SPWLA 53rd Annual Logging Symposium, June 16-20, 2012

ADVANTAGES AND LIMITATIONS OF TAKING SAMPLES WHILE

DRILLING
Ansgar Cartellieri, Jos Pragt, Matthias Meister
Baker Hughes

Copyright 2012, held jointly by the Society of Petrophysicists and Well Log Analysts (SPWLA) and the submitting authors
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPWLA 53rd Annual Logging Symposium held in Cartagena, Columbia, June 16-20, 2012.
__________________________________________________________________________________

ABSTRACT
What are the advantages and where are the limitations of fluid analysis and sampling while drilling tools? There are
currently two main questions that are discussed in the community. Will it be possible to achieve the same sample
quality with one of the new fluid analysis and sampling tools for while-drilling applications as with currently
available wireline technology? And will it be possible to achieve this after a shorter pump-out time? Multiple
simulations were performed to see if it is beneficial to take samples as early as possible after the drilling process, or
if it is beneficial to have a completely formed mud cake. In this paper the different aspects of this query will be
discussed by a case study.
Compared to the widely used wireline formation testing tools, the first generation of logging while drilling tools is
equipped with less complex measurement technologies. This is due to the rough drilling environment, where the very
sensitive measurement technology and actuator systems have to be protected more carefully. The limited
measurement technology is mainly used for clean-up estimation rather than for fluid identification. Current
measurement technologies besides pressure and temperature in sampling while drilling tools are density, viscosity,
sound speed and refractive index, but are not limited to these. On the other hand, a much more sophisticated pump
and pump control system is necessary due to the slow surface communication via mud pulse telemetry. A closedloop control system and different intelligent algorithms avoids pumping below the bubble point and thus the
alteration of the fluid sample. The build in computing power of the tool itself needs to be much higher for the
complex control of the pump and measurement technologies.
In this paper a case study and the capabilities of this new LWD fluid analysis and sampling tool will be shown. It
will be discussed if the theoretic advantages of taking samples while drilling, like a higher sample quality with less
contamination or a shorter pump-out time due to less invasion, could be proven. The paper will show that it is
possible to run such a complex service in a nearly autonomic system. The continuous interaction of the operator with
the system to control the pump will not be necessary. This gives the operator more freedom to monitor and interpret
the sensor readings.

FUNDAMENTALS
The reservoir characterization is one of the most important aspects in assessing the potential for hydrocarbon
delivery. The description of the reservoir is based on the reservoir fluid and petrophysical properties. A
comprehensive reservoir characterization encompasses three main points. The first is the characterization of the fluid
and pressure profile. This is mainly provided by wireline services, but in the recent years also from pressure-testing
tools for while-drilling applications (Meister, 2003). In the last two years logging while drilling (LWD) reservoir
sampling tools have added a new dimension to evaluation planning and reducing the overall data uncertainty (Proett

AA

SPWLA 52nd Annual Logging Symposium, 1418 May, 2011

2010; Villareal, 2010). The second aspect is the pressure, volume and temperature data in combination with
geochemical and log data. This is gathered from different wireline and while-drilling logging services as well as the
data evaluation of different samples in a laboratory. The third point is the core and mud log analysis based on
continuous monitoring of the mud properties and coring operations during the drilling campaign. Together with the
petrophysical model of the reservoir these aspects should deliver the whole picture of the reservoir conditions, size
and producibility.
The information gathered by the different models and measurements are critical for the whole production life cycle.
Decisions regarding completion design, production facilities design, and development strategies depend on an
accurate reservoir description. Currently, in a typical life cycle of a well the most critical phases are exploration and
appraisal. During these phases the data obtained from measurements are combined and integrated into a study to
reduce uncertainty and to assess the reservoir delivery, size and compartmentalization. The petrophysical properties
such as porosity and permeability are evaluated and their relationship and saturation is calculated. From different
measurements like fluid identification and sampling the hydrocarbon type its recoverable composition and the phase
behavior are derived. Based on these data the top-side facility design and transportation means will be discovered.
The production rate and the market valuation of the hydrocarbon type deliver the profitability of the reservoir. Beside
this, and due to the increasing energy demand in combination with a decreasing number of new discovered
reservoirs, the reentry and expanded depletion of already produced fields becomes more and more important. There
you need to evaluate the risk of water or CO2 production with decreasing reservoir sizes and the use of sea water or
CO2 as injection fluid.
Increasingly complex well designs and reentries in produced fields increases the risk of wellbore issues and makes it
more necessary to run the wireline fluid identification and sampling tools on pipe or with a tractor system. This is the
arena for the introduction of the new developed sampling while drilling tools. This mitigates the risks of sampling
and testing in extremely deviated or horizontal wells and delivers answers early after the drilling campaign in
comparison to wireline operations. In the end there is increased reservoir knowledge and the possibility of analyzing
the downhole fluid properties while drilling and in real time.

TOOL DESCRIPTION
The tool described in this case study delivers real-time downhole fluid analysis and samples as well as formation
pressure and mobility data while drilling. Pressure measurements are continuously taken in the drilling process to
enhance the drilling efficiency and improve the wellsite safety. The tool uses a combination of a closed-loop sealing
system and an intelligent testing sequence to ensure reliable formation pressure and mobility data for better real-time
decisions (Meister, 2004a). Due to the low bandwidth of a mud pulse system in a while-drilling environment it is not
possible to communicate continuously with the tool. To overcome this challenge a highly sophisticated pump and
seal control system is integrated. This system uses several intelligent algorithms to avoid pumping below the bubblepoint and prevent alteration of the fluid sample.
In addition to the early investigation of the reservoir this tool enables fluid sampling and analysis for enhanced
understanding of the reservoir through fluid properties in wells where testing was previously considered either too
risky or costly. It is now possible to do full formation testing in all deviated and horizontal wells including extendedreach and deepwater drilling campaigns. To monitor the sample contamination for clean fluid sampling multiple
sensors are included. To confirm and correlate the pressure gradients a direct density measurement is integrated. This
also enables the accurate fluid analysis of reservoir connectivity and compartmentalization and fluid typing for an
improved producible reserves estimate. The real-time permeability measurement is based on mobility and in-situ
viscosity evaluation (Reittinger, 2008). Additional sensors like the continuous refractive index, the temperature and
the sound speed measurement provide real-time downhole fluid identification and analysis (Figure 1).
An improved drilling efficiency is given by reduced invasion of mud into the formation and thus less time to achieve
clean samples. Based on the pressure measurements and the continuous updates of the pressure profile an equivalent
circulating density management reduces the formation damage as well as improves the wellbore stability. This

AA

SPWLA 53rd Annual Logging Symposium, June 16-20, 2012

enables an optimized mud weight for an increased rate of penetration, reduces the cost and risk through less
stationary time. The advanced drilling process provides enhanced wellsite safety and saves time and cost due to
eliminating the need for a wireline run.

Figure 1: Tool schematic

The fluid analysis and sampling tool for while-drilling applications incorporates the full formation pressure testing
functionality of tools that are already field proven for many years. It includes a continuous real-time pressure curve
during clean up and a pump-through capability with an accurate pump control and clean up monitoring for high
sample quality. It enables capturing up to 16 single-phase samples in a single run with H2S-resistant fluid lines and a
tank material that shows nearly no accumulation or diffusion of H2S (Cartellieri, 2011). Based on the fluid
identification and the samples taken while drilling, the reservoir knowledge could be increased significantly.

WELL BACKGROUND AND CHALLENGES

The current paper discusses the sampling operation in an exploration well in the southern North Sea drilled in an oiland-gas-prone hydrocarbon province (Blom, 2008). Nearby appraised fields typically show a gas capped oil rim. The
current well was planned to intersect the prospect at a high angle. The future purpose of the well, if successful in
proofing sufficient quantities of hydrocarbons, would be re-entered and re-completed as a horizontal well targeting
an oil rim. Samples would need to be taken to prove the presence of hydrocarbons and the PVT characteristics. The
operator chose LWD sampling to mitigate the risks involved in deploying a wireline tool while conveyed on pipe.
The expected fluids consisted of (wet) gas, 40 API oil close to saturation pressure, and salt formation water at a
density close to 1.08 g/cc. The well would be drilled with an oil-based mud. The produced fluids from offset wells
were studied to complete a list of the possibly encountered fluids, and their PVT characteristics so that downhole
fluid identification would be possible. Though the reservoir pressure conditions were to be expected at normal
hydrostatic pressure, the drilling requirement for the 8.5-in. openhole reservoir was to intersect some reactive shales
just above the prospective reservoir. This would require a fairly heavy mud to control the less-stable shale section.
This, in turn, would increase the pressure overbalance whilst drilling the reservoir sands and most likely would
increase the depth of invasion so that extended volumes of mud filtrate would need to be pumped out of the
formation prior to sampling representative reservoir gas, oil or water. In addition, the sampling run was planned as a
dedicated reaming run after the drilling of the section was completed. Sampling while drilling would have the
advantage of a shallower invasion and less pumping time to acquire a clean sample. As the current sampling run
would be more representative of a wireline job, it was expected that extended periods of fluid pump out and clean up
would be required.

AA

SPWLA 52nd Annual Logging Symposium, 1418 May, 2011

The reservoir quality was good with up to 20% porosity and permeability above 100 mD. Little
compartmentalization was expected so that the fluid gradient should be representative of the density of the reservoir
fluids. The gradient results showed continuous fluid columns, though the presence of pressure barriers in the water
zone could not be fully excluded.
Following the drilling of the reservoir sections the LWD Triple Combo log showed the possible presence of
hydrocarbons. The section measured 1307m with inclination building from 45 to 68 degrees. The gamma ray showed
a long sandy section, with some laminations in place. The high resistivity indicated low water saturations over the
top of the sand zone. The neutron-density cross-over appeared to indicate the presence of light hydrocarbons.
Towards the base of the hydrocarbon zone the resistivity dropped off over what seemed to be a transition zone. This
zone was the main target for the pressure test and sampling operation as a possible oil rim would be potentially
exploitable using horizontal wells. Further down the sand sequence, the water zone was characterized by low
resistivity, indicating a large aquifer.

AA

Figure 2: BHA configuration with three tank carrier modules

After reaching final depth, which extended well into the water zone, the drilling bottomhole assembly (BHA) was
changed out for a LWD pressure test and sampling BHA (Figure 2). The sampling BHA included 12 sample tanks to
ensure all fluid types would be sampled and sufficient redundancy would be guaranteed. The assembly was run to
final depth, and then pulled out whilst measuring formation pressures and mobility at 25 stations. Following a review
of the acquired fluid gradient with the geologist and reservoir engineer, three main fluid zones were identified and
four sampling stations were selected, of which two were in the transitional oil zone. Operations continued with the
first two sampling stations in the oil zone characterized with a fluid gradient of 0.64 g/cc. Based on the initial
pressure test acquisition, the depths with the highest mobility were selected. A high mobility ensures that pumping is
possible at a high rate without causing too much pressure drawdown which could cause degassing of the oil, or dewpoint alterations of the wet gas. After collecting six oil samples, two samples were taken in the water zone, and three
samples in the upper gas zone. The gas zone was done last so as to minimize the risk of gas remaining in the sample
lines of the tool prior to taking other fluid samples. Gas remaining in the tool is possible when the well inclination is
above a 60 degrees angle. Nevertheless the tool has flushing capability engineered to flush the complete internal
flow-line with mud on request. If sample-cross contamination is critical and needs to be minimized a flushing cycle
can be performed with the tool downhole. During the pressure test and sampling operation the openhole section
showed formation instability and recorded mud losses which did not hinder the successful data acquisition.

SPWLA 53rd Annual Logging Symposium, June 16-20, 2012

FIELD TEST RESULTS

The primary test objective was to acquire fluid samples to prove the presence of hydrocarbons and to verify the
functionality of the fluid analysis and sampling tool. The following test sequences were covered within this
operation:
Test capability of taking accurate pressure tests to establish pressure gradients (Meister, 2004b)
Test clean-up and fluid analysis capability
Test sampling capability (to retrieve low contamination samples)
Evaluate tool integration in a complex drilling and evaluation BHA
Establish best practice for operations procedure and verify draft procedures
Perform difficult sampling operation in an highly inclined well
Based on the gamma ray, resistivity, and bulk density log several test horizons were identified. Prior to starting the
sampling, 18 pressure tests were conducted to obtain sufficient high-quality pressure data to construct a hydrocarbon
and water gradient and to estimate the oil/water contact. Figure 3 displays a pressure test with repeated drawdown
that indicates a mobility of 91.6 mD/cP (Strobel, 2005). The repeatability with exactly matching formation pressures
of x83.409 bar after the second and third drawdown proves the tool capability of acquiring accurate pressure tests.

AA

Figure 3: Real-time display of a pressure test with repeated drawdown (91.6 mD/cP)
Based on the pressure tests conducted four different test horizons for the sampling operation were identified.
Especially the transition zone between the water and gas gradient was of interest because a small layer of an oilbearing reservoir was expected. Figure 4 illustrates the gamma ray, resistivity and bulk density log with the pressure
and sampling points (Shammai, 2012).

SPWLA 52nd Annual Logging Symposium, 1418 May, 2011

Figure 4: Gamma ray, resistivity and bulk density log with the pressure and sampling points
AA

Figure 5 demonstrates the pressure gradient analysis based on 25 pressure points taken during the entire operation.
This includes the pressure values from the beginning of the six sample stations and an additional pressure test
performed in between. The analysis clearly identifies three distinct gradients for gas, oil, and water. Based on this
data, a gas density of 0.1505 g/cm3, an oil density of 0.6353 g/cm3, and a water density of 1.099 g/cm3 were revealed.

Figure 5: Formation pressure against true vertical depth with gradients

SPWLA 53rd Annual Logging Symposium, June 16-20, 2012

As illustrated in Figure 4, a clean-up operation was performed at stations 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, and 25. At the stations
19, 20, 22, and 25 a total of eleven sample bottles were filled successfully. Table 1 shows a summary of the sample
stations with the measured depth (MD), true vertical depth (TVD), the best pressure test value based on the
formation rate analysis (Frank, 2004; Lee, 2000), the best mobility, and the number of samples taken. The first two
sample stations are located in the transition zone between gas and water where the gradient analysis indicates oil
with a density of approximately 0.635 g/cm3.
Table 1: Summary of the sample stations
Station
#
19
20
22
23
24
25

MD
[m]
x690.0
x692.5
x737.0
x636.0
x636.0
x612.0

TVD
[m]
x862.0
x862.7
x875.8
x846.0
x846.0
x838.9

APresA
[bar]
x63.1
x62.9
x65.8
x61.4
x61.3
x60.8

Fpress (best)
[bar]
x83.5
x83.5
x84.8
x83.2
x83.2
x83.1

Mobility (best)
[mD/cP]
161.6
143.5
198.6
99.9
83.2
1507.1

Samples
#
3
3
2
0
0
3

Prior to the clean-up sequence the tool always performs a pressure test. This ensures the tool achieves a good seal,
measure the formation pressure and retrieve the mobility of the formation. After the pressure test the tool
automatically begins a clean-up operation with a predefined maximum drawdown and maximum pump rate.
Depending on the mobility of the formation, the maximum drawdown or the pump rate limits the pump out. To avoid
degassing the drawdown pressure should be kept above the expected bubble point pressure at all times. After the
pressure goes below the bubble point gas will be produced from the formation fluid and the clean-up process is
disturbed. The gas is not only produced inside the tool but also in the formation. The risk is high that the higher
pump speed is counter-productive because of degassing. The time saved because of the higher flow rate could be a
disadvantage, compared to the time needed for getting rid of the produced gas. Thus, the recommendation should be
to always avoid pumping below the bubble point. When the maximum drawdown is set accurately the closed loop
pump control system makes it possible to run the tool in pressure-controlled mode well above the bubble point. No
readjustment of the pump settings due to a changing mobility while cleaning up is necessary since this is handled
autonomous inside the tool. Figure 6 shows a pressure test with repeated drawdown and subsequent clean up. As
seen in Figure 3, the pressure test shows a repeatability of the second and third formation pressure of x84.813 bar
with a mobility of 198.7 mD/cP. The final pressure does not reach the annular pressure again as the tool directly
starts the clean-up sequence.

Figure 6: Pressure test with repeated drawdown (198.7 mD/cP) and subsequent clean up.

AA

SPWLA 52nd Annual Logging Symposium, 1418 May, 2011

During clean up the sensor readings are continuously send to surface and monitored on the surface display. In
standard drilling operations mud pulse telemetry is used for data communication between the surface and the BHA.
In comparison, wireline tools have an electric connection and communications channel suitable for interactive tool
control and operation. The operator interacts and monitors continuously the system and can adjust the different
parameters according to the downhole conditions.

AA

Figure 7: Clean up and sampling of oil in the real-time display

Due to the low bandwidth of the mud pulse systems, this is hardly possible in the while-drilling environment.
Therefore, intelligent algorithms like the closed loop pump control system are already implemented into the tool. In
addition, the low bandwidth makes it also more difficult to monitor the sensor readings and the cleaning process. The
resolution and the update rate are limited, compared to wireline or wired pipe operations. Figure 7 shows exemplary
the clean-up process at station # 20. The real-time display is adjustable according to the requirements. In this
example the clean-up process is illustrated over time in vertical columns. The first column contains the different tool
parameters like the current flow rate, the current pressure, the total volume pumped and the operating mode of the
tool. The incremental increase in the total volume pumped demonstrates the limited bandwidth. In this scenario the
resolution of the total volume pumped is 1.7 liters, whereas tool internally the resolution and update rate is much
higher. Two columns are showing the different sensor readings like the fluid temperature, the temperature difference,
the sound transit time (reciprocal of the sound speed), the refractive index, the density, and the viscosity. The last
column illustrates the sampling process with tank number, the tank filling pressure, and the actual tank volume. The
interpretation of the sensor readings in Figure 7 indicates the clean-up from oil-based mud filtrate to formation oil. In
while-drilling operations the clean-up process from mud to mud filtrate is often concealed by downlinking or the
uplink of the pressure test data. Whereas the density and viscosity readings indicate stable values after approximately
20 minutes of pumping, the sound transit time as well as the refractive index are still decreasing and increasing,
respectively.

SPWLA 53rd Annual Logging Symposium, June 16-20, 2012

Figure 8: Sampling process of oil in the real-time display

After more than 1.5 hours the first sampling command was transmitted covering the data readings during
downlinking. The increasing tank volume and tank pressure data in the right track indicate the tank-filling process.
The tool measured a tank-filling volume of approximately 840 cm3 for oil, 820 cm3 for water, and 1.5 liters for gas
and a tank-filling pressure between 830 and 848 bar under downhole conditions. The varying filling volumes are
depending on the compressibility of the fluid. This indicates the tool needs diverging pump strokes to fill the tank
until the pump reaches its final pressure. At the end of each filling process the pump process stops for a couple of
seconds while over-pressuring the sample. This has no impact on the clean-up process as illustrated in Figure 8.

Figure 9: Clean-up trend from the tool internal memory annulus + formation pressure and flow line temperature
as well as density and viscosity of an oil sample
The evaluation of the memory data after the run is demonstrated in Figures 9 and 10. These figures clearly show the
much higher resolution of the sensor readings internally. On the annular pressure reading the downlink commands
for starting the sample tank filling process are visible as well as the final pressure peak when over pressurizing the

AA

SPWLA 52nd Annual Logging Symposium, 1418 May, 2011

tank. The sampling process can also be observed by the temperature reading in the tool internal flow line. The
density measurement indicates a final value of approximately 0.7 g/cm 3, which is still slightly higher than the
expected density of 0.64 g/cm3. The PVT analysis in an external laboratory after the run confirmed this value as the
contamination level was 21-23% for the first oil sample station.

Figure 10: Clean-Up trend from the tool internal memory sound speed and temperature difference as well as
refractive index and according fluid temperature of an oil sample
The memory readings of the sound speed and refractive index measurements in Figure 10 as well as the real-time
display in Figure 7 indicates decreasing values for the sound speed and refractive index, respectively. In combination
with the density reading of 0.7g/cm3 from the tuning fork it should have been realized that there is still residual
contamination in the samples and that the clean-up process was not fully finished.
AA

Figure 11: Oil sampling and over-pressurization

Figure 11 demonstrates the oil-sampling process and over-pressurization. The utilized single-phase sample tank is
compensated to the annulus and includes a nitrogen buffer to avoid phase separation and asphaltene precipitation
while pulling out of hole. The figure shows the different strokes to fill up the tank within approximately 2.5 minutes
and the final over-pressure of 600 bar above formation pressure.
During 42 circulating hours, a total of approximately 1000 liters were pumped at four sample stations. Total time on
the wall for the first sample station was 140 minutes, for the second sample station 115 minutes, for the third station
170 minutes, and for the fourth station 220 minutes. The tank-filling procedure needs 2-6 minutes to fill the tanks

10

SPWLA 53rd Annual Logging Symposium, June 16-20, 2012

after sending the sampling command. During the whole FAS operations no lost seal was observed. The final PVT
analysis delivers a contamination of 20% for the gas samples and below 5% for the water samples.
Table 2 compares the final contamination of a sampling-while-drilling run performed in the Caribbean Sea with the
wiper trip described in this case study. Time elapsed since drilled was 9 hours compared to 96 hours, whereas the
pump-out volume was 53 liters compared to 98 liters with a pump-out time of 2.5 hours compared to 4.5 hours.
Nevertheless, the final contamination reached in the drilling run was much lower compared to the wiper trip. Hardly
any contamination was found in the final sample analysis of the gas sample. In both cases a high mobility of more
than 1000 mD/cP was measured. The only difference that could have improved the clean-up sequence in this
comparison is the use of a water-based mud system compared to the oil-based mud system from the case study
presented in this paper.
Table 2: Comparison of the sample contamination of two different LWD sampling runs
LWD
Sampling Run Run Type
#
1
Drilling
2
Wipertrip

Time elapsed
since drilled
[hrs]
9
96

Pump-out Pump-out Sample Mud

volume
time
contamination
[l]
[hrs]
[%]
53
2,5
<1%
98
4,5
20%

FIELD TEST SUMMARY

During the case study described within this paper the fluid analysis and sampling service successfully performed 25
pressure tests, identified three distinct gradients and targeted four zones of interest from the gradient analysis to
acquire samples. Eleven single-phase samples were recovered with 100% sealing efficiency. Three oil samples were
taken on the first sampling station, the other three oil samples on the second sampling station, two water samples on
the third sampling station, and three gas samples on the forth sample station. In total, there were approximately 1000
liters pumped at the 11 sample stations. The FAS tool has been successfully tested in regards of functionality,
reliability and capability of performing fluid analysis and taking samples. The concept of a fluid-sampling operation
in a nearly automated system was proven. The continuous interaction of the operator with the system to control the
pump process was replaced by an automated closed-loop control system.
Compared to wireline operations the limited bandwidth causes a constricted communication and control of the tool
which is offset by the tool internal intelligence. The selected fluid analysis sensors have proven its ability to sense
clean up in difficult environments like sampling oil in OBM or formation water in WBM wells. The advantage of
shorter pump out times short after drilling have proven in several applications by now and also revealed lower
contamination samples, even though the contamination levels in this application were measured in the PVT lab
higher than initially expected. The reasons can be traced back to high overbalance of 80 bar and long time since
drilled of 96 hours. On top the OBM mud filtrate property being close to the reservoir conditions as well as its
miscibility with the reservoir fluids makes any clean up detection difficult to detect. Increased uplink resolution will
help to better determine the level on contamination before sampling in the future. Nevertheless, the application has
shown the ability to collect samples in bore holes where wireline tools are very difficult or not even able to apply at
all. It can be seen that this technology opens new horizons by efficiently collecting quality samples for improved
reservoir descriptions.

NOMENCLATURE
BHA

Bottomhole assembly

cP

Centipoise

11

AA

SPWLA 52nd Annual Logging Symposium, 1418 May, 2011

ECD

Equivalent circulating density

FAS

Fluid analysis and sampling

LWD

Logging while drilling

mD

Millidarcy

MD

Measured depth

MWD

Measurement while drilling

POOH

Pull out of hole

psi

Pounds per square inch

PVT

Pressure volume temperature

TVD

True vertical depth

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors wish to thank Baker Hughes for their support in preparing and presenting the results achieved with the
new LWD fluid analysis and sampling tool.
AA

REFERENCES
Cartellieri, A., Pragt, J. and Meister, M., 2011, Fluid Analysis and Sampling The Next Big Step for Logging While
Drilling Tools, SPWLA 52nd Annual Logging Symposium, Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA, May 14-18.
Blom, F., Borren, L., van & Bacon, M., 2008, De Ruyter Field, Netherlands - Discovery and Near-Field Exploration.
European Association of Geoscientists and Engineers, 70th Conference and Technical Exhibition, Rome, Italy, June
9-12.
Frank, S., Beales, V.J., Dilling, S., Meister, M., Lee, J., and Haugen, J., 2004, Field Experience With a New
Formation Pressure Testing-During-Drilling Tool, IADC/SPE 87091, Dallas, Texas, USA.
Lee, J., and Michaels, M., 2000, Enhanced Wireline Formations Tests in Low-Permeability Formations: Quality
Control Through Formation Rate Analysis, SPE 60293 presented at the SPE Rocky Mountain Regional/Low
Permeability Reservoirs Symposium, Denver, Colorado, USA, 1215 March.
Meister, M., Buysch, A., Pragt, J., and Lee, J., 2004a, Lessons Learned from Formation Pressure Measurements
While Drilling, SPWLA 45th Annual Logging Symposium, Noordwijk, Netherlands, 6-9 June.
Meister, M., Lee, J., Krger, V., Georgi, D., Chemali, R., 2003, Formation Pressure Testing During Drilling:
Challenges and Benefits, SPE 84088, paper presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held
in Denver, Colorado, USA, 5 8 October.

12

SPWLA 53rd Annual Logging Symposium, June 16-20, 2012

Meister, M., Pragt, J., Buysch, A., Witte, J., Nordahl, G., and Hope, R., 2004b, Pressure Gradient Testing with a new
Formation Pressure Testing During Drilling Tool, SPE 90425 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition, Houston, Texas, USA, 26-29 September.
Proett, M., Welshans, D., Sherril, K., Wilson, J., House, J., Shokeir, R. and Solbakk, T., 2010, Formation Testing
Goes Back to the Future, SPWLA 51st Annual Logging Symposium, Perth, Australia, 1923 June.
Reittinger, P.W., 2008, System and Method for Determining Producibility of a Formation Using Flexural Mechanical
Resonator Measurements, United States Patent Application Publication, USA, 2008/0215245 A1
Strobel, J., Bochem, M., Doehler, M., Meister, M., Buysch, A., Pragt, J., Schrader, H., 2005, Comparison of
Formation Pressure and Mobility Data derived during Formation Testing While Drilling with a Mud Motor with
Production Data and Core Analysis, SPE/IADC 92492, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 23-25 February.
Villareal, S., Pop J., Bernard, F., Harms, K., Hoefel, A., Kamiya, A., Swinburne, P. and Ramshaw, S., 2010,
Characterization of Sampling While Drilling Operations, IADC/SPE 128249, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, 24
February.
Shammai, M., 2012. The Role of LWD Pressure Testing & Sampling in Reservoir Characterization, SPE Applied
Technology Workshop: The Changing Role of Petrophysics in Characterizing and Producing Middle East
Reservoirs: Uncovering What is Myth and What is Reality?, Dubai, UAE, 20-22 February.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Ansgar Cartellieri has a PhD in chemical engineering from the Helmut-Schmidt-University Hamburg. He has been
working as R&D engineer on new sensor technologies and data analysis for downhole fluid analysis. Currently, he
leads the LWD fluid analysis and sampling development group at Baker Hughes.
Jos Pragt has a Diploma in geology and geophysics from the University of Utrecht. He has been working in Baker
Hughes as an MWD/LWD coordinator and field engineer in Europe. He was involved in the development of the
LWD formation pressure testing tool and currently works in the development group of the LWD fluid analysis and
sampling tool.
Matthias Meister has a Diploma in mechanical engineering from the University of Hannover. After working for
Eastman Christensen and Hughes Christensen on MWD systems and diamond drill bits, he worked for Baker Hughes
as a project manager on LWD formation evaluation tools. Currently, he is the Product Development Manager for
formation testing and sampling, nuclear magnetic resonance, resistivity imaging, and seismic.

13

AA