Search citation statements
Paper Sections
Citation Types
Year Published
Publication Types
Relationship
Authors
Journals
Wireline formation pressure testing has been routinely used as a valuable reservoir characterization tool and its results are generally well-regarded. On the other hand, LWD formation pressure testing, initially introduced primarily as a drilling safety and equivalent circulating density (ECD) optimization tool, has yet to fully prove its effectiveness in reservoir evaluation, due to perceived data acquisition challenges. Today, re-entry drilling is used in many aging oil and gas fields to target the remaining hydrocarbon. Formation pressure, fluid gradients and the determination of whether or not compartments are in communication are important information when analyzing such reservoirs in real time for optimum wellbore placement. The cost efficiencies of acquiring formation pressure data while drilling are becoming more influential in the operator's technology selection process, but should not come at the cost of reduced data accuracy or data usability. This paper discusses new techniques and technologies that facilitate gaining a better understanding of the subsurface while drilling. These include a smart test function, which reduces formation shock while pressure testing in microDarcy formations and avoids sanding in highly unconsolidated formations. Performing optimized test sequences improves the accuracy of the pressure and mobility data and leads to higher operating efficiency. Further to this, LWD pressure testing on wired pipe yields a data density previously only found on wireline. The introduction of extended test times of up to 40 minutes broadens the scope of LWD pressure testing into traditional formation pressure testing applications, such as compartmentalization evaluation or fluid gradient analysis. Longer test times and testing on wired pipe precede future fluid sampling while drilling. Benefits for drilling and subsurface teams are equally important and one of the reasons why LWD formation testing has become a cross-functional discipline. Case histories from the Middle East will be used to highlight the recent technology advances and applications. Pressure Testing in Highly Unconsolidated Formations One of the extreme challenges for formation testers is pressure testing in highly unconsolidated sand formations due to different reasons, varying from formation strength over pad size and formation break-in during testing. Furthermore, the testing procedure has a big influence on the success of a pressure test. In the following sections, we discuss these effects in more detail.
Wireline formation pressure testing has been routinely used as a valuable reservoir characterization tool and its results are generally well-regarded. On the other hand, LWD formation pressure testing, initially introduced primarily as a drilling safety and equivalent circulating density (ECD) optimization tool, has yet to fully prove its effectiveness in reservoir evaluation, due to perceived data acquisition challenges. Today, re-entry drilling is used in many aging oil and gas fields to target the remaining hydrocarbon. Formation pressure, fluid gradients and the determination of whether or not compartments are in communication are important information when analyzing such reservoirs in real time for optimum wellbore placement. The cost efficiencies of acquiring formation pressure data while drilling are becoming more influential in the operator's technology selection process, but should not come at the cost of reduced data accuracy or data usability. This paper discusses new techniques and technologies that facilitate gaining a better understanding of the subsurface while drilling. These include a smart test function, which reduces formation shock while pressure testing in microDarcy formations and avoids sanding in highly unconsolidated formations. Performing optimized test sequences improves the accuracy of the pressure and mobility data and leads to higher operating efficiency. Further to this, LWD pressure testing on wired pipe yields a data density previously only found on wireline. The introduction of extended test times of up to 40 minutes broadens the scope of LWD pressure testing into traditional formation pressure testing applications, such as compartmentalization evaluation or fluid gradient analysis. Longer test times and testing on wired pipe precede future fluid sampling while drilling. Benefits for drilling and subsurface teams are equally important and one of the reasons why LWD formation testing has become a cross-functional discipline. Case histories from the Middle East will be used to highlight the recent technology advances and applications. Pressure Testing in Highly Unconsolidated Formations One of the extreme challenges for formation testers is pressure testing in highly unconsolidated sand formations due to different reasons, varying from formation strength over pad size and formation break-in during testing. Furthermore, the testing procedure has a big influence on the success of a pressure test. In the following sections, we discuss these effects in more detail.
In order to ensure well stability, distinguish high- and low- pressure zones and estimate the level of pressure depletion, information about formation pressure is necessary. Due to formation damage during drilling and mud filtrate invasion, true formation pressure cannot be measured directly when formation permeability is relatively small. Therefore, an accurate model of invasion profile is required to calculate true formation pressure from formation testing data. This is possible to achieve by combining drilling with LWD and/or wireline logging data. This paper describes a method of computing depth of invasion by inversion of resistivity logging data. We use resistivity image data to calculate flushed zone resistivity and induction logging data to compute true formation resistivity. This, in turn, provides an invasion zone profile and significantly reduces the ambiguity of possible solutions. Drilling regime, rate of penetration, wellhead pressure, and mud properties are used to calculate wellbore pressure. The changes in formation pressure during drilling are computed by the hydrodynamic model of invasion. We present the result of formation testing data processing for water-saturated reservoir. The true formation pressure is estimated using the results of inversion, namely, estimate of mud filtrate volume penetrated into formation. Drilling Mud Invasion During drilling, the pressure overbalance is created to provide well stability and prevent blow-outs. Due to this pressure difference a certain volume of drilling mud filtrate invades the formation. The composition of filtrate is different from that of the formation fluid. Depending on filtration resistance and time of action the depth of invaded zone can vary from a few centimeters to 0.8–1.0 m. Thus, logging measurements with relatively shallow depth of investigation (less than invasion depth) provide information about the disturbed part of the formation and not about the virgin formation parameters. In order to improve interpretation of logging data, it is important to be able to estimate rate of change of formation parameters during drilling. In this paper we present a method to estimate total volume of mud filtrate penetrating into formation. The results are used to improve interpretation of formation testing data. A method to evaluate mud invasion characteristics from resistivity logging data was suggested in Kashevarov et al. (2003). One of the ideas of the method is the change in salt concentration profile due to invasion. It is caused by different salinities of mud and formation fluids and changes in salt concentration and saturation profiles during invasion. This leads to the changes in the resistivity profile. Information about the latter is obtained using resistivity logging data acquired by tools with different depths of investigation. In this paper we used induction and micro-resistivity logging data to calculate the resistivity profile in the near-wellbore zone. The micro-resistivity tool has a very shallow depth of investigation and is therefore sensitive to the flushed zone, which is the nearest to the borehole. Induction logging has much larger depth of investigation and is used mainly to measure true formation resistivity. We use data acquired by both tools simultaneously to define general geoelectric model of the near-wellbore zone. By integrating the two resistivity logging methods we obtain more reliable results and a more detailed resistivity profile.
The Peng Lai (PL) 19-3 Oil Field, located in the ConocoPhillips operated Bozhong 11/05 Block in the central southern Bohai Sea, offshore China, is currently the largest offshore oil field in China. The trap is a complex wrench anticline developed along the Tanchen-Lujiang fault system. The main oil accumulation is in the Neogene Lower Minghuazhen and Guantao Formations with a vertical relief from the top reservoir to the deepest oil bearing rock of approximately 500 meters. The PL 19-3 Oil Field, deposited in a fluvial environment, is a complex stacking of unconsolidated sandstone reservoirs, with moderate porosity and permeability and low net gross ratio. The trap has been divided recently into numerous fault blocks which have unique contacts and variable oil properties both vertically and laterally, with oil gravities ranging from 12 to 22 API. This paper reviews the pressure acquisition history and analysis from the 160 well formation test database, which includes both wireline formation test (WFT) and formation test while drilling (FTWD). Formation testing in the Neogene formation of Bohai Bay is challenging since the reservoir is unconsolidated and the oil is heavy. Common problems that affect pressure testing are described, efforts to enhance test efficiency are stated and key learnings and best practices to secure high quality pressure data are summarized. Conventional pressure interpretation to derive fluid gradient and oil water contacts, identify reservoir compartmentalization and flow barrier is challenged due to small density contrast between the heavy oil and water in the field. The excess pressure method, which is attributed to formation water properties and consistent hydrostatic pressure gradient in the field, has been an effective way to analyze pressure data. In this paper, the historical application of excess pressure in the industry is reviewed, examples of the excess pressure interpretation in PL 19-3 Oil Field are given and integrated interpretation practices are emphasized. Pressure data have wide application in the PL 19-3 oil field. This paper summarizes and demonstrates how original excess pressure and dynamic logging while drilling (LWD) pressure data have been used successfully to predict oil water contacts, to analyze fault transmissibility, to monitor water flooding efficiency, to identify fluid properties, to interpret fault cuts in wells, to optimize mud weights while drilling and to mitigate risk and well bore damage during completion operations
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2025 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.