See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/309757749

Validation of Formation Pressures While Drilling against Wireline Conveyed

Formation Tester in a Carbonate Reservoir in the UAE

Conference Paper · January 2016

DOI: 10.2118/183537-MS

CITATIONS READS

0 173

5 authors, including:

Chris Maalouf
Ecole Nationale Supérieure d'Arts et Métiers
19 PUBLICATIONS   36 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Wind turbines View project

Exploration of wind turbine wake View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Chris Maalouf on 27 August 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

SPE-183537-MS

Validation of Formation Pressures While Drilling against Wireline Conveyed

Formation Tester in a Carbonate Reservoir in the UAE

Christophe Bassem Maalouf, Irina Bacca Espinoza, and Salem Al-Jaberi, Abu Dhabi Marine Operating Company;
Sammy Molua Lyonga and Latifa Al Haji, Schlumberger

Copyright 2016, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition & Conference held in Abu Dhabi, UAE, 7-10 November 2016.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents
of the paper have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect
any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written
consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may
not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
Historically, pressure measurements have been acquired with Wireline Formation Tester (WFT) tools.
In highly deviated and/or lateral wells where tools are drill-pipe conveyed, this can be problematic and
add significant expenses and operational risks. Formation Pressure While Drilling (FPWD) measurements
minimize operational risks at reduced overall cost and increased operational efficiency. This is particularly
relevant in high angle and/or lateral wellbores.
This paper discusses the best practices for acquiring formation pressures with FPWD applied for better
understanding of local depletion scenarios. The best procedures were used to obtain accurate reservoir
pressure measurements while drilling in a side track section. The pressures were compared with pressure
acquired from a WFT in the pilot hole. The comparison was used as a benchmark for the data quality
between FPWD and WFT.
Especially with a large scale projects such as new field development planning, it is important to validate
FPWD against proven WFT mesurements to ensure data quality is not compromised for cost saving.
However, benchmarking two formation testers run at different times with varying mud/drilling conditions
needs a good pre-job planning especially if the tolerance is less than 10 psi drift. After consultations with
all stakeholders, a logging sequence was agreed upon which optimized logging time, giving the best chance
of attaining optimal well-bore conditions for formation testing. Results showed a very good match between
WFT acquired in pilot hole and FPWD data acquired two weeks later in the side track section a couple of
hours after drilling. The differences between the two measurements were between +0.8 psi and −6.4 psi.

Introduction
Historically, pressure measurements have been acquired with Wireline formation tester (WFT) tools. In
highly deviated and/or lateral wells where Wireline tools are drill-pipe conveyed this can be problematic and
add significant expenses and operational risks. Formation Pressure While Drilling (FPWD) measurements
minimize operational risks at reduced overall cost and increased operational efficiency. This is particularly
relevant in high angle and/or lateral wellbores.
2 SPE-183537-MS

Today, there is a general drive to reduce operating cost per barrel. Any and every technology that can
contribute to this general philosophy is worth its place on the decision table. However, data quality cannot
be compromised at the expense of cost. Otherwise, an operator risks increasing their cost in spending more
to get additional measurements for a satisfactory data coverage and for associated remedial and corrective
actions caused by subpar measurements. In the worst case, an operator may decide to "live" with the
uncertainty of the sub-standard technology. This is disastrous, representing a loose-loose to the buyer who
goes home "wounded" and may vow to never buy such technology again and also to the seller who blocks
out a potential customer for good. Thus, stifling avenues for experience and technology improvement.
Generally, FPWD is less problematic in case of freeing any stuck pipe situation. Whenever high losses are
encountered while acquiring pressures via Wireline TLC, the operation may simply be stopped and cancelled
but with FPWD, it is much easier to inject loss circulation material and continue pretesting operations. In
addition there is the added benefit of reducing operation time per well by eliminating a complete Wireline
run. The cost saving from rig spread rate and the risks averted are substantial enough for any approval
decision to be given to switch from Wireline conveyed logging to Logging While Drilling (LWD). However
stakeholders especially the end users, i.e., those Geoscientists actively involved in operations always want
to be sure data quality is not compromised. We describe here the best practices which led to a successful
validation study of FPWD data to WFT within ADMA-OPCO.
To understand those best practices, it is essential to know the prevailing operating conditions during LWD
formation testing. During drilling of a well, it is usually necessary to maintain an over balance pressure
(positive pressure differential acting from the wellbore into the formation) to mainly prevent the inflow of
reservoir fluids into the well. For this reason, some of the drilling mud will flow into the formation and
particles and additives suspended in the mud may partially plug the pore spaces, reducing the permeability,
creating a damaged zone in the vicinity of the wellbore. Such a reduction in permeability would cause an
additional pressure drop close to the well. Everdingen et al, 1949 referred to this extra pressure drop as skin,
a fundamentally dimensionless number describing a zone of infinitesimal extent causing a steady pressure
difference. Any remedial action to limit this reduction in permeability improves the productivity index (PI)
of the well (Economides et al, Reservoir Stimulation, 2000).
It is necessary to get a good grasp on the factors causing a reduction in PI (otherwise, mobility which
directly relates to flow rate) because they help in understanding the operational environment of a FPWD
tool. Minimizing the effect of these factors helps in attaining representative reservoir pressures with more
accurate mobility computations (Molua et al, SPE-175301-MS).

Origins of drilling associated induced formation damage

Mud Solids Invasion. Mud solids can progressively fill the porosity of the reservoir rock if forced into the
pay zone. Subsequent attempts to start production at moderate or high flow rates (a pretest being a mini
production test) may cause these materials to bridge and severely decrease the permeability of the near-
wellbore area. Just to name a few, invasion of formation rock by drilling fluid solids is favored by:
– small particle size of the solid components of the drilling fluid (the initial particle size of weighting
agents and lost-circulation preventers is usually coarse but can be fragmented by the drill bit)
(Abrams, 1977, Wenwu et al, SPE 143497).
– low drilling rate resulting in mudcake destruction (mud-loss increase) and long formation-to mud
contact time.
– high drilling fluid circulation rate (mudcake erosion)
– high drilling fluid density causing large overbalance pressure
– scraping of mudcake as a result multiple passes by large diameter components of the bottomhole
assembly or the bit itself, provoking pressure surges and increasing formation-to-mud contact time
during bit trips
SPE-183537-MS 3

– Over circulation for wellbore cleaning e.g. wiper trips prior to pretesting or multiple bottom-hole
assembly (BHA) over a zone of interest during pretesting itself.
Drilling fluid filtrate invasion: Higher values of filtrate invasion may result from the deliberate choice
of high penetration rates. The liquid phase of a drilling fluid also contains many potentially damaging
compounds. Because filtrate invasion can be deep, drilling filtrate damage can be one of the most important
causes of flow impairment. The severity of this damage depends on the sensitivity of the formation to the
filtrate. In a low permeability reservoir, the depth of invasion might be shorter but the extra pressure carried
by the invading fluid gets trapped, dissipating very slowly. This phenomenon known as supercharging
(Chang et al, SPE 92380; Hammond et al, 2005 SPE 95710) is very common in low mobility formations
especially when pretesting with a formation tester in a drilling BHA. Thus said, especially for a probe type
formation tester, it is always advisable to keep the filtrate loss of the drilling mud down to a minimum
creating favorable conditions to minimize supercharging.
Wettability alteration: When non miscible mud filtrate invades the formation, it could also lead to
changes (reduction) in relative permeabilities of the formation rock.

Best Practices for formation testing in carbonate formations

Especially in carbonate formations that show a lot of petrophysical variability, probe pretesting can be very
challenging. Drillers control FPWD operations although geoscientists usually need the data, except when
needed for mud weight control. In the drillers' mind, any stationary measurement is usually considered as
Non Productive Time (NPT). Understandably so, partly being stationary for extended periods especially
without circulation and rotation always represents a risk of getting stuck and, also, time spent to drill a
section is part of drilling key performance index. That means time to be spent on pretesting have to be
necessarily short. Compounded to this, supercharging is always in the background. However, the operation
should be planned in a way to obtain a data-set that is fit-for purpose. Weinheber et al, SPE 115825 looked
at best practices for probe pretesting in low mobility. Pop et al, 2005 SPE/IADC 92494 also published some
operational best practices for FPWD in particular and notes that there is appreciable benefit in acquiring
pressures while tripping out, keeping constant tension on the drillpipe; accounting for pipe stretch and
performing measurements with mud pumps off. In addition we realized that tripping out without reaming or
no pumping between pretests (if the well hydraulics/mechanics conditions permit) also helped in reducing
the level of supercharging. In general, a proper prejob plan is what has proved to be the key to any successful
operation. Below is a summary of some operational considerations and best practices for consideration
during job planning.
1. Acquire pretests after drilling to Total Depth (TD).
Except when the data is needed for mud design or "real–time" well placement purposes, it is always
advisable to acquire FPWD data as late as practically possible. Increasing the Time After Drilling
(TAD) gives more time for supercharging to have dissipated if present. However, in some exceptional
cases where formation damage occurs progressively after the drilling (Yon et al, SPE 164866), it may
be beneficial to acquire the data earlier after drilling than later.
2. Minimize overbalance to the safest possible margin.
Especially in low mobility rocks, high over balance promotes supercharging. High overbalance
also increases the volume of fluid needed to completely decompress the formation tester tool before
seeing any formation response.
3. Proper mud design. Care should be taken to use a mud that has good interactive chemistry with the
formation. The mud should easily form a good filter cake with low fluid loss rate.
4. Modern LWD formation testers can take advantage of a dedicated power mechanism that enables
pretesting without active mud circulation (Pump Off pretesting). This results in reducing dynamic
4 SPE-183537-MS

invasion during pretesting. The resulting measurement is then taken under a pseudo-static mud column
quasi similar to the static mud conditions during WFT operations.
5. Avoid reaming prior to pretesting and while moving between stations. Reaming is done with
circulation and rotation which promotes filtration into the formation (i.e. supercharging). However,
this may not be the case especially in some extended reach wells where hole condition dictates back
reaming while pulling out of hole because of excessive drag on the bottom hole assembly. In such
cases, the minimum flow rate considered appropriate to clean the well should be used.
6. Refine point selection using permeability indicators. Placing the probe in the most permeable spots
increases the chances of a successful measurement and helps reduce repeating pretests because of
Dry/Tight responses.
7. Take advantage of the automated pretest technique (Time Optimized Pretests, Table 1) that
independently optimizes the pretest volumes and rates withdrawn for particular mobilities (Pop et al,
2005 SPE 97283). These are algorithms developed for cases where no prior information is available
about the permeability or in cases where the overbalance is highly uncertain. It is also very useful in
carbonate formations that show a lot of petrophysical heterogeneity. It is common in such formations
to see mobility changes up to three to four orders of magnitude at the same depth in different
orientations of the borehole.
8. Some formations may show borehole damage (breakage) at specific orientations of the borehole. LWD
images (Turner et al, 2012, SPE 154463) can help to pinpoint these spots. Consequently, if available,
it is advisable to use the information to orient the probe away from such areas.
9. Pressure gauge response simulations under the expected overbalance to know the impact of TAD on
the pressure response.

Table 1—Parameters of Time Optimized Pretest Sequences.

Rate 1 Volume 1 Pretest 1 time Rate 2 (cm3/ Volume 2

Type and Sequence Mobility(λ)(mD/cP) Pretest 1+2 time (s)
(cm3/s) (cm3) (s) s) (cm3)

Type 1 – A 0.5 Max 9.5 Variable Computed Computed 300

Type 1 – B 0.3 Max 9.5 Variable Computed Computed 300

Type 2 – C 0.5 nX1 Variable Computed Computed 300

Type 2 – D 0.3 nX1 Variable Computed Computed 300

Validation of FPWD with WFT

The validation exercise was done in a field discovered in 1971 and was subsequently appraised with eleven
wells drilled between 1975 and 2014. The reservoir is a layer-cake oil wet carbonate with six productive
layers interbedded with five baffles in the oil zone and one microporous low-permeability layer at the bottom
of the oil zone (Fig. 1). Productive layers are approximately10-ft thick, whereas baffles are approximately 2-
ft thick. The bottom layer is approximately 24-ft thick (Maalouf et al, 2016 AAPG #41834). WFT including
formation pressures was part of the critical data set used to characterize the static and dynamic properties
of the reservoir for an optimal field development plan. Hence, the purpose of the comparison was to verify
and validate (and act as a benchmark) if the results from a Crystal Quartz Gauge (CQG), Fig. 2, run under
hydrodynamic conditions - i.e., with active mud circulation or even during the relatively short time after
active mud circulation (so called "pumps off") - via a drilling bottom hole assembly (i.e. via FPWD) can
be favorable compared to CQG results from a Wireline conveyance WFT usually acquired with static mud
conditions.
SPE-183537-MS 5

Figure 1—Oil-bearing reservoir layers are pictured in light green. Grey layers are low-porosity layers
within the oil zone. Light blue layer is the microporous, low-permeability layer separating the water
zone from the oil zone. The dark blue layer is the permeable water zone. (b) Map of exploration and
appraisal well locations and oil/water contact at top of reservoir. (Courtesy – Maalouf et al AAPG 41833)

Figure 2—Left, Design of CQG. Transducer features a single quartz crystal structure in which a resonator is
coupled to a dual mode oscillator. The resonant frequency of the first mode is highly sensitive to pressure, and
that of the second mode is more sensitive to pressure (Courtesy Schlumberger Fundamentals of Formation Testing
p. 45). Right, CQG specifiactions in WFT and FPWD. With FPWD, the CQG resolution in real time is limitd to 0.1
psi because of data bandwidth limitions in mud pulse telemetry. However, in recorded mode, the resolution
is 0.01 psi at 1s sample rate equal to WFT. The Range, Accuracy and Repeatability basically are the same.

The CQG design incorporates a single quartz crystal that measures pressure and temperature at the same
point in the crystal thereby minimizing time or space for thermal corrections. Small, residual thermal effects
are further minimized with real-time dynamic compensation, enabling a fast pressure response for the
highest resolution and accuracy under dynamic downhole conditions. Note that for FPWD, the entire CQG
sensor assembly has been repackaged to withstand the severe shocks and vibrations typical in the drilling
environment. Hence, it is referred in some other literature as Advanced Crystal Quartz Gauge (ACQG).
Formation pressures were acquired with a WFT in a pilot hole. Two probe types (Fig. 3) were used. An
Extra Large diameter probe (2.01 in2 surface flow area) in the high mobility (> 5mD/cp) zone, a combination
of a 3-D radial probe (79.44 in2 surface flow area) and the Extra Large diameter probe for various sampling
plus pressure only stations in the low mobility (< 5mD/cp) zones. Two weeks later, formation pressures
were acquired with FPWD (0.85 in2 surface flow area) in the motherhole (sidetrack), 75 degrees deviation
with almost identical water based mud characteristics (Table 2), and nominal overbalance of approximately
500 psi in the well, across the same formations at selected datum depths. Prior to the FPWD run, after
6 SPE-183537-MS

pressure gauge response simulations at different times after drilling, it was agreed to perform all FPWD
pretests while pulling out of hole without active mud circulation during pretesting to limit mud cake erosion,
minimizing supercharging for more representative measurements.

Table 2—Mud Properties of validation exercise (Pilot Hole - WFT; Motherhole – FPWD)

Mud Density (g/ Water/ Filtrate % solids PH Fluid Rheology PV/ Bottom, Hole Salinity
Type cm3) Oil Ratio resistivity Loss YP (cp/Pa) @ Circulating (ppm)
(cm3) 75degF Temperature
(oF)

Pilot hole WBM 1.21 86/14 0.06 @ 202 0F 10 9.2 2.8 20/29 202 103000

Motherhole WBM 1.21 89/11 0.02 @ 186 0F 11 9 2.9 18/28 186 163700

Figure 3—Different formation tester probe sizes. The WFT can be configured with any of
the above probes whereas the FPWD has only 1 probe size, i.e., the large diameter probe.

The results from WFT and FPWD are shown in Table 3. The maximum deviation is 6.4 psi in formations
B and C and less than 1 psi in formations E and G. The pressure distribution measured along the length of the
sidetrack well is consistent with the previously identified results in the pilot hole, fig 4. It was agreed prior to
the exercise that the maximum deviation for a successful comparison should be 10 psi at any given datum.
Generally, although there is significant variation in the formation mobility (roughly 2mD/cp – 140mD/cp
including WFT and FPWD), there is a good match at the same vertical depths between the two formation
testers in the various units tested. It is worth noting that the field in this exercise is under development
so initial pressure gradients might have been masked by development activity. Moreover, the comparison
of pressure results from a sidetrack well against the pilot hole may be affected by depth correlations. As
such, we are actually comparing the results of two formation testers run at different times with quasi-
similar mud properties (Table 2) but varying drilling and acquisition conditions. Hence, it could be expected
for the pressures to plot differently but seemingly the mobilities encountered are above the critical value
below which other conditions such as circulation rate, tool probe size, tool conveyance methodology, mud
viscosities and yield point start influencing the pressure readings. In other similar rock types, the critical
mobility is generally < 1 mD/cp where supercharging becomes more prevalent. For the above example,
SPE-183537-MS 7

all the FPWD measurements were done without active mud circulation using optimized pretest algorithms.
These helped in minimizing dynamic invasion and ensuring the pretest parameters were optimal for the
formation mobilities. However, in mobilities in the sub 1 mD/cp range, care must be taken when doing such
comparison as FPWD could suffer from significant supercharging especially when the purpose is to deduce
fluid gradients. In cases where hole condition and time constraints dictate that FPWD is of choice, then
particular emphasis must be placed to rigorously follow the best practices outlined above for an optimal
data quality at prevailing downhole conditions.

Table 3—Comparison of FPWD and WFT results. WFT acquired with Extra
Large diameter probe while FPWD acquired with a Large diameter probe

WFT-Pilot hole FPWD mother hole

WFT WFT FPWD FPWD

Formation WFT FPWD FPWD Delta FPWD
pressure mobility mobility adjusted to
Names TVDSS (ft) TVDSS (ft) Pressure (psi) -WFT (psi)
(psi) (mD/cp) (mD/cp) WFT depth

XX93 XX44 46.1 XX00 XX42 20.27 XX39.6 −4.4

A
XX03 XX46 107.6 XX08 XX43 13.83 XX41.3 −4.8

B XX12 XX53 26.08 XX19 XX49 13.37 XX46.6 −6.4

C XX23 XX57 4.87 XX30 XX53 6.29 XX50.6 −6.4

D XX34 XX86 144.69 XX41 XX86 19.6 XX83.6 −2.4

E XX57 XX33 4.54 XX52 XX32 2.09 XX33.8 0.8

F XX81 XX44 7.49 XX68 XX42 5.08 XX46.6 2.6

G XX97 XX56 8.77 XX89 XX54 2.99 XX56.8 0.8

H XX91 XX72 39.5 XX89 XX70 21 XX70.7 −1.3

Figure 4—Intergarted analysis from left to right: gamma ray (track 1), formation pressures (track 2), mud pressures
(track 3), mobility (track 5), resistivity (track 6), porosity and density (track 7). In the formation pressure track, red
squares represent FPWD data and green dots represent WFT data showing a good match between the two data set.
8 SPE-183537-MS

Conclusion
• CQG gauge measurements compared between WFT and FPWD give satisfactory results, with
differences less than 6.4 psi.
• The comparison served as a benchmark of FPWD against established WFT in the field in question.

• Generally, taking measurements with no active mud circulation results in more representative
measurements.
• Pretesting algorithms that optimize pretest volumes and rates for given mobilities save time and
streamlines operations.
• In rocks where mobilities are > 2 mD/cp, FPWD compares favorably with WFT and to a large
extent could be used for cases where gradients are required. For formation mobilities in the sub 1
mD/cp, care must be taken to follow the recommended best practices because dynamic invasion
becomes more prevalent.

Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank Schlumberger and Abu Dhabi Marine Company Operating Company (ADMA-
OPCO) for their support and permission to publish this work.

Nomenclature
BHA Bottom Hole Assembly
FPWD Formation Pressure While Drilling
LWD Logging While Drilling
MD Measured Depth
MW Mud Weight
MWD Measurements While Drilling
NPT Non Productive Time
POOH Pulling Out of Hole
TAD Time After Drilling
TD Total Depth
TLC Tough Logging Conditions
TVDSS True Vertical Depth Sub Sea
WBM Water Based Mud
WFT Wireline Formation Tester

References
Abrams, A., "Mud Design to Minimize Rock Impairment Due to Particle Invasion". Journal of Petroleum Technology,
586–592 (May) 1977.
Christophe Bassem Maalouf, Salem Al Jaberi, Irina Baca Espinoza, F. Elarouci, S. Smith, and H. Khairy "Unconventional
Approach to Estimate Permeability of Thin Beds in a Carbonate Reservoir with Vertical Interference Testing" prepared
for presentation at GEO 2016, 12th Middle East Geosciences Conference and Exhibition, Manama, March 7-10, 2016
in Bahrain.
J.K. Larsen, C.J. Maeso and F. Liu "Replacing Wireline Formation Pressure with Formation Pressure While Drilling in
Long Horizontal Wells" prepared for presentation at the International Petroleum Technology Conference held in Kuala
Lumpur, Malaysia, December 2008.
Julian Pop, Jean-Marc Follini, Yong Chang "Optimized Test Sequences for Formation Tester Operations" SPE 97283
prepared for presentation at Offshore Europe, Aberdeen, Scotland, 6–9 September 2005.
Krueger, R.K.: "An Overview of Formation Damage and Well Productivity in Oil Field Operations," Proc., SPE IntI.
Meeting on Petroleum Engineering, Beijing (1982) 79–104.
L.P. Dake "Fundamentals of Reservoir Engineering", Elsevier Publishers. Eighteenth Impression, 2001.
SPE-183537-MS 9

Marcus Turner, Corrado Bruni, Idowu Odumboni, Besma Sellami, Marco Sanguinetti & Jorge Kazmer "Multidisciplainary
Approach for Novel Application of Formation-Pressure-While-Drilling Service in High Temperature (160 Deg.C)
Low Permeability Carbonate," SPE 154463 Prepared for presentation at the EAGE Annual Conference and Exhibition
incorporating SPE Europe held in Copenhagen, Denmark, 4-7 June 2012.
Michael J. Economides and Kenneth G. Nolte "Reservoir Stimulation" Third Edition, 2000.
Molua S. Mostafa Haggag, Parmanand Thakur, Djelloul Hammadi, Adib Edris, Meretta Qleibo, "Implementation of
Formation Pressure While Drilling for Cost Optimization and Efficient Operations in Complex Structural Geology
Field: a Case Study from the UAE" SPE 175301 prepared for presentation at the SPE Kuwait Oil and Gas Show and
Conference held in Kuwait, 11–14 October 2015.
P.S. Hammond and J.J. Pop "Correcting Supercharging in Formation-Pressure Measurements Made While Drilling" SPE
95710 prepared for presentation at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Dallas, Texas, USA.
October 2005.
Peter Weinheber, Edward Boratko, Kilamba Diogo Contreiras and Fracisco Van-Dunem "Best Practices for Formation
Testing in Low Permeability Reservoirs" SPE 115825, Denver, Colorado, September 2008.
Pop, J, H Laastad, K-O Eriksen, M O'Keefe, J-M Follini and T Dahle:"Operational Aspects of Formation Pressure
Measurements While Drilling" paper SPE/IADC 92494, prepared for presentation at the SPE/IADC Drilling
Conference held in Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 23-25 February, 2005.
Schlumberger Educational Services - "Fundamentals of Formation Testing" 2006.
Van Everdingen, A. F. and Hurst, W.: "The Application of the Laplace Transformation to Flow Problems in Reservoirs",
AIME (1949) 186, 305–324.
Wenwu He, Mike Stephens, "Bridging Particle Size Distribution in Drilling Fluid and Formation Damage" SPE 143497.
Prepared for presentation at the SPE European Formation Damage Conference held in Noordwijk, The Netherlands
7-10 June 2011.
Yon Blanco, Marcus Turner, Scott Paul, Amel Benmansour, "Understanding the Impact of the Dynamic Environment
When Acquiring Formation Pressures Whilst Drilling," SPE 164866, prepared for presentation at the EAGE Annual
Conference & Exhibition incorporating SPE Europec held in London, United Kingdom, 10–13 June 2013.
Yong Chang, Paul Hammond ad Julian Pop "When should we worry about Supercharging in Formation Pressure While
Drilling Measurements?" SPE 92380 prepared for presentation at the SPE/IADC Drilling Conference in Amsterdam,
February 2005.

View publication stats