Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Experience Using the First Commercial Pad and Probe Style Formation Tester While
Drilling Service Has Led To Value Creation at the Valhall Flank Development
Ifor Roberts and Martin Kendall, BP; Mark Proett, Charley Siess, Frode Hveding and Tommy Solbakk, SPE, Halliburton
Abstract
GeoTap®, a new formation testing while drilling (FTWD)
service, was introduced to the Valhall Flank Drilling campaign
in May 2003. Introduction of this service was anticipated to be
the most cost effective solution for gathering pressure data on NORWAY
these long horizontal wells. After the first well, the equipment
STAVANGER
was modified; and the rate of success increased from 20% to
90 %. As of November 2004, the service has been run in
seven wells. In this paper, we review the value the service has
added to the drilling campaign and also review the experience VALHALL
gained with the service during its first year. DENMARK
The drilling environment is dynamic with hydrostatic HOD
®
GeoTap, GeoSpab, Geo-Pilot, and Insite are registered
trademarks of Halliburton Company
2 SPE/IADC 92712
new crestal platform to water flood the central part of the field the PWD electronics provides a reliable memory and
was installed in 2003. communications (GeoSpan®) system to operate and control the
Valhall was originally developed to recover 250 MMBO GeoTap tool downhole. Further considerations were made in
but has produced twice this; and work is ongoing to recover in designing the tool to ensure that it was compatible with
excess of 1 billion BO from the field. ongoing drilling operations and yet simple enough to maintain
at the well site. The tool is capable of operating while the rig
pumps are active (i.e., pumps-on) with no apparent detrimental
effect on the data quality.1,2 Having the pumps on is a
preferred mode of operation because it reduces the potential of
differential sticking and keeps the wellbore and mud system
conditioned. If a mud motor is used, the preferred mode of
operation is “pumps-off” due to the relatively high vibration
motion from the mud motor stator/rotor interaction while
pumping.
Operation of the GeoTap tool
The GeoTap is run as an integrated part of the Sperry-Sun
M/LWD tool string. At Valhall Flank, it has been run with
mud motors in pumps-off mode on two occasions; but most of
the runs have been performed in pumps-on mode with Sperry-
Sun’s 3D rotary steerable system Geo-Pilot®. The Geo-Pilot
does not have a stator/rotor configuration, and the vibration is
level is therefore very low. At Valhall Flank, the GeoTap tool
has been run in combination with the following LWD sensors
in the tool string: At Bit Gamma, At Bit Inclination,
Fig. 2—GeoTap Tool Collar showing the packer/probe and inclination, direction, Drillstring Dynamic Sensor, dual
equalization valve. The packer/probe is protected in a recessed
portion of the collar. A stabilizer is attached to the collar to
gamma-ray, phase-four resistivity, compensated neutron
centralize the tool. porosity, and Azimuthal Litho-Density.
The GeoTap tool operation is preprogrammed with a timed
The GeoTap Service1 sequence of events (see Fig. 3).1 The time to operate has been
The objective of the GeoTap tool is to provide a robust and kept to a minimum such that, at circa 7 minutes from start to
repeatable formation pressure measurement while drilling. finish, it is equivalent to making a slow connection. The timed
While several original approaches have been considered for events can be altered by sending a downlink signal to the tool
FTWD tools, the GeoTap tool resembles a conventional so that it can adapt to changing formation conditions. When an
wireline formation tester (WFT) adapted to a drill collar. The initialization downlink command is sent to the tool to start the
GeoTap tool design is similar to many probe style wireline sequence, the sequence will continue unless the tool detects a
tools, where a donut shaped rubber pad forms a seal around a system error. If an error is detected or system power is lost, the
metal snorkel. When this probe configuration is pressed probe is automatically retracted. As a fail-safe mechanism,
against the wellbore, the snorkel penetrates the mudcake and there is a hydraulic accumulator in the tool that maintains a
contacts the formation to make the pressure measurement. The reserve of hydraulic fluid at system pressure to automatically
GeoTap tool collar has been integrated into the real-time retract the probe in the event of a power loss. Furthermore, the
Sperry-Sun Measurement and Logging While Drilling probe can be sheared with a 100,000 pound force if the
(M/LWD) system (see Fig. 2). The collar is nominally 6 ¾-in. accumulator loses pressure.
OD and 28 ft long with a small area enlarged to 7 ¾-in. OD to
P hydr2
accommodate the probe deployment section. In the probe P hydr1
P set
deployment section there are three recessed flats of ½-in.
depth. The single pad is mounted flush on one of the three P bu(t’) P stop
flats. Because of this arrangement, the GeoTap tool design
Pressure (psi)
have been used. A field-proven quartz gauge with Fig. 3—GeoTap operating sequence. This figure shows down-
accompanying electronics is used for the measurement. In this linked pressure test timing sequence where: tset is the time to set
the probe, tstart is the start of the pretest, tdd is the end of the flow
case, the Sperry Pressure While Drilling (PWD®) gauge period, tstop is the end of the buildup, and tfinal is the end of the test
section is used that has been in service since 1996. The use of and the time when the probe is retracted.
SPE/IADC 92712 3
demonstrated that a subset of this exact solution can be used to S14A, S12 and S15T2, and two abandoned investigation wells
characterize WFT tools. This simpler solution consists of an 2/11-S11 and S14.
exponential decay function where the buildup and drawdown
curves can be expressed as follows:
−t
Pbu (t) = Pf − β e α .........................................................(2)
⎛ ⎞⎛ −t '
⎞
⎜P −P ⎟⎜ α ⎟
Pdd (t) = Pset − ⎜ set − ∆tdd ⎟⎟ ⎜ 1 − e ⎟ .........................(3)
⎜ dd
⎝ ⎠
⎝1− e α
⎠
GeoTap has been used dominantly with GeoPilot® rotary • Motor assembly tool vibration will cause seal failure -
steerable assembly in 8 ½-in. hole; although sometimes, with a tests should be made with pumps off.
9.2-in. NBR and occasionally with a motor assembly. The • If poor seal or doubt about readings, move 5 m and repeat.
majority of tests have been taken as drilling, although infill • Generally avoid taking pressures at connections, but plan
tests have been made on trips in or out of the hole. Most of the to take in middle of stand
tests have been made with pumps on, although motor BHA • Take pressures at suitable events, such as circulating for
tests have been made with pumps off. samples.
Mud type in all the flank drilling has been OBM • Get torque out of string prior to taking a test.
throughout. Mud additives are frequently used to enhance • Generally, the orientation of the tool is not significant.
breakdown. The bulk of the chalk goes into suspension in the
• If seal failures attributed to washed out hole, re-orient the
mud during drilling, and probably also helps to enhance tool and retry.
breakdown to some extent.
• Plan to take infill tests as close as possible to the original
point on trip out, to verify supercharging.
Applications to Valhall Flank Project
The GeoTap tool measures real time static mud weight
General Sampling Program. Following are the general
(pumps-off data) as well as annular (external) and bore
procedures, with comments associated with a sampling
(internal) pressure. In addition GeoTap reads formation
program.
pressure, by stopping drilling and extending a probe to seal
• Generally take two tests in main build to optimise mud
against the wellbore. Full circulation is possible during
weight.
formation pressure testing.
• Thereafter, take pressures approximately every 200 m
until reaching a critical interval; but more frequently if
Table 3: Summary list of FTWD runs on Valhall pressures diverge from an expected trend. In addition,
Flank horizontal production wells. when exiting the Tor, try to resample when back in Tor.
Well Approx Date of reservoir Comment # tests
section drilling • Upon reaching a critical interval, as ECD approaches
1st Phase Valhall Flank Drilling South breakdown, increase sampling to establish pressure trend.
2/11-S11A Schlumberger • Specify a trip to replace GeoTap if it fails before the
LWD critical interval.
2/11-S14A Ran RCI
2/11-S12 June 2003 GEOTAP 15
2/11-S15 - Reliability of GeoTap readings
T2 Verification of GeoTap as Drill Ahead.
1st Phase Valhall Flank Drilling North The following criteria were used to evaluate pressures and
2/8-N15 Oct 2003 GEOTAP 26 modify procedures.
2/8.N10 Dec 2003 GEOTAP 6
N10T2 • Repeat if required when quality indicators show a
2/8-N12A Feb 2004 GEOTAP 28 potential problem.
T2 + T3 • Dismiss if isolated reading off trend.
2/8-N14 March 2004 GEOTAP 16 • Test in high porosity regions to target high chalk matrix
2/8-N11 -
2/8-N7 June 2004 GEOTAP 12
permeability.
2/8-N5T2 July 2004 GEOTAP 8 • No-seal is generally obvious because the measured
+T3 + T4 pressure is the same as the equivalent circulating density
(ECD) pressure or hydrostatic with pumps-on.
General Procedure for Tests Taking GeoTap Pressure • Supercharging is the biggest challenge to evaluate due to
Measurements. Since the first well, 2/11-S12, where only 5 the relatively low permability.4
out of 15 pressure measurements attempts were successful, no • Supercharging is inherent to all the points, to some
tool failures of GeoTap have been experienced. However, on degree; and using a previously published analysis,
well 2/8-N10, GeoTap infill points were not obtained while supercharging is probably between 0-200 psi.4
pulling out due to a MWD pulser failure after reaching TD.
The tool has worked flawlessly on five of the wells and Due to FTWD’s diverse and important applications, it has
has, despite the problems on two wells in 2003, provided become a standard requirement to run LWD pore pressure
pressure measurements on all seven wells. See Table 3. tools in the reservoir section on flank wells.
General Procedure for Tests. Following are the general Applications of GeoTap to Valhall. The following is alist of
procedures, with comments, associated with tests. applications of GeoTap to the Valhall.
7) Replacement of leak off testing (LOT) Packoff Identification. The Hod formation is tight and
8) Optimisation of breakdown-enhancing mud additives consequently less depleted than the Tor. When drilling
9) Perforation point selection and stimulation design underbalanced, the Hod begins to cave. Then, hole cleaning
10) Fault flow barriers detection can become an issue with resultant rises in ECD. Pack-offs
11) Stratigraphic flow barriers detection can occur. Pressure spikes due to pack-offs can be relatively
12) Calibration of reservoir pressure model large, and there is a risk of losses by exceeding breakdown.
13) Calibration of 4D seismic response The cure for Hod pack-offs is to increase mud weight.
14) Waste injection pressure effect Flank wells have suffered frequent pack-offs due to
15) Water injection pressure effect underbalanced conditions in the Hod, most commonly on trips
but also during drilling.
Replacement of Drill Pipe Conveyed Logging. LWD pore On well 2/8-N14, when back reaming out from TD, pack-
pressure measurement has replaced the rarely-run drill pipe- offs occurred when in Hod at 3386 m MD, resulting in losses
conveyed WFT on horizontal flank wells because of rig time due to breakdown of the formation. Upon running the liner,
saving. Furthermore, it has become a standard requirement to the well suffered total losses. The well was then circulated at
run FTWD tools in the reservoir section. TD and cemented with no returns, requiring a top squeeze.
In the future, if there is a data acquisition requirement to Later the cement bond log revealed good cement from TD to
log with a tool currently not available on LWD (for example 3600 m MD; but poor, above 3400 m MD. Breakdown is
image log for fracture analysis), DP conveyed logging may be presumed to have occurred at the weakest point, namely 4495
considered and a wireline formation tester added to the run. m MD. Observations indicate breakdown with mud additives
Then the GeoTap readings can be compared to the DP as 2445 psi over the 3294 psi pore pressure (see Fig. 6).
conveyed readings. On the N5 well, severe pack-offs were observed when
drilling underbalanced in the Hod in N5T2 and again in N5T3.
Optimise Mud Weight. At the beginning of the reservoir The latter was lost due to a stuck pipe.
section, GeoTap pressure readings are taken to optimise mud Unfortunately the short time span of the pack-offs has
weight. resulted in the bulk of them being missed on the real-time
To avoid requirement for drilling 9 5/8-in. casing into the PWD log, although recorded in memory. Following the stuck
top of the Tor in the overburden section, there is concern to pipe incident on N5, the plan was to include internal as well as
avoid pressure depletion of less than 1.20 s.g. at entry. With external PWD readings to the real time transmission and
the help of GeoTap, predrill reservoir entry estimates have increase the telemetry rate to observe pack-offs in real time
become increasingly accurate. And, with on-flank drilling so (i.e., during normal drilling operations). In addition, to
far, no losses have been encountered upon tagging the Chalk. separate high intensity ECD telemetry, a downlink to the tool
Generally, the highest pressures in the reservoir are to be was setup to increase PWD frequency for the drilling problem
seen at entry. Based on GeoTap readings at the beginning of zones.
the section, mud weight is reduced to close to balance to
reduce ECD. ECD becomes increasingly significant when Gas Data Verification. From pore pressure measurements,
drilling ahead into increasingly depleted zones with regard to including GeoTap, it is clear that gas data is a very unreliable
reducing risk of losses by exceeding breakdown pressure. indicator of pore pressure.
Lowering mud weight reduces the risk of differential Although, in places, drilling gas trends do appear to follow
sticking; and despite high overbalance on flank wells (up to pore pressure trends, in many places it does not and often
1550 psi), differential sticking has been rare. contradicts. Gas values are shown in Figs. 6, 7 and 8 for wells
Minimising mud weights contributes to higher ROP. 2/8-N14, 2/8-N7, and 2/8-N15. Drilling gas values appear
However, generally, on Valhall lower mud weights to achieve more related to hydrocarbon saturation and reservoir quality,
higher ROP is not an issue particularly in Tor due to its being which is dominantly gas released from the drilled cuttings and
very soft. not related to changes in pore pressure.
A good example is well 2/11-S12 shown in Fig. 9. where,
Swabbing Identification. Swab pressures have been despite a pronounced fall in pore pressure toward TD, drilling
determined from PWD data. Generally in 8 ½-in. hole in the gas values remained high. Likewise connection gases also
reservoir section, swab pressure is 0.04 s.g. at standard where recorded at the most depleted interval but presumably
tripping procedures. Swabbing resulting in influx has been came from under balanced Tor further back in the well. If gas
observed at trips on several flank wells, resulting in the data alone were used for pressure interpretation, a completely
requirement to pump or back ream out. Such a requirement false impression of pressure would be derived.
can increase the rig time by several hours. Likewise connection gas data has proven to be unreliable.
Ideally, mud weight should be adjusted to avoid swabbing. Although connection gases have been recorded when close to
GeoTap pore pressure readings have helped optimise mud balance, in many places they are not. Connection gases often
weight prior to trips. There is evidence from GeoTap data appear to occur related to high pressure areas further back in
from flank wells that the Tor fails to flow despite minor under the reservoir section (often from Hod sections), which can
balance below the 0.04 s.g. swab pressure; or even slightly confuse pressure interpretation from connection gas. In
under balanced to static mud weight (2/11-S12, 2/8-N12AT3 addition, the increase in gas values over the drilling gas
and 2/8-N7). background is frequently very small and so can be difficult to
determine if the gas peak is related to the connection or not.
SPE/IADC 92712 7
Drilling gas peaks can help identify fractures; and values possible to derive the relationship of pore pressure to break
fall substantially when in tight formation, particularly in Hod. down in the reservoir. A significant application for GeoTap is
in providing pore pressure and drilling ECD, together with
Reservoir Breakdown Pressure. accurate swab and surge pressure peaks.
Breakdown pressure is at least the maximum ECD
Reservoir Breakdown Pressure and Flank Drilling. For observed at a measured pore pressure, and the minimum
wells drilled from the crest (generally drilling from low to breakdown has been extracted in each well drilled (see Figs 6,
high pressure), the weakest breakdown in the reservoir section 7, 8, and 9 for 2/8-N14, 2/8-N7, 2/8-N15, and 2/11-S12).
is at Tor entry. These wells require a LOT at start of drilling As each flank well is drilled, further breakdown data points
the reservoir section, and the limit to how far drilling can are provided. Initial models had breakdown pressure with mud
proceed is determined by when ECD exceeds breakdown at additives at least 6458 psi at pore pressure of 4077 psi in well
the shoe. Then, drilling is stopped when mud weight is at a 2/11-S12; and 7154 psi at pore pressure of 5041 psi without
safe margin (0.05 ppg) less than the LOT. mud additives from well 2/11-S12 LOT. Where losses were
For wells drilled from the flanks (generally passing from induced by exceeding breakdown pressure, the loss is assumed
high to low pressures), the weakest breakdown in the reservoir to occur at the lowest pore pressure. Well 2/11-S14A provided
section is at the toe, toward the depleted crest of the field. In breakdown pressure without mud additives of 6996 psi at pore
this case, the limit to how far the reservoir section can be pressure of 5133 psi,. For 2/8-N14, breakdown pressure with
drilled is determined by when ECD exceeds breakdown mud additives was 5739 psi at pore pressure of 3294 psi.
pressure. By plotting pore pressure against maximum observed ECD
These observations are particularly significant for and pressures required to cause losses, formulas for
cementing the reservoir liner, as on flank wells the thief zone breakdown with and without mud additives have been devised.
is most likely at the toe of the well as opposed to being on the They are based on the previously derived relationship between
heel on the crest. The risk of exceeding breakdown when pore pressure and closure pressure.
drilling is considered a lesser risk than exceeding breakdown
when cementing the production liner. Although losses can be Tor breakdown pressure, no addition of mud additives =
reduced by flow rate or healed with LCM, it is difficult to (0.91 x pore pressure psi) + 2478 psi.
ensure a good cement job once the formation has been broken
down. (See example in Fig. 6 for well N14). This formula approximates to pore pressure plus 2024 psi
Reservoir Closure Pressure. From pressure measurements Tor breakdown pressure with the use of mud additives =
on flank wells, closure pressure has proven to be almost (0.91 x pore pressure psi) + 2738 psi.
irrelevant to losses and to how far the wells can be drilled and
production liner cemented. This formula approximates to pore pressure plus 2445 psi
An equation has previously been derived for closure
pressure from extensive perforation data on Valhall. In addition, a measure of the effectiveness of the mud
additives in enhancing breakdown can be made. Mud additives
Closure Pressure psi = (0.91 x Pore Pressure psi) + 1555 psi enhances breakdown by approximately 260 psi.
Although there is a straight line relationship between Application of Breakdown Pressure to the Drilling of
closure and pore pressure, the difference between them at high Flank Wells. A breakdown estimate is incorporated into the
pressures is less than at low pressures, suggesting the chalk planning of each flank well, including TD criteria and the
retains some strength with depletion. requirement to set a liner. When GeoTap is run, these
Initially, the limit to how far a well could be drilled before decisions can be made while drilling based on real-time pore
losses would be induced was believed to be close to closure pressure and ECD.
pressure. To define pressure profile, GeoTap pressures are taken at
However on flank wells, ECD has exceeded closure regular intervals, approximately every 200 m. However, an
pressure for long sections of reservoir without losses. Closure increased number of pressure tests (samples) is recommended
pressure has proven to be irrelevant to losses and to how far if observed pressures change from the expected pressure
the wells can be drilled and production liner cemented. See trends. In critical intervals, such as crossing highly depleted
Figs 6, 7, 8 for wells 2/8-N14, 2/8-N7, and 2/8-N15. The zones or approaching TD, the sampling interval is reduced as
irrelevancy of closure pressure is true despite crossing faults. required to 150 m or 90 m. Breakdown is calculated via the
On the rare occasions where losses have occurred with formula for each valid GeoTap reading and ECD plotted
ECD greater than closure pressure, losses have been minor and against breakdown. In wells where modelled ECD approaches
have coincided with a fracture, assumed to be open. On 2/8- breakdown, mud additive is added to enhance breakdown
N11, for example, a fracture was indicated by a 35% gas peak, generally when ECD exceeds closure pressure.
with a 1.5 m3 loss, followed by 10 m3 slow losses over next On flank wells, decisions have been made — from GeoTap
300 m. during drilling — to cross severely depleted zones, extend TD
by defining pressure sumps, and to maximise Tor exposure. In
Determination of Reservoir Breakdown Pressure. By addition, the ability to model reservoir breakdown pressure is
combining pore pressure and ECD measurements, it has been of great importance for well planning, target box location, and
8 SPE/IADC 92712
reserves accessibility from the flanks, affecting the entire well It was suspected that mud additives could enhance
planning for the field. breakdown pressure. However, from drilling on other BP
The breakdown model will be of increased application for operated fields, it was not known if enhancement was possible
future wells drilled from the flank, as these well target zones in Chalk fields; nor by how much. By quantifying the effects
closer to the crest or else are required to cross severely of the additives on breakdown, it is possible to refine their
depleted zones. type and concentration. Cooperation between the mud supplier
and BP is ongoing to improve the effects of the additives.
Replacement of LOT. GeoTap combined with ECD has
removed the requirement for LOT on flank wells. Although Perforation Point Selection and Stimulation Design.
there are historical LOT data from Valhall crestal wells, they GeoTap readings are of prime importance as input to post drill
are of little assistance to derive the relationship of breakdown pressure estimation, for perforation point selection, and for
to pore pressure. Note the following. stimulation design. GeoTap has defined the pore pressure
differential along the wellbore in several flank wells,
1) “LOT” were often really FITs, that is they were not taken particularly by the calibration of predicted pressure sumps.
to breakdown. The limitation to stimulation in a single stage has been
2) When taken to breakdown, there is an absence of accurate approximately 1000 psi pore pressure differential along the
pore pressure measurements. wellbore. Pore pressure in excess of 1000 psi can risk flow
a) LOT at the beginning of the reservoir are frequently between perforations from high pressure to low pressure.
taken after the main build is complete (after about Generally, the solution has been to design a two stage
100 to 200 m) and include the most depleted Tor; and stimulation, by draining the high pressure area prior to
there is uncertainty as to the point of leak off. opening the entire well. This solution has involved setting a
b) In the infrequent cases where pore pressure has been bridge plug, a practice that has proven to be problematic.
measured by wireline testers, these pore pressure Careful perforation point selection based on actual
measurements did not coincide with the assumed reservoir pressures can avoid a two stage design, or confirm its
point of leak off; or there has been uncertainty as to requirement, and plans can be made to optimise production..
pressure readings due to baffles.
c) There is a doubt about the reliability of perforation Fault Flow Barriers Detection. An important application of
pore pressure measurements due to a leaking sand pore pressure measurements is the identification of fault
plug. See flank wells shown in Figs. 6, 7 and 8. There barriers to reservoir flow. Generally, flank wells are targeted
was reluctance to perforate close to the shoe. to drill reservoir within Tor depocentres, sometimes defined
by major regional faults. Each flank well has drilled through
Where a reliable estimate of pore pressure is available, several minor reservoir faults, with less than 10 m throw and
LOT data has been incorporated into the relationship of mostly much less. The limit of throw identifiable from seismic
breakdown to pore pressure. is about 5 m. Faults are frequently confirmed during drilling
Currently, flank wells have ceased to do LOT in the from logs or biostratigraphy.
reservoir section, to save rig time, in favour of extracting Considering that small throw is unlikely to displace the
breakdown information from ECD and GeoTap. Whereas LOT reservoir significantly, it is not surprising that there is no
only gave breakdown information under the shoe, ECD is evidence from pressure measurements of the faults causing a
measured over the entire wellbore and easily read at the point pressure barrier. Nevertheless, confirmation of this is
of a GeoTap reading. significant to the reservoir engineering of the field.
If flank wells revert to LOT, extended LOT is preferred, In the 2/8-N10 well, GeoTap was used to measure
ensuring measurement of breakdown and closure pressure. pressures in thin Tor within three discernable fault blocks.
GeoTap pressures should be made prior to the LOT depth, One of the objectives of the 2/8-N5 well was to use
with the leak off point assumed to be at the point of the lowest GeoTap to measure the pressure across a major regional fault,
pore pressure. in a previously un-drilled horst block. If the horst block was
LOT will most likely be required on future crestal wells. not drained, it could prove the target of future drilling.
Consideration, therefore, should be made to do extended LOT, Unfortunately the horst target was not reached in the well.
possibly before and after addition of mud additives, and
particularly if an LWD formation tester is run. Stratigraphic Flow Barriers Detection. In 2/8-N15 GeoTap
revealed a horizontal pressure barrier between the
Optimisation of Breakdown Enhancing Mud Additives. stratigraphically lower Tor Campanian and the Tor
Mud type in all the flank drilling has been OBM throughout. Maestrichtian above. GeoTap readings measured Campanian
The OBM include mud additives to enhance breakdown. Tor as 221 psi more than the Maestrichtian Tor above. Seismic
During drilling, the bulk of the chalk goes into suspension in response has shown the lateral extent of the pressure baffle to
the mud and probably helps to enhance breakdown to some be extensive in the northeast Tor basin of Valhall. Based on
extent. the pressures, the stimulation of the well was designed to
The application of GeoTap and ECD measurement has access the poorly drained Campanian reserves.
made it possible to model breakdown before and after the By taking of pressures in different reservoir flow units in a
addition of additives. Current models suggest that the additive series of wells, GeoTap has shown the absence of any other
has enhanced breakdown by 260 psi. discernable stratigraphic pressure baffles.
SPE/IADC 92712 9
cemented with no returns, requiring a top squeeze. Later the leakage in the proppant fracture seals between zones. GeoTap
casing bond log (CBL) revealed good cement below 3600 m data shows that we cannot rely on perforation pressure data
MD but poor cement above 3400 m MD enabling cement alone and that the most reliable perforation data pressure point
integrity for 8 of the 9 perforations. is the first (see Figs 6, 7 and 8). In wells N7 and N12AT3,
Shallow of 4400 m MD, GeoTap readings were taken in comparison between the first perforation pressure and nearby
formation of relatively high Sw at deep TVD depths. The GeoTap readings, the differences between the pressures were
readings revealed pressures greater than perforation pressures 56 and 25 psi.
and are probably supercharged. GeoTap at 3549 and 3706 m In rare cases, perforation pressure data was seen to be less
MD are possibly supercharged as nearby perforation pressures than GeoTap data. Throughout well 2/8-N7, all perforation
are poor quality. The perforation pressure at 3970 m MD is data points were below GeoTap pressures (see Fig. 7).
good and stable.
Deeper than 4400 m MD, GeoTap readings are taken in Supercharging. Supercharging is the biggest problem to
better formation, read less than perforation pore pressures, and verification of GeoTap pore pressure readings. It was found
are believed to be accurate (see Fig. 6). that supercharging was a big challenge, particularly on well
The very consistent drill gas readings are again poorly 2/8-N12A well. This challenge meant that we had to define a
indicative of pore pressure. Very low values correspond to criterion to minimise the supercharging effect and to perform
Hod at entry, which is also most likely the source of the analyses of the data to see when supercharging occurs.
sporadic connection gases (see Fig. 6). Supercharging is basically related to low permeability, low
porosity, and high Sw. High Sw is related to formation type4.
Well 2/8-N7. The plan for N7 was to drill until slightly before We derived a guideline porosity of 36%. This guideline thus
the A21A producer, at 4236 m MD. A pressure decline of enabled us to minimise effects of supercharging and reduce
1875 psi was prognosed (but with considerable uncertainty), wasting rig time, the confusion of inaccurate points, and the
and the intention was to shorten the well if the pressures sump input of invalid data into drilling decisions.
was significant.
Upon drilling the well, mud additives were added from Looking Forward
3700 m MD to enhance breakdown in anticipation of the Well 2/11-S10 is the first well planned for the second phase of
pressure sump. ECD exceeded closure pressure from 3500 m South Flank drilling and is expected to drill out of 26-in.
MD. Real time GeoTap readings revealed the pressure sump to conductor in November 2004.
be not as severe as expected, and a maximum 696 psi below The breakdown model is of increased application for future
breakdown was measured. It was possible to continue drilling wells drilled from the flank as they target zones closer to the
a further 296 m in Tor to maximise pay. One extra perforation crest or are required to cross depleted zones.
was added as result. The pressure trend was later confirmed by S10 will drill closer to Valhall than previous flank wells.
perforation pressures. N7 could have crossed the A21A well With the definition of breakdown, it is now possible to
in Tor. Perforation pressures, although of poor to fair quality, introduce a safety margin to how far this well can be drilled.
read constantly below GeoTap and suggested supercharging of Predicted 2/11-S10 Tor reservoir pressures are derived
by 50 to 250 psi. However, perforation pressures have proven from the reservoir model and 4D seismic response associated
to be unreliable and could be incorrect. with production from A-3D-T2, F-17, S-11 and S-15. Pressure
Upon trip out, the flow check at TD with 1.27 s.g. was ok; declines slowly from entry point but declines sharply after
but swabbing, as pulled out, required back reaming. Mud 1800 m reservoir section, with a base case pore pressure
weight was raised to 1.30 s.g . at the shoe, but further differential of 1525 psi along the wellbore. Local deviations
swabbing required a new run in hole and further pump out. are possible, with uncertainty of pressures toward the toe of
This information suggests that the two GeoTap readings close the well. Drilling hydraulics indicate ECD will exceed low
to the casing shoe are probably correct despite perforation data case Tor breakdown from 2000 m reservoir section, even
to the contrary. when enhanced by mud additives.
The gas readings are poorly indicative of the pore pressure. The GeoTap program is to take pressure readings in the
No connection gases were seen although they would be main build to optimize mud weight. The program will also
expected at entry. Gas readings fall to near zero when in Hod take two extra pressures in the interval 200-300 m for potential
formation at TD. pressure support from A25BT3. Thereafter GeoTap readings
are planned every 200 m in Tor until 1800 m, when sampling
Comparison to Perforation Data. Valhall wells are typically is to be increased to 150 m or more frequently to confirm pore
proppant fractured with fracture spacing in the range of 170 m. pressure. It will be necessary to trip to replace GeoTap if it
Pore pressure data is recorded at each zone separately by the fails from 1800 m reservoir section.
permanent downhole gauge installed in the production tubing. The intention is to set intermediate liner and drill slim hole
The quality of the perforation data is related to how good the if we are unable to drill to the 1700 m reservoir section. The
zonal isolation is, to the level of overbalance, and to the risk of Hod pack-offs is low as anticipated mud weights
stabilisation time. exceed projected Hod pressures.
Predominantly, GeoTap data has proven more accurate Real time GeoTap pressures and calculated breakdown
than perforation data; and, in most cases, GeoTap pressures will be plotted with actual ECD. The plan is to TD the well
are lower than perforation pressures. The inherent problem is when ECD is 2245 psi over pore pressure. This pressure
that perforation data pressure measurement is affected by represents a 200 psi safety margin less than predicted
SPE/IADC 92712 11
breakdown and allows for possible supercharging. the calculated, biggest hole sizes are probably not real but
Consideration will be made to extend TD by reducing ECD by rather are affected by the uncertainty of hole sizes derived
flow rate; or to reduce the safety margin slightly if there is from density. There is an indication of increased mobility
sufficient confidence of GeoTap readings. (permeability) with higher porosity, which is in line with the
GeoTap will be used in S10 to calibrate 4D seismic lab measurements data showing a clear trend between porosity
response related to nearby reservoir waste injector A25BT3. and permeability (see Fig. 15, 16 and 5).
Fig. 16 shows the relationship between permeability
Summary and Discussion of Results derived from GeoTap build-up data (mobility data converted
The main challenge is to quantify how representative are the to permeability using a fixed viscosity of 0.3 cP) and
measurements of the pore pressure. Porosity as calculated by permeability from the laboratory porosity vs. permeability
the azimuthal density tool is the best indicator when assessing trends. The relative large scatter observed in data is probably
the reliability of GeoTap to measure actual, in situ pore related the general uncertainty in the porosity vs. permeability
pressures. The advantage is that this measurement is done in relationship and the invaded fluid effects has on the pressure
real-time, and the optimal test station can be found. There is a build-up. Fig. 5 shows that, from core measurement, 36 %
strong link between porosity and permeability, suggesting that porosity is equivalent to a permeability of around 1 mD. A
permeability and supercharging related effects are important further conclusion is that 1 mD is the permeability limit where
features when acquiring and validating pressure measurements we would say that supercharging is affecting the pore pressure
(see Fig. 10). for GeoTap measurements.
Comparison of porosity to GeoTap readings in VFD wells
indicates a guideline minimum 36% porosity (density 1.99 Conclusions
g/cc) to avoid supercharging; and the higher the porosity the Acquiring good reliable pressure data is of paramount
better. There are no other indications of supercharging in real- importance to understand and to predict reservoir
time other than slow build up curves. To validate performance. The measured pressure data is one of the most
supercharging, we have established a routine of how to take significant pieces of information when building and history
infill tests on trip out close to the original point. The matching Valhall simulation model(s). The current full field
guidelines of how to optimize infill pressure points is simulation is used as a supporting tool for well planning, well
established in an attempt to minimize the disruption of the interventions, interpretation of Life of Field Seismic (LOFS),
filter cake and limit recharging of the near wellbore. The and for long-term production predictions.
preferable method is to pull out; less preferable is pump out; GeoTap has become standard equipment on horizontal
and least preferable is to back ream out the BHA over the reservoir sections of Valhall flank wells. Because of its diverse
selected point. In the main build, where the highest side loads real-time and extensive applications with rig time savings;
and the maximum disturbance to the filter cake will have been GeoTap has replaced drillpipe-conveyed wireline formation
on the high side of the hole, consider orienting left or right testers.
between 90 and 135 deg as there could be a build up of fines / From GeoTap and ECD readings, breakdown formula have
cuttings on the low side. been established, enabling decisions to be made in real-time
Fig. 11 shows porosity vs. formation exposure time along regarding several important decisions: how far the well can be
with the reliability indicators. Most of the reliability data are drilled, the requirement for intermediate liner, extending TD,
recorded in the high porosity chalk and there seems to be no drilling through depleted zones, increasing production,
strong relationship, in terms of varying quality, with exposure increasing pay sections, optimising perforation picking and
time. Presumably, the increased exposure time tends to improving stimulation design. Breakdown models have been
mitigate the effects of supercharging but this effect is ruined incorporated into planning well targets, reserves accessibility
by recharging the wellbore area when gathering late time and drilling strategy. GeoTap has helped make it possible to
pressure data due to damaging of the mud cake when running measure the effects of breakdown enhancing mud additives
in and out of the hole. and improve their effects by refinement of type and
A strong link between porosity and water saturation exist concentration.
in the Tor formation. High porosity is associated with low GeoTap and ECD readings are used to optimise mud
water saturation while low porosity is associated with high weight, determine swab pressures, and reduce pack off
water saturation. The most reliable pressure data is acquired in problems. They have also replaced LOT on flank wells.
the high porosity / low water saturation chalk (see Fig. 12). GeoTap can help determine the presence or absence of
The success rate in getting seals for pressure measurements is fault and stratigraphic pressure barrier, and can help calibrate
not affected by tool face orientation; a contributing factor is reservoir pressure models. GeoTap has applications to
believed to be that the GeoPilot with a long gauge bit is calibrate seismic response due to depletion, the effects of
drilling a very smooth hole with a low degree of spiraling (see waste injection, the effects of water injection, and the
Fig. 13). influence of faults on drainage and injection.
Fig. 14 shows porosity vs. hole size with the reliability GeoTap readings are used together with drilling data and
indicators. The most reliability data are recorded in the high perforation pressures to derive a final pressure estimate for the
porosity chalk; and, as expected, the best data is gathered wells. GeoTap has shown gas data to be highly unreliable as a
where the hole size is equivalent to the bit size (8 ½-in.). pore pressure indicator. GeoTap pressures have proven to be
An increasing number of “no seals” is recorded when hole more reliable than perforation pressure measurements.
condition deteriorates (wash outs / large hole sizes). Some of
12 SPE/IADC 92712
5000
GAS (percent)
60
Pressure PSI
4500
4000
40
3500
20
3000
2500 0
3200 3400 3600 3800 4000 4200 4400 4600 4800 5000 5200 5400
Meters md
Fig. 6— Well 2/8-N14 GeoTap pressures and ECD plotted against perforations pressure and pre drill pressure model.
1,5
1,4
20
1,3
1,2 ECD 1749psi>pore pressure of
3793psi, with additives, no losses.
1,1
1,0 10
0,9
0,8
0,7
0,6 0
3200 3300 3400 3500 3600 3700 3800 3900 4000 4100 4200 4300
Meters md
Fig. 7—Well 2/8-N7 GeoTap pressures and ECD plotted against perforations pressure and pre drill pressure model.
14 SPE/IADC 92712
5500 5500
Pressure (psi)
Pressure (psi)
5000 5000
4500 4500
4000 4000
3500 3500
3300 3500 3700 3900 4100 4300 4500 4700 4900 5100 5300 5500
Meters md
Fig. 8— Well 2/8-N15 GeoTap pressures and ECD plotted against perforations pressure and pre drill pressure model.
1,9 Pre Drill Base Pore Pre Drill Low Pore Pre Drill High Pore Geotap No seal 90
GAS CONN GAS
1,8
80
1,7
70
1,6
Pressure (g/cc)
60
Gas percent
1,5
50
TRIP 4 at 5400m.
1,4
Inc 1.5 MW to 1.52
PULL OUT 40
1,3
TRIP 1 at TRIP 3 at 4248m. 30
1,2 3291m. PULL TRIP 2 at
MW 1.48, swab 0.2cum,
OUT MW 1.47 3361m. PULL
MW 1.49 PULL OUT 20
1,1 OUT MW 1.44
9 5/8 at
1,0 3200m 10
0,9 0
3100 3300 3500 3700 3900 4100 4300 4500 4700 4900 5100 5300 5500
Meters md
Fig. 9—Well 2/8-S12 First well where GeoTap was used. GeoTap pressures and ECD plotted against gas, perforations
pressure, and pre drill pressure model.
SPE/IADC 92712 15
50 50
good
45 45
fair
good
Porosity
40 40
Porosity
poor fair
35 poor
35
super
charged Super
30 Charged
no seal 30
no seal
25
0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0 25
-180 -120 -60 0 60 120 180
Mobility (k/my) Tool Face
Fig. 10—Reliability of pressure measurements plotted as a Fig. 13—Reliability of pressure measurements plotted as a
function of porosity and formation mobility. function of porosity and tool face orientation.
50
50
good
45 45
good fair
Porosity
40 40
Porosity
fair
poor
poor
35 35
Super
super
Charged
charged
30 30
no seal
no seal
25 25
1 10 100 1000 8 10 12 14 16
Formation Exposure (hr) Hole Size
Fig. 14—Reliability of pressure measurements plotted as a
Fig. 11—Reliability of pressure measurements plotted as a function of porosity and hole size.
function of porosity and formation exposure time.
50
good
45
fair
Porosity
40
poor
35
Super
Charged
30
no seal
25
0 20 40 60 80
Water Saturation (Sw)
50
good
45
fair
Porosity
40
poor
35
super
charged
30
no seal
25
0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0
Mobility (k/my)
Fig. 15—Reliability of pressure measurements plotted as a
function of porosity and formation mobility.
5
Permeability from Por vs Perm Trend
4,5
4
3,5
3
2,5
2
1,5
1
0,5
0
0 1 2 3 4 5
Permeability from GeoTap