SPE 93229

Formation Testing While Drilling Conventional and Novel Applications

A. Buysch, M. Meister, J. Pragt, H.-C. Freitag, and U. Hahne, Baker Hughes INTEQ

Copyright 2005, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2005 Asia Pacific Oil & Gas Conference and
Exhibition held in Jakarta, Indonesia, 5 7 April 2005.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in a proposal submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to a proposal of not more than 300
words; illustrations may not be copied. The proposal must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.

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,

pressure may differ from expectations and mobility may vary

over several orders of magnitude, which requires that
drawdown rate and volume parameters be adjusted between
individual pressure tests. The FTWD tool presented in this
paper relies on an intelligent, self-learning downhole system to
verify the initial pressure drawdown and buildup process in
real-time. It evaluates the data to determine pore pressure and
mobility and subsequently, without re-setting the pad,
performs a second pressure test with DD rate and volume
adjusted accordingly. Results from the second test are
analyzed once more to further optimize DD rate and volume
for a third test. Apart from the Optimized Mode described
above, the tool can also be run in a Basic Mode, which
performs only a single pressure test at pre-determined DD rate
and volume. However, field experience has proven that
performing multiple repeat drawdown experiments at a single
pad setting provides a time efficient in-situ verification of
formation pressure and mobility. In essence, the optimized
process allows even shorter test times with higher accuracy
than a basic test with predetermined test parameters.
Following successful trial runs in the North Sea early in
2003, the new FTWD tool was introduced to the field in Q3 of
2003. To date, more than 120 runs have already been
performed, with over 7000 circulation hours and a drilled
section of almost 60,000 m measured depth (MD)
accumulated. Applications initially were mainly in high-angle
and horizontal offshore wells and other complex borehole
trajectories, but more recent applications have included Sand J shaped wells too. Geographically, operations have
been concentrated in the following areas: North Sea,
Mediterranean and West Africa, Gulf of Mexico, the
Caribbean, Australia, and Indonesia. Demand for independent,
self-learning, reliable systems will further increase as drilling
operations move to ever more remote locations.
Formation Pressure and Mobility
With the new LWD formation tester, formation pressure
tests are performed once the desired test interval has been
drilled. Upon having drilled down a stand, the tool is moved
up to the target depth and the string is worked to remove
torque. The tool then positions the pad on the formation,
establishing a seal on the borehole wall, and initiates the
automatic test sequence. Results are calculated inside the tool
and stored in the tool memory along with the detailed DD and
BU data. Relevant data are transferred to surface via up-link
mud pulse telemetry. In case of an Optimized Test the data set
consists of three formation pressure values, two annulus
pressures, two drawdown pressures, and one formation

www.petroman.ir

SPE 93229

x3260
x260

Formation Pressure Comparison

TesTrak (Blue) - MDT (Red)

x3255
x255
x3250
x250

[bara]

No Seal, Hole Enlargements

200

180

Pressures in Low Mobility Mica-Sands

160

140

Pressures in High Mobility Coarse Clean Sands

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]

Figure 1: Comparison between formation pressure data from

LWD tool (blue) and wireline tool (red)

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

Coarse clean sand (C-sand)

Fine micaceous sand (M-sand)
Heterogeneous sand
0

220

100
2000

x3245
x245

x3230
x230
xx750
4750

88 pressure and mobility measurements at 34 test-stations

showed expected formation parameters in the C-sands. The Msands were partly supercharged and partly affected by the pad
not sealing properly (Figure 3).

Quartz Gauge Pressure

Quartz
Gauge Pressure
Pressure [psia]
[psia]
Formation

mobility value1,2,3,4. This allows the quality of each test to be

evaluated in real-time, using the FTWD and any other data,
such as drilling related data (e.g. mud weight, time since
drilled, etc.). Mobility is calculated inside the tool and with
special post-job analysis software using the Formation Rate
Analysis (FRA) algorithms 5,6.
Comparison with wireline formation tester data has shown
very good agreement, prompting an increasing number of
clients to qualify this LWD tool as wireline equivalent. Figure
1 below shows a comparison.

1000
0

0.2

Km
0.4

0.6

0.8

5000

Hydraulic connectivity of the C-sands across the fault

could be proven. Re-logging of the low mobility M-sands
showed pressure dissipation over time, as to be expected of
supercharged formations.
Thin Bed Gas Sands Asia Pacific
FTWD measurements have been recently performed in
thin bed sand/shale sequences. One of these applications dealt
with pressure measurements in the vertical producer section of
an S-shaped well drilled with a 9-7/8 bit. The objective was
to test high mobility gas-bearing sands with minimum
thicknesses of only 0.9 m. In such an environment, accurate
depth control is crucial to efficient operations.
In total, 26 test-stations with a sealing efficiency of 100 %
were achieved. The measurements covered a hole section of
673 m MD. Within these 26 test-stations, 51 individual
pressure-mobility tests were performed, showing a pressure
range from 1843 to 4490 psi. The associated mobility values
vary from 2 230 mD/cP, indicating high mobility sand
formations, with intercalations of tight formations. The higher
mobility sands are characterized by mobility ranging from 60
230 mD/cP. The measured formation pressure values in
these zones increase from 1800 psi to 4100 psi with increasing
depth.
LWD density-neutron crossover with 6 p.u. difference in
the porous interval together with low gamma ray readings
indicates light hydrocarbons, which also correlates to the high
resistivity values (Figure 4).

-1700
3000

4500

Figure 3: Three groups of final buildup pressures can be seen,

consisting of the no-seal pressures (annular pressures), high and
variable supercharged pressures in micaceous M-sands, and the
true formation pressures in clean C-sands4.

TesTrak station

2000

4000

[m MDRT]

4000

1.0

Figure 2: Well path of 31/2-D-4 Y2H (red) and FTWD test-stations

(blue) on either side of the fault in M and C sands4.

www.petroman.ir

SPE 93229

3
Mobility Profile
x2600

x
2700

True Vertical Depth, m

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.

Using a special thin bed operating procedure, which

requires data from an LWD gamma-ray (GR) tool, the desired
sand bodies were identified and characterized in a short time
frame. Thus, it was possible to even detect sand bodies of less
than 1 m thickness.
The procedure is based on experiences from comparable
environments, e.g. turbidite sequences in the Mediterranean
Sea, such as found in the Adriatic. It combines off-bottom
relog data with short drilling pauses after one pipe stand has
been drilled down. The desired test-stations are "marked"
during drilling process and relocated after a new connection
has been made.
The following Figure 5 shows the variety of the formation
pressures in the reservoir. Below x100 ft the reservoir is at a
high pressure level while at x300 ft it is already heavily
depleted. The LWD log confirms the heterogeneous character
of the formation, which explains the pressure
compartmentalization of the reservoir.

x
3000

x
3100

x3200

x
3300

x
3400

50

100
150
Mobility, mD/cP

200

250

Mobility [mD/cP]

Figure 6: Formation mobility vs. TVD; calculated mobility values

were in the range of 2 - 230 mD/cP; data displayed are "FRA
accepted".

Fluid Contacts from Gradients North Sea

Formation pressure measurements in a 8-1/2" pilot hole
section of a slanted well resulted in several formation
gradients. The measurements were performed in horizontally
layered sand formations (Figure 7).
E

Depth
m TVDSS
-1500

Initial GOC
Initial OWC

-1600

-1700

-1800

2600

Coarse clean sand (C-sand)

Fine micaceous sand (M-sand)
Heterogeneous sand

FRA accepted=-2.70 psi/m

2700

-1900

TesTrak station

500

1000
Meter
0

50

100

150

200

250

2800

True
VerticalDepth,
Depthm
True Vertical

Figure 7: Well path of 31/2-F-5 AH (red) and FTWD test-stations

(blue) in different locations of horizontally layered sands4.

2900

One gas gradient and two water gradients could be

determined in a TVD range ofy about 300 m (Figure 8).

3000

1500

3100
3200
TVD RT [m]

1600

3300
3400
1500

Grad 1 = 0.391 bar / 10 m

R2 = 0.9439

1550

2000

2500

3000
3500
Pressure, psi

4000

1650

1700

Grad 3 = 1.008 bar / 10 m

R2 = 0.9992

Grad 2 = 0.973 bar / 10 m

R2 = 0.9974

1750

450
1800

Figure 5: Formation pressure vs. TVD; based on FRA quality

evaluation.

With further analyzing the formation pressure tests and

calculating mobility, the following graph (Figure 6) shows
again the character of the reservoir. Some thin layers are
measured to have a clearly higher mobility.

1850

1900
140,0

150,0

160,0

170,0

180,0

190,0

200,0

Quartz Gauge Pressure [bara]

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

As the related fields have been subject to oil and gas

production for several years, the virgin gradients have been
replaced by depleted gradients. The high precision of the
pressure gauge in the FTWD tool gave a high level of
confidence in the accuracy and repeatability of the
measurements. Two test-stations, performed at the same depth
showed a variation of 0.036 bar between highest and lowest
individual value.
Fluid Identification Gulf of Mexico
Pressure and mobility measurements can be combined with
other LWD data, such as gamma-ray, resistivity, and densityneutron to enhance the reservoir description process. In a
recent application, 7 tests were performed in the upper lobe of
a sand interval with a True Vertical Thickness (TVT) of 20 ft (
Figure 9). The density/neutron as well as the resistivity
data are indicative of oil. The pressure measurements in this
interval provided an oil gradient of 0.362 psi/ft.
Pressure [psia]
0

150

Gamm-ray app [API]

Resistivity [ohm.m] *)

150

log

20

y = 2.7625x - 983.82
R2 = 0.9979
Gradient = 0.362 psi/ft

*) Long/short space, 400 kHz, 2 MHz

Figure 9: Pressure gradient versus LWD log data; the gradient

indicating oil, correlate with the other LWD measurements.

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.

higher production, and improved safety. This is especially true

for formation pressure data, which is crucial for optimized
wellbore pressure control. The examples below highlight some
of these novel applications.
Mud Weight Management Mediterranean Sea
If mud weight adjustment is critical, because the well is
close to fracture and/or collapse gradient, pore pressure and
dynamic annulus or wellbore pressure are key parameters to
be determined. Usually, pore pressure is predicted by
calculation from gamma-ray, resistivity, and acoustic data,
with calibration data used from offset wells. With LWD
formation testers pore pressure can directly be measured realtime, with high accuracy, and used for calibrating prediction
models.
Additionally to that a dynamic wellbore pressure, the socalled Equivalent Circulation Density ECD, is permanently
measured and recorded. All values together enable an operator
to maintain mud weight, lower overbalance to an optimum,
and stay within an "ECD window", which is the narrow frame
between kick pressure (usually pore pressure) and fracture
pressure.
In common applications overbalance is quite often high,
sometimes several thousand psi when drilling through
depleted zones. In some applications, one of the objectives is
to drill with a low overbalance and to keep mud weight close
to pore pressure. This guarantees lowering drilling risks like
stuck pipe. In deep water applications the challenge lies in the
ability to stay within a very narrow window for the wellbore
pressure to avoid kicks on the low end and prevent lost
circulation on the high end. An exact knowledge of the
formation pressure allows tight control over the well and
keeps the drilling operation in the safety window. Preventing
kicks or lost circulation is also an economical aspect because it
helps to reduce NPT.
In a special application with high temperature (> 120C),
variable mobility (0.04 - 252 mD/cP), and a high mud weight
(2.05 sg), 16 test-stations were performed. The results of these
test-stations were confirmed by previous WL runs and LWD
measurements. With an overbalance as low as 7.4 psi (Figure
10), it was possible to adequately maintain a very narrow ECD
window. Some of the test-stations were affected by supercharging, and where excluded on the basis of the Formation
Rate Analysis FRA from further evaluation.

Novel FTWD Applications

As LWD technology continues to evolve, the true value of
real-time data is becoming more evident in terms of risk
reduction, improvements in wellbore positioning, earlier and

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

2nd Run Drilling Data

2nd Run POOH Data

10500
10,500

12500
12,500

Quartz Gauge Pressure [psia]

Figure 10: Pressure vs. TVD; displayed values are measured

formation pressure (blue points), measured annulus pressure
(black crosses), both with FTWD tool, calculated hydrostatic
pressure (1 SG, fresh water, dashed line), calculated mud weight
pressure (1.95 2.05 SG, straight line), and calculated fracture
gradient (2.1 SG, dotted line).

The application was performed in a thick shale sequence

with interbedded sand channels over a drilling distance of
more than 1000 m in a vertical 8-1/2" hole section. The
average thickness of the sand bodies was 0.75 m, with a
maximum of 1.2 m.
Due to the higher drilling risk presented by the narrow
pressure window in this well and the potential for
overpressured zones being encountered, pore pressure in the
shale was predicted in real-time based on LWD resistivity
data. To further refine the prediction, the FTWD data from the
sand intervals were used as a calibration reference. This
allowed drilling the well closer to balance at reduced risk.
Calibration of Reservoir Model North Sea
In this application the tool was used to verify the predicted
pressure profile along a planned wellbore with the measured
formation pressures and calibrate the reservoir model with the
measured data. The well was drilled through a low permeable
chalk reservoir but providing good porosity in the range of 25
35%. Since the reservoir has been under production for
several years already, the challenge was to drill the well
through a highly depleted zone, with a high risk of tool
sticking due to differential pressures (MD 10,000 to 11,000 ft).
Drilling 6000 ft further the reservoir pressure was modeled to
be 1000 psi higher and connectivity to another well was
expected (MD 18,000 ft). Towards the planned well end of
22,400 ft the reservoir pressure was modeled nearly 1200 psi
higher than in the highly depleted zone (see constant line of
modeled formation pressure in Figure 11).

14500
14,500

16500
16,500

18500
18,500

20500
20,500

22500
22,500

Depth [ft MDRT]

x+12
16000

Measured Depth [ft]

Figure 11: Real-time Formation Pressures measured along the

wellbore in a chalk reservoir versus modeled formation
pressures, allowing calibrating the reservoir model and
optimizing the casing program2.

The formation pressure tester was applied and the results

were plotted against the modeled pressure profile along the
wellbore. The measured formation pressure profile during
drilling differed from the modeled curve showing up to 300
psi higher depletion in the first section (MD 13,000 14,000
ft) while verifying 200 300 psi less depletion in the second
part of the well (MD 18,000 to 19,000 ft).
The advantage of formation pressure testing during drilling
in this case resulted in calibrating the reservoir model with the
real-time formation pressure measurements, which allowed
performing the casing run directly, instead of an additional
wiper trip followed by a wireline formation tester run. This
effective operation resulted in three days rig time savings. It
additionally provided pressure data at the toe of the well,
which has not been reached with pipe conveyed wireline
before.
The well could have been a good candidate for active ECD
management due to its changing formation pressure, but since
this was the first field application of this tool it was not used at
this point in time. The overbalance pressure therefore is the
inverse of the formation pressure (Figure 12).
2000
1900
Overbalance Pressure [psi]

x+26000

2nd Run Wiping Data

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

Quartz Gauge Pressure [psia]

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

Measured Depth [ft]

Figure 12:
Overbalance Pressure calculated from Annulus
Pressure measured after the test minus Formation Pressure

The pressure variation at the toe of the well results from

intentional testing, using varying overbalance pressures to

www.petroman.ir

SPE 93229

verify its effect on the formation pressure measurement. No

effect could be quantified at that point in time.

Test Stations

Casing Point Selection North Sea

Usually, casing points are selected based on pre-drill
pressure and overburden models, which essentially are derived
from field data in off-set wells. With the new FTWD service it
is possible to verify these models and adjust casing points
safely, in some cases allowing the reservoir section to be
completed with a larger production casing, which ultimately
benefits well productivity and project economics.

09:05 h

1st downlink

09:15 h

#1
#2
75 min.

#3
#4
#5
New connection

10:30 h

Figure 13: Screen shot of a RigLink window, representing the

operational procedure of five pressure-mobility measurements
with an FTWD service (black = block-height, blue = standpipe
pressure); the time used to take five test-stations was 75 minutes,
including downlink, uplink, and pipe setting.

If operational procedures (e.g. pipe rotation, going

stationary, making connection, etc.) are neglected, the whole
procedure time is only dependent on formation mobility. In
contrast to a simple Basic Test, which takes 10 minutes,
Optimized Tests finish either after a preset time is reached, or
a specific buildup detect criteria has been met. Both options
can be selected prior to each test-station. Even if the time span
for the measurement is selected maximum, tests in higher
mobile formations finish earlier, usually after 2 - 3 minutes 3.

[mD/cP]

1000.0

100.0

10.0
Mobility

Fast Formation Testing Procedure North Sea

One of the perceived advantages of wireline measurements
is that pressure test stations can be chosen based on detailed
reservoir characterization data, such as gamma ray, resistivity,
density, and neutron logs. Often, these data are available prior
to the wireline tester being run, either from a preceding
logging pass or from LWD tools. Selecting pressure stations
while drilling the well requires a more direct and continuous
interaction between all personnel involved. In very deep wells
and challenging drilling environments, state-of-the-art data
communications can be used to make LWD data available for
shore based G&G personnel and involve them in the decisionmaking process. To further reduce the time required for LWD
pressure testing, special operating procedures have been
developed and tested successfully3. Measurements during a
wiper trip or while pulling out of hole (POOH) can also be
performed within a shorter time frame. The following example
shows possibilities and achievements of formation testing
during POOH.
Within 3 hours and 30 minutes, 15 pressure-mobility teststations were performed. This is, on average, a test-station
every 15 minutes. It includes pipe setting, downlink of test
parameters, running the test cycle and uplinking of the
measurement results with data verification. Each test-station of
this example consisted of an Optimized Test, which, in turn, is
composed of three multiple-repeat tests without pad retract.
That results in a total of 45 individual tests.
Five test-stations within one stand (Figure 13) gave a good
gradient over a TVD section of 5 m. In the example, all teststations were performed after a new pipe connection has been
made (09:05 h). The first downlink was sent at 09:15 h. 75
minutes later, at 10:30 h, five test-stations have been
completed, the data been pulsed uphole and the operation was
ready for another pipe connection. At 10:35 h, the BHA was
ready for the next set of measurements. This example
demonstrated the time effective operation of an FTWD tool.

New connection

1.0

0.1
0

200
Test Tim e

400

600

[s]

Figure 14: Semi-log plot of mobility vs. test time from 14

test-stations; higher mobility values lead to a shorter testtime.
In the above example, the longest test-time for an
Optimized Test used was 9:33 minutes (Figure 14). The
corresponding mobility was less than 1 mD/cP. The average

www.petroman.ir

SPE 93229

test-time for 16 test-stations was 3 minutes (stdv.: 1:50

minutes) within a mobility range of 0.2 125 mD/cP.
This example shows that the total test time depends not
only on the operational time of the tool (tool activation via
downlink, pad deployment and retract, data uplink) but also on
the formation parameter such as mobility, to derive accurate
formation pressure and mobility data from the test.
Summary, Conclusion, and Outlook
The examples presented in this paper have shown that the
new FTWD tool has applications such as:
- pore pressure measurements including advanced insitu mobility analysis similar to conventional wireline
measurements;
- providing reservoir connectivity and gradient
information;
- providing fluid parameters, such as API gravity, from
a combination of pressure gradient and well locations,
using the predictive PVTMOD software.
Due to the nature of acquiring the formation pressure and
mobility with the FTWD tool in the drilling environment,
additional information is directly available and can be used in
real-time, such as:
- increasing wellbore safety with the knowledge of the
formation pressure already during drilling;
- active ECD management for advanced drilling such as
deep water or other drilling operations with tight ECD
windows;
- proving the ability for the calibration of pore pressure
prediction modeling during drilling;
- extending the range of performing formation pressure
measurements into extended reach wells;
- optimizing the casing program by selecting a different
casing setting point;
- enhancing a wireline sampling program in terms of
safety and efficiency by determining formation
overbalance (reducing the risk of differential
sticking) and formation fluid bubble point (reducing
the risk of flashing the sample, ensuring high quality
monophasic PVT samples).
In essence, early knowledge of the formation pressure and
mobility helps to define reservoir parameters earlier in the
drilling program to:
- refine the reservoir pressure model;
- improve planning for the production phase;
- reduce NPT while simultaneously improving rig
safety.
Additional applications are being investigated to further
improve
both
wellbore
placement
and
reservoir
characterization.
The quartz gauge pressure measurements from this FTWD
tool can also be used for an independent assessment of
wellbore trajectory in horizontal wells to an accuracy of + 2ft.
This application is important in certain Extended Reach
Drilling (ERD) projects currently underway.
In complex, mature fields, the ability to determine the
depletion level and fluid content of smaller individual
compartments being drilled with TTRD systems will allow
real-time decisions regarding open-hole side-tracks to be made
quickly, improving project economics.

In terms of reservoir characterization, additional benefits

can be derived from integrating the FTWD data with data from
other LWD tools. For example, formation mobility derived
from the FTWD measurements can be used to calibrate the
permeability profile generated by an NMR LWD tool to
deliver a valid formation producibility profile. Comparison
with well test or spinner flow meter data would help ascertain
the applicability of this approach.

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