38 226.6 11.2 235.95 2.3 234.01 221.4
240.17 252.75 12.58 249.72 227.5 15.3 244.62 1.7 252.73 222.0
252.88 265.70 12.82 257.73 225.5 5.4 264.39 0.7 264.11 222.2
265.81 278.45 12.64 270.79 226.5 10.4 274.96 1.7 277.77 222.3
278.58 289.58 11.00 286.06 226.5 10.4 289.34 1.1 285.99 222.7
289.71 301.97 12.27 289.97 226.7 11.5 289.85 2.2 301.39 222.5
302.08 314.07 11.98 307.43 228.0 17.9 311.40 4.6 302.08 222.6
314.19 327.28 13.09 320.55 226.2 9.1 320.39 1.3 327.28 222.6
327.40 338.96 11.56 335.80 226.8 11.9 335.70 2.9 338.90 221.1
339.07 351.30 12.23 340.97 226.8 12.1 340.98 1.8 341.02 220.7
351.41 364.04 12.64 359.22 227.0 13.1 355.22 4.9 364.05 222.9
364.16 377.09 12.93 372.77 228.0 17.7 370.85 3.1 371.27 222.1
377.22 389.86 12.65 388.56 226.8 12.1 388.63 3.0 388.77 222.3
389.97 401.94 11.97 398.15 227.5 15.4 398.43 2.3 398.23 221.6

Page 28 of 41
 MTD and MFC Log Interpretation

Min Min
Top Bottom Body Max Pen Max Pen Max Pen Max Loss Max
Diam Diam
Body(m) Body(m) Length(m) Depth(m) (mm) (%) Depth(m) Loss (%)
Depth(m) (mm)
402.06 413.28 11.21 405.96 225.5 5.5 405.96 0.1 413.27 221.10
413.39 426.78 13.38 420.05 227.3 14.5 420.00 3.4 426.77 222.38
426.89 439.72 12.83 431.74 226.7 11.2 431.80 2.8 431.88 222.19
439.83 451.47 11.64 448.88 226.7 11.4 448.60 2.5 448.82 221.74
451.59 463.83 12.24 461.43 226.3 9.6 461.89 2.1 454.52 222.11
463.97 475.93 11.96 468.30 226.8 12.0 469.07 2.0 469.02 221.14
476.05 489.03 12.98 482.60 227.3 14.6 482.43 3.3 482.48 221.53
489.16 499.35 10.20 489.70 227.7 16.2 497.32 6.4 489.15 222.91
499.44 512.70 13.26 500.79 228.8 21.7 500.79 6.0 501.47 221.91
512.84 526.05 13.21 521.01 228.6 20.7 520.80 5.3 523.43 221.97
526.18 538.00 11.82 535.16 228.3 19.5 535.05 5.1 534.94 221.47

Page 29 of 41
 MTD and MFC Log Interpretation

244.5 mm Casing Joint Table from MTD

Table 1.2

Nom
Top Bottom Body Min Thk Max Loss Max
Thk
Body(m) Body(m) Length(m) (mm) Depth(m) Loss (%)
(mm)
3.15 15.83 12.68 10.030 10.311 7.35 -2.8
16.22 26.80 10.58 10.030 9.653 26.58 3.8
27.20 40.01 12.82 10.030 9.587 39.89 4.4
40.43 53.07 12.64 10.030 9.719 52.62 3.1
53.56 63.89 10.33 10.030 9.521 63.79 5.1
64.41 76.94 12.54 10.030 9.587 76.94 4.4
77.41 89.87 12.46 10.030 9.390 89.78 6.4
90.49 103.21 12.72 10.030 9.521 102.88 5.1
103.68 115.65 11.98 10.030 9.653 115.61 3.8
116.15 128.07 11.93 10.030 9.653 128.00 3.8
128.62 141.23 12.62 10.030 9.521 130.98 5.1
141.78 153.12 11.34 10.030 9.653 152.69 3.8
153.51 165.87 12.36 10.030 9.456 164.22 5.7
166.31 179.31 13.00 10.030 9.456 179.08 5.7
179.77 191.55 11.78 10.030 9.521 190.23 5.1
192.19 203.94 11.75 10.030 9.521 201.51 5.1
204.49 215.63 11.14 10.030 9.719 215.23 3.1
216.25 228.10 11.85 10.030 9.587 227.32 4.4
228.59 239.81 11.22 10.030 9.719 238.85 3.1
240.28 252.46 12.18 10.030 9.653 251.98 3.8
253.03 265.44 12.41 10.030 9.653 265.19 3.8
265.93 278.13 12.21 10.030 9.456 276.72 5.7
278.63 289.29 10.66 10.030 9.653 286.83 3.8
289.78 301.68 11.90 10.030 9.587 301.68 4.4
302.18 313.80 11.62 10.030 9.521 313.70 5.1
314.19 327.03 12.84 10.030 9.521 320.87 5.1
327.44 338.64 11.20 10.030 9.653 337.15 3.8
339.13 350.93 11.80 10.030 9.653 350.89 3.8
351.52 363.76 12.24 10.030 9.324 363.72 7.0
364.20 376.79 12.59 10.030 9.456 372.86 5.7
377.28 389.59 12.31 10.030 9.521 389.55 5.1

Page 30 of 41
 MTD and MFC Log Interpretation

Nom
Top Bottom Body Min Thk Max Loss Max
Thk
Body(m) Body(m) Length(m) (mm) Depth(m) Loss (%)
(mm)
390.06 401.70 11.65 10.030 9.653 401.64 3.8
402.10 413.01 10.92 10.030 9.850 412.89 1.8
413.48 426.47 13.00 10.030 9.521 426.35 5.1
426.94 439.45 12.51 10.030 9.521 439.41 5.1
439.87 451.05 11.19 10.030 9.653 449.03 3.8
451.68 463.53 11.85 10.030 9.587 463.53 4.4
464.07 475.60 11.52 10.030 9.653 475.55 3.8
476.19 488.75 12.56 10.030 9.521 483.12 5.1
489.19 499.01 9.82 10.030 9.324 496.66 7.0
499.58 512.38 12.80 10.030 9.390 502.88 6.4
512.84 525.81 12.97 10.030 9.390 525.49 6.4
526.28 538.03 11.75 10.030 9.192 537.50 8.4

Page 31 of 41
 MTD and MFC Log Interpretation

2. Appendix B: Tool Specification

2.1. MFC Tool Specifications & Logging Modes

Type MFC24C MFC40C MFC56C

O.D. 43 mm (1 11/16'') 73mm（2 7/8''） 90mm（3 1/2'')

Working Temperature -20- 175℃(-40-350℉)

Working Pressure ≤100MPa (15,000 PSI)
Working Voltage 90V±2
Working Current 37mA±3
100-245mm
(3 15/16''- 9 13/20'')
45-180mm 80-210mm
Measurement Range 100-350mm
(1 3/4''-7 1/12'') (3 1/8''-8 1/4''）
(3 15/16’’-13 4/5’’
with extension fingers)
Measurement Accuracy ±0.5mm (±0.02'')
Resolution 0.1mm(0.004'')
Deviation Range 0-180º
Deviation Accuracy ±5º
Deviation Sensitivity 0.1º
Relative Azimuth Range 0-360º
Relative Azimuth
±5º
Accuracy
Relative Azimuth
0.1º
Sensitivity
Transmission Mode Mono-conductor
≦600 m/h (1968ft/h)
Speed
(Vertical Resolution =8mm or 5/16'')

Page 32 of 41
 MTD and MFC Log Interpretation

2.2. MTD Tool Specifications & Logging Modes

General

0℃~175℃(32℉~347℉)/2hr
Working Temperature
Working Pressure ≤100MPa(14,503psi)
Working Voltage 90VDC±10%
Working Current 60mA~130mA
OD φ43mm(1.69")
Shipping Length 2253.5mm (88.72")
Make-up Length 2088.5mm(82.22")
Weight 9kg
Max. Logging Speed 300 m/h (16 ft/min)
Pipe String Measuring Range 60mm~324mm (2.362"~12.756")
Single Pipe Measurement
Pipe Wall Thickness ≤12mm(0.4724")
Measurement Error ±0.5mm(0.0197")
Resolution 0.15mm(0.0059")
Double Pipe Measurement
Pipe Wall Thickness ≤25mm (0.984")
Measurement Error ±1.5mm(0.059")
Resolution 0.3mm(0.0118")
Temperature Measurement

0~175℃
Measurement Range

Sensitivity 0.01℃

±1℃
Accuracy

Page 33 of 41
 MTD and MFC Log Interpretation

2.3. Tool String Diagram

Figure.14

Page 34 of 41
 MTD and MFC Log Interpretation

3. Appendix C: Definition of Terms in Pipe Analysis Report

Here listed all the definitions in the MFC56 interpretation result. Not all the terms are included in this report since the
limitation of the page.

3.1. Pipe Dimensions

Top Body (ft/m)

Processed measured depth in m/ft of top of the pipe section.

Body Length (ft/m)

Length in m/ft of the pipe section.

Mean mean diameter [Mean Mean (ins/mm)]

The mean average value of the mean diameter in ins/mm over the pipe length.

Mean median diameter [Mean median (ins/mm)]

Page 35 of 41
 MTD and MFC Log Interpretation

The mean average value of the median diameter in ins/mm over the pipe length.

Mean remaining wall [Mean wall (ins/mm)]

The average remaining wall thickness in ins/mm of this pipe length.

Mean remaining wall [Mean wall (%)]

The average remaining wall thickness in % of nominal thickness of this pipe length.

3.2. Maximum Penetration

Maximum penetration [Max.Pen] (ins/mm)

Twice radius in inches or mm at maximum penetration of the pipe wall in the pipe section.(Expressed as a diameter - twice
radius - for comparison with Nominal and Drift IDs).

Maximum penetration % [Max.Pen (%)]

Maximum penetration of the wall in the pipe section, expressed as a percentage relative to the difference between
Nominal thickness at the maximum penetration point.

Maximum penetration depth [Max.Pen depth]

Depth in m/ft of the maximum wall penetration in the pipe section.

Maximum penetration arm [Max.Pen arm (no.)]

Arm number with maximum wall penetration in the pipe section.

Minimum remaining wall [Min Wall (ins/mm)]

Minimum wall thickness in the pipe section in inches or mm. Negative value implies wall is fully penetrated.

Page 36 of 41
 MTD and MFC Log Interpretation

Minimum remaining wall % [Min Wall (%)]

Minimum wall thickness in the pipe section as % of wall thickness at maximum penetration point. Negative value implies
wall is fully penetrated.

3.3. Wall Loss

Maximum loss [Max.Loss (ins**2 or mm**2)]

The maximum value of metal loss in this pipe section, expressed as the areal loss of wall relative to the outer diameter
and nominal diameters. For each sampled depth in the pipe the metal loss is calculated as:

Absolute wall loss = (π/4n)Σ(Si2 - ID2), where n is the number of caliper arms, Si is twice the radius measured by caliper
arm i, ID is the Nominal ID of the pipe.

The joint analysis module reports the maximum of the wall loss in the pipe section independent of the maximum
penetration.

Maximum loss % [Max.Loss (%)]

The maximum value of metal loss in the pipe, expressed as the percentage areal loss of wall relative to the outer diameter
and nominal diameters. For each sampled depth in the pipe the loss is calculated as:

Percentage wall loss = (100/n) Σ(Si 2-ID2)/( OD2-ID2), where n is the number of caliper arms, Si is twice the radius measured
by caliper arm i, ID is the Nominal ID of the pipe.

Maximum Loss depth [Max.Loss Depth]

Depth in m/ft of maximum metal loss in the pipe.

Mean Wall Loss [Mean Loss (%)]

The mean average value of the areal wall loss wrt inner and outer nominal diameters over the pipe length (%).

Page 37 of 41
 MTD and MFC Log Interpretation

Restriction volume (ins**3 or m*3)

The integrated restriction in cubic inches or mm or cubic metres of the borehole over this pipe length.

Restriction volume (%)

The integrated restriction of the borehole as a %age of the bore volume over this pipe length Restrictions.

Minimum radial restriction [Min Res (ins/mm)]

Smallest arm reading in inches or mm in the pipe section, (expressed as twice radius for comparison with Nominal and
Drift IDs).

Minimum radial restriction % [Min Res (%)]

Smallest arm reading in the pipe section, expressed as a percentage relative to the Nominal ID and Outer diameters. If a
negative percentage is reported, the minimum radius is smaller than the Nominal Inside Radius of the pipe.

Minimum radial restriction depth [Min Res. Depth]

Depth in m/ft of smallest arm reading in the pipe section.

Minimum radial restriction arm [Min. Res. arm]

Arm number showing minimum radial restriction in the pipe section.

Minimum radial restriction orientation [Min. Res. dirn]

Orientation in degrees of arm with minimum radial restriction in the pipe section. *Tool upside curve required in
input .mip1 data file.

Maximum wall thickness [Max Wall (Ins/mm)]

Maximum wall thickness in the pipe section in inches or mm.

Maximum remaining wall % [Max Wall (%)]

Maximum wall thickness in the pipe section as %age of wall thickness at minimum restriction point.

Maximum projection [Max Proj (ins/mm)].

Largest projection into the well bore from the pipe wall in ins/mm based on Nominal IR.

Page 38 of 41
 MTD and MFC Log Interpretation

Maximum projection % [Max Proj (%)].

Largest projection into the well bore from the pipe wall as a %age of Nominal IR.

Minimum diametric restriction [Min Diam. (ins/mm)]

Smallest diameter in inches or mm of the pipe section measured on opposing arms.

Minimum diametric restriction % [Min Diam. (%)]

Smallest diameter in the pipe section measured on opposing arms as a %age of Nominal ID.

Minimum diametric restriction depth [Min Diam. Depth]

Depth of smallest diameter in the pipe section measured on opposing arms

Minimum diametric restriction arm [Min Diam. arm]

First arm with smallest diameter in the pipe section measured on opposing arms

Minimum diametric restriction orientation [Min Diam. dirn]

Orientation in degrees of first arm with smallest diameter in the pipe section measured on opposing arms. *Tool upside
curve required in input .mip1 data file.

Page 39 of 41
 MTD and MFC Log Interpretation

4. Appendix D: Data Processing/Data Display

4.1. Data Processing

MTD and MFC56 data were processed through program MIPS

1) MTD processing workflow

Loading raw data into MIPS software is the first step for MTD interpretation. Then the data might be pre-
processed including depth correction and abnormal value editing that are optional steps and not must be
done. Collar detection is then used for the processed data from MIPS to locate the top and bottom depths for
each joint. The next step is thickness calculation and right curves should be selected. And then make
annotation for well schematic and pipe defect according to thickness calculation results. The last is outputting
joints analysis tables for different pipes and result LAS file.

Raw
MIPS-MTD Pre - process Collar detection
Data

Joints analysis Thickness

Word report Annotation
table calculation

Figure 1 - MTD processing workflow

2) MFC56 processing workflow

Loading raw data into MIPS software is the first step of MFC interpretation. Then the data should be pre-
processed including depth correction and abnormal value editing that are optional steps and not must be
done, If necessary it also need to be centralized. Collar detection is then used for the processed data from
MIPS to locate the top and bottom depths for each joint. And the average, minimum, and maximum radius
are determined along with body loss for each joint. The results are stored in csv file for corrosion rating.
Finally, MIPS can generate the 3D image of damaged interval.

Raw
MIPS-Caliper Pre -process Collar detection
Data

Joint analysis Joint corrosion

Word report CSV file
table calculation

3D display

Figure 2 - MFC processing workflow

Page 40 of 41
 MTD and MFC Log Interpretation

4.2. Description of Post Processed Presentation

1) MTD result plot

Multi-arm track: Normalization curves and color VDL, i.e B1_n, BB1_n, B2_n, BB2_n, C1_n, C2_n, A1_n,
A2_n, C3_n, C4_n, A3_n, A4_n, C5_n, A5_n, A6_n, A7_n, A8_n, A9_n, A10_n, A11_n.

Panel 1: GR, green; TEMP, brown; Tubing_Nom_Thick, black; Tubing_Thickness, green; Casing 1_Nom_Thick,
black; Casing 1_Thickness, red; Casing 2_Nom_Thick, black; Casing 2_Thickness, blue; shading between
Tubing_Nom_Thick and Tubing_Thickness, green; shading between Casing 1_Nom_Thick and Casing
1_Thickness, red; shading between Casing 2_Nom_Thick and Casing 2_Thickness, blue.

Panel 2: Well schematic and defect

2) MFC result plot

Multi-arm track: Multi-finger curves and color VDL.

Panel 1: Maximum, red; Minimum, blue; Mean, green; Median, light blue; shading between Maximum and
Mean, red; shading between Mean and Minimum, blue.

4.3. Media & Listing of Files

Files delivered by GoWell are:

1. Final word report;

2. Joint by joint summary table, which lists all the joints wall loss or penetration condition;

Page 41 of 41