Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Improved Integrated Reservoir interpretation using the Gas While Drilling (GWD) data
D. Kandel, SPE, TotalFina Elf; R. Quagliaroli, SPE, ENI Agip Div.; G. Segalini, TotalFina Elf; B. Barraud, TotalFina Elf
Abstract
The acquisition of gas in mud data while drilling for geological
surveillance and safety is an almost universal practice. This
source of data is only rarely used for formation evaluation due to
the widely accepted presumption that they are unreliable and
unrepresentative. Recent developments in the mud logging
industry to improve gas data acquisition and analysis has led to
the availability of better quality data.
Within a joint ELF/ENI-Agip Division research program, a new
interpretation method has been developed following the
comprehensive analysis and interpretation of gas data from a
wide range of wells covering different types of geological,
petroleum and drilling environments.
The results, validated by correlation and comparison with other
data such as logs, well tests, PVTs etc, enable us to characterise:
lithological changes,
porosity variations and permeability barriers,
Seal depth, thickness and efficiency,
Gas diffusion or leakage,
gas/oil and hydrocarbon/water contacts,
vertical changes in fluid over a thick mono-layer pay zone,
vertical fluid differentiation in multi-layer interval,
biodegradation.
The comparison between surface gas data, PVT and
geochemistry data clearly confirms the consistency between the
gas show and the corresponding reservoir fluid composition.
The near real time availability, at no extra acquisition cost, of
such data has led to:
the optimisation of future well operations (logging, testing,
....),
a better integration of while drilling data to the well
evaluation process,
1. INTRODUCTION
The measurement of drilling gas data (gas shows) is standard
practice during the drilling of Exploration and Development
wells.
Continuous gas monitoring sometimes enables us to indicate, in
general terms, the presence of hydrocarbon bearing intervals but
rarely to define the fluid types (oil, condensate and/or gas,
water).
Gas data are at present largely under-utilised because they are
considered unreliable and not fully representative of the
formation fluids.
There are many reasons for this. On the one hand, poorly
established correlations between reservoir fluids and shows at
surface. On the other hand, the influence on recorded data of
numerous parameters such as formation pressure, mud weight
and type, gas trap position in the shaker ditch, mud out
temperatures, etc. One reason may be the very low cost of such
data, often equated with low value.
Until a few years ago, the analysis performed on gas shows was
generally restricted to the use of Pixler and/or Geoservices
diagrams (or equivalent), Wetness, Balance, Character and Gas
Normalisation (Pixler, 1968 Haworth et al., 1985; Whittaker &
Selens, 1987; Wright, 1996).
Recent improvements in gas acquisition technology and the new
GWD methodology allows to perform reservoir interpretation in
near real time for fluid identification and contacts (OWC, GOC,
2 METHOD
2.1 Data Acquisition
The measurement of gas shows in the circulating drilling mud
was introduced in the early days of mud logging (ML) with two
objectives. Firstly as a safety device to indicate well behaviour
to drillers and secondly as an indicator of hydrocarbon bearing
zones. Today, gas shows measurement is systematically acquired
in the petroleum industry for the same reason but is seldom used
to its full potential, mainly due to an ongoing prejudice that the
data are not representative of the formation fluids and/or that the
recording of these data is strongly influenced by varying drilling
parameters.
Since the beginning and still today, the ML gas system is
composed of three parts:
a "GAS TRAP" to extract gas from the mud stream situated
somewhere between bell nipple and shaker box (often in the
latter)
lines, pumps and filters enabling the transport of a dry gas
sample to the ML unit
a detection system in the ML unit
Recent developments in the mud logging industry, to improve
gas data acquisition and analysis has led to the availability of
better quality data which can provide since roughly the 90s
reliable lithological and fluid informations:
SPE 65176
The improved efficiency of these traps means that the gas sample
delivered to the ML unit is increasingly representative of the true
gas content of the mud and therefore of the gas associated with
the formation fluid.
The work described here relies on the systematic use of either a
QGM or a constant volume trap linked to FID TG detector and
chromatograph. The results can only be improved by the use of
the above-mentioned new generation of chromatographs. Choice
of this kind of equipment implies a high level of verification,
calibration and quality control.
2.2 Gas data quality control and processing
Before describing the method, we have to stress the point that the
acquisition environment can significantly influence gas data.
Thus, it is important, before any interpretation, that the well site
geologist make sure that the gas detector calibration procedures
are respected and checks if changes have occurred in the mud
system, in drilling conditions, etc.
Concertation between the company representative and the ML
contractor is important to reduce the risk of interpretation errors.
This illustrates why the gas data Quality Control (QC) should be
done at the well site where operational conditions can be fully
detailed and annotated. It is often difficult, when the
interpretation is done at the office, to be sure that a change can be
linked to a formation or fluid change and not simply to an
operational artefact.
In the following examples, we will see how drilling parameters
changes can influence the gas data and how we can correct the
gas measurement artefact to obtain normalised gas ratios.
A change of the mud density, of the mud type or a bit trip can
induce sharp and localised disruption of all gas data, TG and
chromatographic responses (fig. 1). This is why we consider that
the GWD method is still, today, a semi-quantitative approach.
But despite these drilling artefacts, the amount of all of the
components varies with the same amplitude. Thus, analysis of the
gas composition changes in percentage has to be carried out in
order to understand the relative variations between the
components. But before that, another QC concerns the lowest
threshold detection for the components, fixed by experience at 10
PPM for the most commonly used FID chromatographs. Below
this limit, values are considered as possible electrical artefacts
and could be unreliable for analysis. For the interval drilled with
an Oil Based Mud (OBM) in well A, most of the iC4 to nC5
values are below 10 PPM (fig. 1) and for GWD analysis the
values of the components were added together and the possible
unreliability was taken into account.. On the contrary, all
components in the deeper section of well A, drilled with Water
Based Mud (WBM), are above this limit. The GWD analysis will
be different for these two intervals, knowing that the best values
are within the main hydrocarbon-bearing reservoir.
The second QC is the C1/C2 separation limit. The upper
threshold limit for the separation of these two components
depends on the chromatograph type. In the case of well A, this
ratio upper limit is 80 and one interval has higher C1/C2 values,
between 80 and 100 (fig. 2). For this interval, C1 and C2 have to
SPE 65176
IMPROVED INTEGRATED RESERVOIR INTERPRETATION USING THE GAS WHILE DRILLING (GWD) DATA
Following QC of the gas data, the next step is to present the data
in a way that facilitates interpretation. Generally, the ML unit
output, even when it contains several different gas ratio logs,
remains raw data. The method used in this project consisted in
applying techniques often used in wireline log analysis to gas
data. The techniques include:
eliminating and/or correcting poor quality data,
using multiple ratio logs and crossplots in order to define the
most discriminating ratio for a particular problem,
LOG
AND
CROSSPLOT
SPE 65176
Biodegradation:
The ratio of iC5/nC5 is a good indicator of biodegradation. This
ratio is generally superior to 1 for biodegraded oils. Figure 19
shows a sharp increase in the value of this ratio on entering the
R11 reservoir. Laboratory analysis of the oils confirmed that they
were biodegraded. In this case the reservoir was one of several
over a large interval.
This information would obviously influence both the test
programme and the detailed lab measurements to be carried out
on the fluids.
SPE 65176
IMPROVED INTEGRATED RESERVOIR INTERPRETATION USING THE GAS WHILE DRILLING (GWD) DATA
3.2 Advanced
interpretation
SPE 65176
SPE 65176
IMPROVED INTEGRATED RESERVOIR INTERPRETATION USING THE GAS WHILE DRILLING (GWD) DATA
Fluid variations
contacts and transition zones
vertical fluid evolution
identification of thermodynamic units
gas leakage or diffusion
biodegradation
This information, obtained in near real time and at no extra
acquisition cost, enables the optimisation of future logging and
testing programs and will significantly reduce uncertainties in
geologic and reservoir models.
The data, both raw and as ratios, is easily available from the
wellsite in formats that allow a rapid integration with wireline
logs and other data into the global interpretation process.
Although major improvements have been made in the acquisition
and interpretation domains there remain a number of
uncertainties linked to the drilling environment and the effects of
dissolution and adsorption / desorption. Therefore, as is true for
most data acquisition techniques, there is room for improving the
environmental corrections to the data. As with the great majority
of well data, the gas log cannot be interpreted alone and requires
integration with all well data available.
Beda G., Quagliaroli R., Segalini G., Barraud B. & Mitchell A., 1999,
Gas While Drilling (GWD) ; A Real Time Geologic and Reservoir
Interpretation Tool, 40Th Annu. SPWLA Logging symp, Oslo, Norway,
711732
De Pazzis L.L., Delahaye T.R., Besson L.J. & Lombez J.P, 1989, New
Gas Logging System Improves Gas Shows Analysis and Interpretation,
SPE Annual Conference, SPE 19605
Haworth J.H., Sellens M. & Whittaker A., 1985, Interpretation of
Hydrocarbon Shows Using Light (C1-C5) Hydrocarbon Gases from
Mud Log Data,. AAPG Bull.V.69, No.8, p.1305-1310.
Mercer R.F., 1968, The Use of Flame Ionisation Detection in Oil
Exploration, 2nd CWLS Formation Evaluation Symposium.
Pixler B.O., 1968, Formation Evaluation by Analysis of Hydrocarbon
Ratios, 43rd Annual Meeting SPE, Houston, n.2254.
Wright A.C., Hanson S. A. & De Laune P. L., 1993, A New Quantitative
Technique for Surface Gas Measurements, SPWLA 34th Annual
Logging Symposium.
SPE 65176
SPE 65176
IMPROVED INTEGRATED RESERVOIR INTERPRETATION USING THE GAS WHILE DRILLING (GWD) DATA
CHROMATOGRAM
Lower limit
of representative
values for Chromatogram
1
Fig. 1
WELL
A
TG (in ppm)
10
100
1000
10000
Fig. 2
QUALITY CONTROL
TG & (C1 / C2)
QUALITY CONTROL
TG & (C1 / C2)
100000
1550
0
10000
20000
TG en ppm
30000
WELL A
40000
50000
1550
Bit runs
TG
C1
C2
Bit runs
TG
C3
2050
iC4
nC4
Bit runs
C1 over C2
2050
iC5
nC5
2550
2550
3050
Oil
Based Mud
3550
DEPTH M
DEPTH
3050
Oil
Based Mud
3550
4050
4050
Water
Based Mud
Water
Based Mud
4550
1
10
100
1000
C1, C2, C3, iC4, nC4,
iC5 & nC5 (in ppm)
10000
100000
4550
0
73
83
93
103
1550
Bit runs
%(C1+C2)
%C3
%(iC4+nC4+iC5+nC5)
2050
2550
Major Changes in
Gas composition
DEPTH M
3050
Oil
Based Mud
3550
4050
Water
Based Mud
4550
0
10
20
%C3 & (%iC4+nC4+iC5+nC5)
20
40
60
C1 sur C2
80
100
% OF COMPONENTS
% OF
COMPONENTS
%(C1+C2),
%C3
& %(iC4+nC4+iC5+nC5)
53
Upper limit of C1 / C2
good separation
30
120
10
TG/ Ccor
TG/ C
DEPTH (m)
SPE 65176
200
200
400
400
600
600
800
800
1000
1000
1200
1200
1400
1400
1600
1600
1800
1800
2000
2000
2200
2200
2400
2400
2600
2600
0
WELL C
99
Three different
fluid behaviours
97
%C1+%C2
95
93
91
89
Lithological
effect or
unreliable data
87
85
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
70000
TG
80000
90000
100000
110000
120000
130000
IMPROVED INTEGRATED RESERVOIR INTERPRETATION USING THE GAS WHILE DRILLING (GWD) DATA
Chromatogram
QC
C1 / C2
QC
TG / C
QC
TG / C corrected
TG vs . (C1 / C)
QC, fluid
C1 / C3
litho, fluid,..
litho
iC5 / nC5
biodegradation
fluid
fluid
11
etc,...
WELL A
See figure 10
TG in ppm
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
1550
TG
1650
Bit runs
%(C1+C2)
1750
1850
1950
2050
2150
OWC @ 2220 m/RT ?
2250
2350
DEPTH M
SPE 65176
2450
Lithology
change
(sedimentary
sequence ?)
2550
2650
2750
3050
3150
3250
3350
3450
94
95
96
% (C1+C2)
97
98
99
12
SPE 65176
WELL A
10
Cut-off
TG > @ 13.000 ppm
and
0.9 < TG/Sccor < 1.1
C2 / C3
0
0
100
200
300
C1 / C3
400
500
600
700
Fig. 10 (C1/ C3) vs. (C2 / C3) cross plot showing two
different gas shows behaviours
C1/C
TG (ppm)
1850
1850
1875
1875
1900
1900
TOP RESERVOIR
1925
TOP RESERVOIR
1925
D
EP
T 1950
H
D
EP
T 1950
H
GOC
1975
GOC
1975
2000
2000
OWC
OWC
2025
2025
BOTTOM RESERVOIR
BOTTOM RESERVOIR
2050
2050
50000
100000
150000
200000
250000
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90 100
SPE 65176
IMPROVED INTEGRATED RESERVOIR INTERPRETATION USING THE GAS WHILE DRILLING (GWD) DATA
C1/C
13
C1/C
1450
1400
1450
1500
TOP RESERVOIR
1500
TOP RESERVOIR
1550
1550
D
EP
T 1600
H
D
EP
T 1600
H
1650
1650
OWC
OWC
1700
1700
1750
1800
1750
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90 100
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Fig. 15
WELL
C
QUALITY
CONTROL
& FLUID
FLUID
EVOLUTION
with EVOLUTION
DEPTH
TG
TG &
& TG
TG // SCcor
SCcor
C1/ C
TGsur
in ppm
C1
C2
0
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
120000
140000
1850
2290
Lower limit of
data quality
1875
TG
Lower limit of
data quality
or detection of
heavy components
Degraded
reservoir
TG over sumCcor
2310
1900
CAP ROCK
1925
1950
TOP RESERVOIR
Clean reservoir
1975
D
EP
T 2000
H
2025
-2358 m
-2362 m
OWC
BOTTOM RESERVOIR
2050
-2366.5 m
2370
2075
2390
Depth m/TVD SS
2330
2350
Continuous Increase
2100
2125
2150
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5TG/Sccor
1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.0 2.1 2.2
100
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90 100
14
C1/C
CAP
EFFICIENCY
CAPROCK
ROCKS
EFFICIENCY
TG,
& Estimated
PorePore
Pressure
TG,%C1
%C1
& Estimated
Pressure
GWD ANALYSIS
0
SPE 65176
20
40
60
80
100
Fig. 18
WELL
K
TG/500 & %C1
120
5200
1550
5250
5260 m
Seal
5277 m
1575
5300
Porous
intervals
5350
1600
5400
5410 m
1625
5450
Seal
5478 m
5500
RESERVOIR 1
1650
D
EP
T 1675
H
Depth (mD/RT)
BARRIER (SHALE 2)
1700
RESERVOIR 2
SOURCE-ROCK
5550
5600
5650
5700
OWC
1725
5800
5850
TG/500
%C1
1775
1800
Bit runs
5950
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80 90 100 110
WELL G
% iC5/nC5
0
1600
RESERVOIR
5750
0.5
1.5
2.5
R2
Gas
1650
GOC Log
R3
1700
W
EA
K
R6
BIODEGRADATION
Depth m/tr
1750
R8
STO
NG
1800
R9
R10
1850
R11
OWC Log
1900
1950
NO
BIODEGRADATION
0.2
0.7
1.2
Est. Pore Pressure (sg)
1.7
2.2
SPE 65176
IMPROVED INTEGRATED RESERVOIR INTERPRETATION USING THE GAS WHILE DRILLING (GWD) DATA
WELL C
Fig. 22
WELL C
TG & %C1
WELL C
TG & %C1
Cut_off
TG > 21.000 ppm
0.9<TG/C15c<1.1
TG
0
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
120000
80
2290
85
90
%C1
95
100
2290
Tight
Fluid
Behaviour
2300
Zone
2300
Probably gas bearing zone
Gas Cap
presence ?
2310
2310
2320
2320
Zone probably
belowinitial
bubble point:
high free gas
saturation
2330
Reservoir
quality
uncertainties
2340
Depth m/TVD SS
Depth m/TVD SS
2330
2350
2340
Zoneprobably
while
degassing
2350
WOC
2358 m/TVD
Bit runs
TG
2360
2360
2362 m/TVD
Transitionzone
Water inflow
Oil sat. ?
%C1
WOC uncertainties
2370
2370
Sand
2380
2380
Sand
Silty Sand
Silty Sand
Argilaceous Silt
2390
2390
Argilaceous Silt
Shale
Shale
2400
2400
80
85
%C1
90
95
100
Threshold
limits of fluid
representative points
Cut_off TG @
21,000 ppm
or
34.000 ppm
98
%C3
WELL C
No cut-off
Gas
96
%C1
92
90
88
86
84
lithology
effect or
unreliable
data
Oil / Water
Transition zone
82
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
10
100
60000
70000
TG
80000
90000
100000
110000
120000
130000
15
16
SPE 65176
LOGS INTERPRETATION
WELL C
FINAL INTERPRETATION
0,02
0,04
0,06
0,08
0,1
0,12
0,14
X100
BARRIERS FROM
GAS SHOWS
-1
BARRIERS FROM
D/N LOG
-0,5
RESERVOIR MODEL
BARRIERS
0,5
X200
DEPTH M
X300
X400
X500
WOC
base line
X600
-100
-80
-60
-40
-20
DELTA0P bars 20
40
60
80
100
IMPROVED INTEGRATED RESERVOIR INTERPRETATION USING THE GAS WHILE DRILLING (GWD) DATA
CASE 4
WELL 3
WELL 2
WELL 1
F1
F1
Sea l
Se al
Sea l
Fl ui d 2
Fl uid 2
R1
Fl uid 1
R3
???
R2
Flu id 1 -2
Water
F2
Seal
F3
Seal
SR1
Seal
R1
Flu id 1
R2
SR2
F4
SR2
Flui d 1-2?
Water
Tigh t zon e
R2
R2
Tigh t zon e
R3
SR1 F5
Flu id 1
R1
Flu id 1
Fluid 1 -2
S R2
SR 1
SR1 F1
SR2
Seal
F3
F2
Seal
Seal
R3
F4
Seal
F3
F2
Seal
F2 - F3
S eal
Flu id 1-2
Tig ht zone
Water
R1
F1
Seal
Seal
Seal
F2
Se al
R3
WELL 4
F1
Flui d 2
R4
SPE 65176
R4
R4
17