Quantifying Effects of Supercharging when

using LWD and wireline TLC FT; North Sea

Examples
SPE Bergen, One Day Seminar
Wednesday 11th March 2009

Adil G. Ceyhan, Reservoir Engineer, Schlumberger, Stavanger

Graham Davis, CNRI

Supercharging from.
Supercharging is the single-most important
issue for FPWD
Have formed a data-base with different service
providers based on experience
Supercharging rules of thumb
Sandstone < 5 mD (North Sea), 10 mD (NS)
Carbonate < 1 mD (NS)

What is Supercharging ?

Outline

Why to address this issue ?

Gradient possible with FPWD ?
FPWD advantage versus Wireline TLC
Numerical Software Help on Supercharging

North Sea Examples

Concluding Remarks

Key Issues with FT -1

Survey Dependent
Survey Order of the pre-tests
Depth Correlation
Tool/Probe Orientation

Well Conditions Dependent

Wellbore Rugosity
Washouts

Mud Related
Good Mud cake, Leaky mud cakes
Gel, Solids potential problems, LCM, plugging

Key Issues with FT -2

Gauge to Gauge Comparison
80s, 70s, 90s gauge versus 2000 generation

Reservoir Rock&Fluid Related

Fluid Composition
Hydrocarbon Gradient Envelope
Layer Thickness
Capillary Effect at near wellbore
Wettability Tendency
Permeability Variations

What pressure does a formation tester

measure?
On A Good Day (ie When Pressures Work)
Oil Zone: correct oil pressure and gradient
Water Zone: correct water pressure and gradient
Correct Free Water Level
Explanations
A) a dynamic effect due to gravity segregation
B) filtrate equalizes to far-field mobile phase
But
A capillary pressure difference has to exist
And, what pressure do you measure in a transition zone?
Pressure of the NON- Wetting Phase

Typical 1st Order Distortions

Major Supercharging
Variable Mixed Wettability Effects In Carbonate Transition
Zones
Micro-Porosity Effects In Carbonates (unproven)
Fractured Reservoirs (Different Matrix Block Pressures May
Line Up On The Pressure Of The Fluid In The Fractures)
Mobile Gas Near Well Bore (and in Tool)
Malfunctioning Gauges (usually obvious)
Tool Storage Effects
Flow In The Reservoir
Man Made Production/Injection Effects

Typical 2nd Order Distortions

Leakey Mud Cake Subtle Supercharging

Deviation Survey
Depth Errors (vs Bedding Thickness vs Fluid Density)
Low Level Supercharging
Gauge Drifts Due To Overshoot
Variable Wettability (above the transition zone)
Compositional Gradients
Shallow Invasion (~ 5 to 10 inches?)
Finely Laminated Reservoir?

Supercharging Due To Invasion

Typical Invasion History:
1. Initial Spurt Loss
2. Dynamic Filtration
3. Static Filtration (after
circulation ceases)
4. Mud Cake Removal(s)
1 - Fluid Loss is Negligible
(Ferguson and Klotz)
2/4 - SC Pressure Stored
In The Formation and Measured by the FT
Say this SC caused by Dynamic Filtration Mechanism DFM
3 - SC Pressure is Sustained (& Created) by Static Filtration
Say this SC caused by Static Filtration Mechanism SFM
These are Distinct Mechanism

Supercharging Equations
(based on 2 stage invasion)
Assume 2 invasion rates (q1 - before q2 - after circulation), Phelps et
al showed
q2
Psc =
4M f

q t + t
Mf
1
1
+.809 + Sinv
+ ln(t ) + ln
ln
2

t
cT rw
q2

where Sinv is the skin due to the invasion zone, given as

S inv

Mf
r
= 2
1 ln i
Mi
rw

Mf - total mobility of the Undisturbed Formation (lower in an

transition zone)
Mi - Total Mobility of the Invaded Zone
Total Mobility is given by M = Kabs[krw[sw]/mw + kro[so]/mo]
(CT - total compressibility, rw - well bore radius,ri - invasion zone
lateral tickness, t1 - time during circulation, t - time since
circulation)

Consequences of the Equations

1 Multiphase Effect:
Supercharging is larger in a
transition zone between fluids
(say oil and water) than in other
parts of the formation - ie if Mf is
low due to the presence of 2
mobile phases

Reduction In Total Mobility

w hen both phases are mobile

0.9

0.8

Krw

0.7

Krg
Kr
0.6

0.5

2 Damaged Zone Effect:

Supercharging is larger if the
damaged zone permeability is
lower - ie if the ratio Mf / Mi is
increased

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

Influence of Mud Cake and Formation

Permeability
Under steady state conditions, formation pressure Pf is related to
sandface pressure Ps (measured pressure), by
pf

pm
= p s 1
1
K f
p s

Km tm

rw ln( ri rw )

Thus Supercharging Psc is increased if:

mud cake permeability is high (poor seal)
formation permeability is low
The Two Governing Factors on the Level Of SFM

When We Should Expect Supercharging

1 Supercharging is larger in a transition zone between
fluids (say oil and water) than in other parts of the
formation.
2 Supercharging is larger if the damaged zone
permeability is lower - ie if the ratio Kd/Kf is lower;
where Kd and Kf are the damaged zone and formation
permeabilities, respectively.
3 Supercharging is larger if the mud cake permeability
Km, is high - particularly from SFM (static filtration)
4 Supercharging is larger for lower formation
permeability Kf

How Important Is Static Filtration?

Obviously If The Km/Kf Is Relatively Large,
Then Static Filtration May Be Significant
Experience Shows Static Filtration
Significantly Contributes To Supercharging in
Tight Gas Reservoirs
Supercharging Seems To Be Dominated By
Dynamic Filtration In Oil Reservoirs

Visplex
Original Filtercake

2 psi back pressure

Mudcake Breach Experiments

-- SCR
Thixsal

4 psi back pressure

Core face after filtercake has parted

2psi back pressure

4 psi back pressure

Perflow
Original cake

2psi back pressure

10 psi back pressure

Maximum recovery reached

Courtesy of Louise Bailey SCR

4 psi back pressure

10 psi back pressure

Supercharging Modeling
Software incorporates
Static and Dynamic Invasion

For further information

SPE 95710 and 92380

Dynamic Filtration ?

Model consists of three stages

Early time quasi-static period fluid loss and cake
growth. Proceeds in the same way as if mud were not
flowing and dominant control is the pressure difference
between wellbore and formation
Transition period
Late-time equilibrium dynamic filtration cake; fluid loss
rate is constant determine by shear stress at cake surface
and independent of pressure difference.

Forward modelling
Central idea: There are two distinct dynamics for
drilling fluid filtration in the wellbore
quasi-static: cake grows, loss rate falls with
time
V St 1/ 2
dynamic: cake does not grow, loss rate
constant in time and dependent on mud
circulation
V q (&)t
erosion, scraping, plastering, internal
clogging all add complication

Filtration While Drilling

q (t )
quasi-static

q (t ) = S ( p ) 2 t

transition

dynamic

q (t ) = q ( w )
t

Simulating Supercharging
Well & BHA geometry

Time-sequence of
drilling operations
Drilling fluid properties

Formation properties

Wellbore hydraulics
model
Filtrate leak-off
rate, formation
pressure versus
time

Coupled filtercake growth and

formation pressure calculation

Supercharge Simulation
Sandface pressure
Formation properties

Coupled filtercake
growth and formation
pressure calculation

Filtrate leak-off
Drilling fluid filtration properties

Filtercake growth & erosion

Well & BHA geometry
Drilling fluid rheology

Fluid circulation in
wellbore

Time-sequence of
drilling operations,
circulation rate,

Wellbore hydraulics
calculation

Wellbore Hydraulics Simulation

Inputs Synthetic or from real job
BHA, well geometry
Time sequences of drilling operations, ie.
Bit depth history
Mud circulation rate

Mud rheology : power law, Herschel-Bulkley models

Output
Annular friction, mud pressure, shear rate on wellbore,

Forward model
BHA, drilling & hydraulics
information

Information on mud
filtration and formation
properties

fluid loss volume

fluid loss rate
supercharge
pressure

Purpose of Supercharging Simulator

Design and evaluate various measurement scenarios.
Provide a qualitative or possibly quantitative assessment on the
uncertainty of the pressure measurement in response to the
drilling environment.
Help to design and verify the interpretation of supercharging.
Objective:
A forward model of supercharging process
Models to simulate various measurement sequences used by
the hardware

Hydraulics Models
Drilling Fluid Model
= &
= K &n
= 0 + K &n

Newtonian
Power Law
Herschel-Bulkley

Pressure Drop Model

p
= 2 f V 2 / D hy
L

p 4 K
or
=
L Dhy

8

Deff

Case A
Assumptions
Rock is assumed around 300 ft thickness
Avg k_h = 25 mD, Avg k_v = 2 mD
Considered last 24 hrs, circulation and pipe
movement
OBM, Bingham Model, inputs from the mud report
Pumps on tests with 350 gpm

XX41.43 ft-MD, Pumps Off test

3677 psia, Wellbore Pressure

9.7 ppg EMW
3651.66 psia

50.16

3651.66 psia

XX41.43 ft-MD, Pumps Off test

Set line pressure

50.16

Instantaneous leak
Partial lost seal

XX41.43 ft-MD, Pumps On Test

3797 psia, Wellbore Pressure

10.01 ppg, EMW

3651.57 psia
3651.57 psia

Hydraulic Plot
Borehole Pressure

Shear Rate (1/s)

35000
30000
25000
20000
15000

1000
900
800
700
600
500
400

200

5000

100

4000

4.5

4500

4.0

6500
7000
7500
8000
8500

3.5
3.0
Gap (in)

Bit Depth (ft)

6000

Bit Depth

Probe Depth

Formation Depth

6500

6000

5500

5000

4500

4000

3500

12000

5000
5500

Gap

1100

300
10000

Re

Borehole Pressure (psi)

40000

Shear Rate

2.5

10000
8000
Re

45000

1200

Pump Rate (gpm)

50000

Pump Rate

6000

2.0
1.5

4000

1.0

2000

9000
9500

0.5

10000

0.0

9/21/2008 1:21:23 PM 9/21/2008 4:33:57 PM 9/21/2008 7:37:11 PM

9/21/2008
9/21/2008
9/21/2008
9/21/2008
9/21/2008
9/21/2008
1:26:31
1:33:49
1:40:18
1:50:02
2:01:05
2:11:11
PM
PM
PM
PM
PM
PM
9/21/2008
9/21/2008
9/21/2008
9/21/2008
9/21/2008
9/21/2008
7:50:08
9/21/2008
7:59:09
8:11:34
8:30:03
8:45:57
PM
PM
9:08:44
PM
9:13:58
PM
PMPM
PM

0
8

10

12

14

16
18
20
Time (hr) (ZeroTime=9/21/2008 12:00:00 AM)

22

24

26

28

Super Charge Plot

Super Charge Pressure

0.00020

Overbalance

Mud Filtrate Rate

50
0.00018
45
0.00016
40

0.00014

Filtrate Rate (in3/s/in2)

0.00012

Psf - Pf (psi), Overvalance (psi)

35

30

0.00010

25

0.00008

0.00006

20

15

0.00004

10

0.00002

0.00000

7 psia, max potential

9/21/2008 1:21:23 PM
9/21/2008 4:33:57 PM
9/21/2008
9/21/2008
9/21/2008
9/21/2008
9/21/2008
9/21/2008
1:26:31
1:33:49
1:40:18
1:50:02
2:01:05
2:11:11
PM
PM
PM
PM
PM
PM
8

10

Supercharging front

12

14

9/21/2008 7:37:11 PM
9/21/2008
9/21/2008
9/21/2008
9/21/2008
9/21/2008
7:50:08
7:59:09
9/21/2008
9/21/2008
8:11:34
8:30:03
PM
8:45:57
PM
PM
9:08:44
9:13:58
PMPM PM
PM

16
18
20
Time (hr) (ZeroTime=9/21/2008 12:00:00 AM)

22

24

26

Case B

Water, Oil, Gas gradient expected

Estimated 100 + mD/cP
Wireline TLC done afterwards
Large overbalance, ~2000 psi no pumps off

Wireline TLC run

For pressure,
FPWD also gives
Similar gas gradient

9.2 psia

Case C

40 psi pump noise before set

Overbalance 1100 psi

Zoom In -1

Zoom In -2

Zoom in 1 , 25 psi

Zoom in 2, 6 psi

What can we expect here ?

3 psi / 40 psi = 0.075 X 1100 = 82.5 psi
6 psi/ 20 psi = 0.3 X 1100 = 330 psi
Supercharging expected !!

From Modeling ?

Modeling Results
Tight gas reservoir seems effected by SFM
OBM mud cakes seems much more sensitive
to DFM (Circulation Rate while FPWD)
WBM cakes seems much stronger to resist
DFM, but mud qualities and cake
deteriorations increase SFM
Permeability cut off might mislead !

On the way from Stavanger

Defense, aerospace, manufacturing and
engineering have no real value to us
Only high-quality professional services,
financial services and the City of London have
any real value and they should be reported at
all cost. The rest of the country can be turned
over to tourism (UKNDA, Report)

Concluding
All potential modeling, correlations, rule of
thumbs and trying to model mud cakes not
always have a real ultimate value
Only more and more quality measurements,
and evaluating each cases uniquely matters
FPWD offers quite a lot flexibility to perform
such measurements in situ, especially
evaluating DFM and soon FSWD will bring
more understanding