Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Abstract
With the introduction of a new LWD tool, it has now
become possible to acquire formation pressure and mobility
data during short breaks in the drilling process. Formation
pore pressure and near wellbore mobility are key parameters
for reservoir description. Traditionally, these data have been
acquired with wireline formation testers, upon reaching
section or well TD. In high angle wells, this is a timeconsuming operation, as the tools have to be conveyed by
drill-pipe. Providing this type of formation evaluation data
with an LWD tool allows for a continuous approach to data
evaluation and decision making and represents a significant
opportunity for safe and cost-efficient wellbore construction.
The paper will briefly review the design and operation of a
new formation pressure while drilling tool which is capable of
performing optimized repeat pressure tests in less than one
minute. The paper will use case histories from different
operating areas to demonstrate the applicability of this
formation tester to conventional applications, such as the
determination of formation pressure, fluid contacts, reservoir
connectivity, and near-wellbore mobility; and novel real-time
applications, such as mud weight management, safe selection
of casing point, calibration of pore pressure predictions,
selection of wireline sampling points, reservoir monitoring,
geo-steering, and obtaining data in high risk wells.
Introduction
One of the main functional challenges in building a
Formation Testing While Drilling (FTWD) tool was the
requirement of being able to precisely control the drawdown
(DD) and buildup (BU) processes reliably and quickly. The
drawdown process is governed by the drawdown rate and
volume being applied to the formation by the pump system in
the tool. In order to achieve valid pressure tests quickly, both
parameters need to be optimized for the mobility and pore
pressure encountered in the formation being tested. However,
www.petroman.ir
SPE 93229
x3260
x260
x3255
x255
x3250
x250
[bara]
200
180
140
120
Fault
2500
3000
3500
Measured Depth
x3240
x240
x235
x3235
4800
xx800
4900
xx900
4850
xx850
5000
xx000
4950
xx950
x050
x5050
x100
5100
x
x150
x5150
Measured
Depth
MDRT
[m] [m]
Conventional Applications
The following examples show FTWD data being used in
what are considered conventional applications, i.e.,
applications that could also have been performed with wireline
tools.
Reservoir Connectivity North Sea
As part of a North Sea application FTWD measurements were
performed in a horizontal 8-1/2" hole section. The formations
encountered are high mobility sands (clean or C sands),
and low mobility mica sands (M sands), which are folded
and separated by a steep fault zone (Figure 2). One of the
objectives was to prove connectivity of the two apparent Csand compartments to either side of the fault.
S
Depth
m TVDSS
-1500
Initial GOC
Initial GOC
-1550
Initial OWC
Initial OWC
-1600
-1650
220
100
2000
x3245
x245
x3230
x230
xx750
4750
Quartz
Gauge Pressure
Pressure [psia]
[psia]
Formation
1000
0
0.2
Km
0.4
0.6
0.8
5000
-1700
3000
4500
TesTrak station
2000
4000
[m MDRT]
4000
1.0
www.petroman.ir
SPE 93229
3
Mobility Profile
x2600
x
2700
x
2800
x
2900
TVD [ft]
1m
Figure 4:
LWD composite plot, showing density-neutron
crossover and high resistivity readings in clean zone at center of
the plot. The red dot on the gamma ray track (left) represents the
successful pressure test taken in this thin sand layer.
x
3000
x
3100
x3200
x
3300
x
3400
50
100
150
Mobility, mD/cP
200
250
Mobility [mD/cP]
Depth
m TVDSS
-1500
Initial GOC
Initial OWC
-1600
-1700
-1800
2600
2700
-1900
TesTrak station
500
1000
Meter
0
50
100
150
200
250
2800
True
VerticalDepth,
Depthm
True Vertical
2900
3000
1500
3100
3200
TVD RT [m]
1600
3300
3400
1500
1550
2000
2500
3000
3500
Pressure, psi
4000
1650
1700
1750
450
1800
1850
1900
140,0
150,0
160,0
170,0
180,0
190,0
200,0
Figure 8:
Pressure gradient plot; based on FRA quality
evaluation, 17 individual measurements from 12 test-stations
were considered "good", indicating several gradients in different
sand compartments 4.
www.petroman.ir
SPE 93229
150
Resistivity [ohm.m] *)
150
log
20
y = 2.7625x - 983.82
R2 = 0.9979
Gradient = 0.362 psi/ft
The LWD data show the lower zone, where three pressure
points were taken, to be more shaly and less resistive than the
upper oil zone. In addition, the two intervals appear to be
separated by shale of approximately 5 m thickness, as
indicated by gamma ray and resistivity readings. The three
pressure measurements performed in the lower zone were not
deemed sufficient data to derive a fluid density from the
pressure gradient.
However, the pressure gradient in the upper zone and the
well location were used with the predictive PVTMOD software
to estimate the PVT properties of the oil identified. PVTMOD
uses a vast database of sample derived PVT information to
predict PVT properties based on pressure gradient and well
location. In this case, the predicted oil gravity of 24.4 API
compared well to the value of 27.4 API of oil produced in
this field. In this application, the FTWD tool quantified the
reservoir pressure in the target zone without additional
wireline evaluation runs. The upper sand was completed as an
excellent oil producer.
www.petroman.ir
SPE 93229
x
4100
x
4300
7.41 psi
overbalance
x
4500
2,300
2300
Modelled Pressures
1st Run Drilling Data
x+48000
x+6
10000
x+8
12000
x+10
14000
10500
10,500
12500
12,500
14500
14,500
16500
16,500
18500
18,500
20500
20,500
22500
22,500
x+12
16000
x+26000
1,900
1900
1,500
1500
8500
8,500
x
4700
x
4000
2,700
2700
Pressure [psia]
TVD [m]
static
x
3900
Hydro
x
3700
3,100
3100
Formation pressure
Annulus pressure (= ECD)
Linear ( Hydrostatic Pressure)
Linear ( Mud Pressure)
Linear ( Fracture Gradient (2.1 SG))
x
3500
1800
1700
1600
1500
1400
1300
1200
1100
1000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
18000
20000
22000
24000
Figure 12:
Overbalance Pressure calculated from Annulus
Pressure measured after the test minus Formation Pressure
www.petroman.ir
SPE 93229
Test Stations
09:05 h
1st downlink
09:15 h
#1
#2
75 min.
#3
#4
#5
New connection
10:30 h
[mD/cP]
1000.0
100.0
10.0
Mobility
New connection
1.0
0.1
0
200
Test Tim e
400
600
[s]
www.petroman.ir
SPE 93229
References
1. Meister, M., Lee, J., Krueger, V., Georgi, D., and Chemali, R.:
Formation Pressure Testing During Drilling: Challenges and
Benefits, SPE 84088 presented at the 2003 SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver, Colorado,
U.S.A., 5 8 October.
2. Frank, S., Beales, V.J., Dilling, S., Meister, M., Lee, J., and
Haugen, J.: Field Experience With a New Formation Pressure
Testing-During-Drilling Tool, IADC/SPE 87091, March 2004,
Dallas, Texas, U.S.A.
3. Meister, M., Buysch, A., Pragt, J., and Lee, J.: Lessons Learned
from Formation Pressure Measurements While Drilling,
SPWLA 45th Annual Logging Symposium, June 69, 2004,
Noordwijk, Netherlands.
4. Meister, M., Pragt, J., Buysch, A., Witte, J., Nordahl, G., and
Hope, R.: "Pressure Gradient Testing with a new Formation
Pressure Testing During Drilling Tool. SPE 90425 presented at
the 2004 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
Houston, Texas, USA, 26-29 September.
5. Kasap, E., Huang, K., Shwe, T. and Georgi, D.: Formation-RateAnalysis Technique: Combined Drawdown and Buildup
Analysis for Wireline Formation Test Data, SPEREE (June
1999), p.273.
6. Lee, J., and Michaels, J.: Enhanced Wireline Formations Tests in
Low-Permeability Formations: Quality Control Through
Formation Rate Analysis, SPE 60293 presented at the 2000
SPE Rocky Mountain Regional/Low Permeability Reservoirs
Symposium, Denver, CO, 1215 March.
www.petroman.ir