SPE 84383
Reducing Uncertainties In Formation
Logging Techniques
P.Blanc, Total; J.Brevière, Geoservices; F.Laran, Total; H.Chauvin, Geoservices; C.Boehm, Total; N.Fréchin,
Geoservices; M.Capot; Total and A.Benayoun, Geoservices
Copyright 2003, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition held in Denver, Colorado, U.S.A., 5 – 8 October 2003.
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, 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 an abstract of not more than 300
words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract 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
Mud logging and LWD services provide the earliest data
available while drilling. If the acquisition of gas in mud data
while drilling is a universal practice, the integration of such
data into formation evaluation studies remains the exception in
the petroleum E&P industry. An historical joint Total / ENI
research project started in 1997 has developed a new
interpretation method called Gas While Drilling (GWDTM ).
This method, based on the integration of surface gas data, PVT
and geochemical analyses, logs, etc., enables us to improve
reservoir characterization, in terms of hydrocarbon-bearing
levels, fluid variations, fluid contacts, probable
biodegradation, gas diffusion or leakage, seal efficiency,
compartmentalization, lateral extension and so on.
The variety and potential of these applications have led to:
• considerable improvements in the quality of
existing measurements
• the development of new data processing and
interpretation processes
In 1996, a continuous and fast measurement of C1 to C5
components, named Reserval, was developed by Geoservices.
This new analysis system led to an improvement of the
GWDTM method on formation evaluation studies, compared to
older systems (such as the Gaslogger). The improvement of
both the gas chain equipment and the interpretation method
has led to technical specifications for gas data acquisition in
order to have the best gas data as possible available to perform
a GWDTM interpretation; these recommendations to Mud
Logging companies were set up jointly by Total and ENI
in 2001.
Evaluation Through Innovative Mud
In this paper the necessity of using good quality gas systems to
derive valid GWDTM interpretations with the added value of
gas while drilling data for early formation evaluation is
demonstrated. Real case studies show the use of GWDTM
reduces uncertainties in hydrocarbon-bearing reservoir
identification where electric logs remain doubtful, and even
yields additional pay zones not seen by logs. This is
particularly the case in a multi-layered context, associated
with thin beds.
Furthermore, a good quality gas chain (from the gas trap to the
analyzer together with data management) is compulsory for
hydrocarbon fluid behavior differentiation. It is shown that it
is impossible to get a valid interpretation for thin,
hydrocarbon-bearing, reservoir identification, with
determination for fluid units, if the gas chain does not fit the
technical specifications required by GWDTM. Not only does
the gas chromatograph need to combine a fast time cycle with
sensitivity and accuracy, but the gas trap has to be truly,
constant volume. This is of prime importance for providing
accurate fluid sampling recommendations.
The use at the rig site of a gas chromatograph coupled with a
mass spectrometer (FLAIR system by Geoservices) instead of
the current single gas chromatograph analyzer is a major
technical evolution for gas chain acquisition, and brings extra
scope for added-value interpretation for formation evaluation
from gas while drilling data. Preliminary results show the
great potential of this new way of monitoring the mud gases
while drilling. A fundamental understanding of the
thermodynamic and geochemical behavior of light
hydrocarbons in the C1 to C8 range will lead to the emergence
of an innovative geochemical log at the well site.
Introduction
Analysis of hydrocarbons extracted from the drilling mud is
nowadays a routine procedure, mainly for safety reasons. It is
part of the service provided by mud logging contractors.
However, although mud logging services systematically
provide the earliest data available while drilling (along with
LWD), the integration of such data into formation evaluation
studies remains the exception among the oil companies . This
is particularly well reflected by the small number of
publications on the subject1-10, most of which appear to be
recent. The main reasons for such relative disinterest were the
poor reliability level of gas data, due to relatively poor mud
2 SPE 84383
logging equipment for gas data acquisition, along with
inappropriate methods for interpretation in all kinds of
geological environments. It also seems that the potential
added-value of the current gas data within the formation
evaluation process seems to be relatively poorly known
amongst the E&P community, both mud logging and oil
companies alike.
For a long time, the attempts to construct rational
interpretation methods based on gas data were generally
restricted to use of the Pixler and/or Geoservices diagram (or
equivalents), wetness, balance, character, and gas
normalization. This first step towards a more radical analysis
of the fluids led to the emergence of an integrated
interpretation method called GWDTM for “Gas While Drilling”
which permitted TotalFinaElf and ENI AGIP to use the
earliest reservoir information obtained on site in their global
evaluations and programs.7,10 This method has lead to
numerous operational successes, either in real time, at the rig
site, at the well scale, or at the field scale, in multi-disciplinary
integrated studies and reservoir modeling.
In the same way, since J.T.Hayward initiated mud logging in
1931, equipment and methods involved in real-time drilling
surveillance have been dramatically improved. However,
despite some attempts from several pioneers such as
Issenmann, Whittaker or Delaune11 among others, gas
measurement stayed pretty much the same for decades. It is
only a few years ago that the concept of “gas chain” appeared,
collating the device extracting the fluid from the mud (“the
degasser” or gas trap), the transport medium between the gas
trap and the Mud Logging Unit (“the gas line”) and the
analyzer located inside the pressurized unit. Special attention
was given to an improved volumetric gas trap, associated with
a more “standardized” gas transport line, an efficient, fast, gas
chromatographic device and appropriate gas
data management.
The main goal of this paper is to show that the added value of
gas data interpretation for early formation evaluation is linked
to the efficiency of the equipment used within the gas chain. In
fact, reducing uncertainties in formation evaluation at an early
stage, with gas while drilling data, will not be possible unless
the equipment used for the acquisition follows precise
specifications, some of which are described in this paper.
The GWDTM Method
In order to understand the technical requirements for an
efficient gas chain, as well as the added value of gas data for
formation evaluation, it is necessary to explain the basic
principles of the GWDTM method.
The GWDTM method was first developed in 1997 as a joint Elf
/ Agip research program. It is now a trademarked method by
Total and ENI in France, the United Kingdom, Italy and the
USA. It is based on a very systematic and rational approach to
gas shows in conjunction with drilling and mud logging
events, and integrated with other techniques such as electric
logs, PVT/thermodynamics and geochemistry.
The raw gas data used in the GWDTM method are:
• C1, C2, C3, iC4, nC4, iC5 and nC5 expressed in ppm
(parts per million), separated and quantified by gas
chromatography using a Flame Ionization Detector (FID).
• TG (Total Gas), expressed in ppm of equivalent methane
in air, and obtained through direct combustion of the gas
flow in a FID device.
The details of the method have already been published.10 In
the present paper we only give the main features of this
method. The global GWDTM method workflow is given in
Fig.1. The main steps are the following:
- data process: we stress the fact that drilling events as
well as the gas chain characteristics have a strong
influence on the gas data. At this stage, it is therefore of
prime importance to collect all the geological and drilling
data available. The data needed for a GWDTM study are
given in Fig.2. The use of softwares specifically modified
for these interpretations (ExcelTM, Geolog6TM, WinlogTM
or InfactTM) requires that the gas data is presented in a
certain manner, along with other data such as ROP, mud
flow and bit size. The latter are needed to calculate a
normalized total gas content (NTG). The main source of
information at the well site is the litholog or masterlog,
which should contain the main geological and operational
information needed for a correct interpretation of gas
shows. The data processing makes it possible to have
specific gas ratios directly as well as logs and cross-plots
which will be used at the QC and analysis steps. The gas
database must be recorded both versus time and depth.
The mud logging company is responsible for such data
storage. The depth-referenced data base, cleaned of
specific special events such as trip gas, connection gas,
calibration, etc., is used for the GWDTM method
(however, these special events must be recorded on a file
for checking if necessary).
- quality control : as for most of the techniques used in the
petroleum E&P process, the QC step is essential. QC for
the GWDTM method is based on the following criteria:
C1 < saturation threshold of the chromatograph
C1/C2 ratio < maximum value defined for a given
chromatograph work with %(C1+C2) instead of
%C1 if C1/C2 > specification
C1, C2, C3, iC4, nC4, iC5, nC5 > quantification
threshold (depends on the tool characteristics);
generally a minimum value of 10 ppm is adopted
TG/ΣCcor = 1 +/- 20%, where
ΣCcor =C1+2xC2+3xC3+4x(iC4+nC4)+5x(iC5+nC5)
This is to check the consistency between the TG
detector and the gas chromatograph results (a value
other than 1 can be considered as long as the ratio
remains more or less constant).
TG/ΣCcor = 1 good calibration
TG/ΣCcor <1 calibration problem:
corresponding data are suspect
SPE 84383
TG/ΣCcor > 1 calibration problems,
or presence of organic matter from the
reservoirs, or presence of an aquifer
zone or a tight level within reservoirs
critical examination of logs, to detect any unusual
evolutions likely to be linked to artifacts; such an
example is given on Fig.3, for which repetitive
abnormal shifts of the TG/ΣCcor ratio can be
explained by manual adjustments on the gas line
pressure, which affects the TG response.
- analysis : the analysis integrates all available data :
• geology (reservoir location, stratigraphy,
geological discontinuities, shows,
fluorescence, gains, losses, tests, etc.)
• drilling (change of phase, change of drilling
bit, modification in drilling parameters such
as ROP, mud flow in and out, stand pipe
pressure, WOB, etc.)
• electric logs (LWD or wire line)
• mud (OBM or WBM, density,
additives, etc.)
• gas (already described)
The analysis itself is performed by drilling phase and sets out
to observe trends and changes in gas data evolution with depth
(GWDTM is currently a qualitative or semi-quantitative
method). It is important to identify whether we are in a
reservoir or a non-reservoir zone. The main steps of the
analysis are the following:
• lithological aspects
• hydrocarbon bearing reservoir identification
• fluid evolution
• fluid characterization
The lithological and fluid variations detected by the GWDTM
lead to the following applications:
- lithology :
o cap rock depth and seal efficiency
o reservoir quality
o tight zones and reservoir heterogeneities
o major boundaries or faults
o Low Resistivity Sands (LRS)
o thin bed evaluation
o geo-steering
- fluid :
o fluid contacts and transition zones
o vertical fluid evolution
3
o fluid differentiation in multi-layer
context
o identification of fluid behavior or fluid
units
o biodegradation
Some typical gas-ratio logs and cross-plot applications for the
GWDTM method are given in Fig.4. For instance, the main
cross-plot used within the method for hydrocarbon-bearing
reservoir identification (and possibly fluid differentiation) is a
%C1 versus TG diagram (Fig.5) : it leads to the assessment of
a cut-off on the TG values which enables a distinction between
pure fluid-related signal, and lithological- as well as fluid +
lithological- related data. However, there is no exhaustive and
definitive list for gas ratios and cross-plot applications, and it
is recommended to exploit the different ways of displaying
the data.
Since the beginning of the use of the GWDTM method, several
operational successes have been obtained:
• optimization of reservoir models by improved definition
of permeability barriers
• evaluation of condensate content and commercial
specification of the gas (gross calorific value) in
central services
• optimization of the programs for fluid identification and
perforation prior to testing
• early identification of levels containing biodegraded oil
• identification, on the well profile, of reservoirs saturated
with hydrocarbons with different maturity and
migration histories
• identification of a noteworthy variation of fluid with
depth implying the necessity of taking more samples in
order to improve characterization of the fluid for
evaluation purposes
• identification of fluid contacts where logs
leave uncertainties
• illustration of the reservoir or inter-reservoir seal
efficiency / inefficiency
• steering in horizontal drains
• identification of reduced connectivity zones in wells in a
multi-layer context while other logging tools were unable
to detect them, lateral extension to the field scale and later
confirmation by selective pressure depletion
measurements after production
• identification of depleted reservoir levels
• identification of thin hydrocarbon-bearing reservoirs in a
multi-layer context where electric logs are blind
This paper will show some examples of such operational
successes, which would not have been possible without the
4 SPE 84383
efficient gas chain. In order to appreciate the performance of
the gas chain it is described here after.
The “Gas Chain” : technical specifications
The gas chain is composed of three different parts:
- the gas trap
- the gas line or transport line
- the analyzer
The gas trap. Mud logging has suffered for many years from
a lack of interpretation of its gas data, mainly due to the fact
that the real-time analysis very much depended on the method
of extraction. All degassers or gas traps available on the
market were all dependant upon the good will of the operator
who needed to constantly adjust their position in the possum
belly tank in order to try to get stable recording conditions.
Any variation in the flow rate lead to a change in the quantity
of gas extracted and carried to the analyzer. Several attempts
were made to avoid the problem. SAMEGA developed the
first prototype constant volume extractor but it never proved to
be adapted to the market; TEXACO introduced the
“Quantitative Gas Measurement” gas trap (QGM) which was
an excellent alternative to a real constant flow gas trap. Some
other trials were performed on floating Gas traps, but an
original device was proposed by Geoservices12, which now
constitutes the most efficient constant volume gas trap
currently on the market (GZG, see Fig.6).
On many drilling rigs, especially these days of ultra deep
water drilling ships, the possum belly tanks are at the end of a
complex chain of equipment, including the obvious flow line,
but also sometimes gumbo traps or in-line degassers. In
addition, height differences of a few meters can exist between
the bell nipple and the shaker box. All these factors induce a
spontaneous degassing which badly affects the fluid analysis.
The first necessity was thus to be able to place the gas trap as
close as possible to the bell nipple. This has been achieved
thanks to a probe that can be fitted to any closed flow line
using special adaptation flanges (Fig.7).
It has been shown that placing the gas trap on the flow line
increases the quantity of all gasses by a factor of 2 to 10
(Fig.8). In deep or ultra deep offshore, this difference becomes
an essential factor in the interpretation process.
A constant volume pump has been added to the assembly. The
mud gets sucked through the probe located in the flow line,
and filtered from solids greater than 0.5 mm, at a constant rate.
This way, mud flow variations do not affect the measurements
and the recorded gas quantities can be directly linked to the
geological environment for the interpretation process. In
addition, the special design of the mixing bowl associated with
the high tech profile of the degassing arm, allows the
extraction of the gaseous phase from the drilling fluid in a
constant manner, as well as with optimum efficiency. This is
what makes it different from the other conventional types of
gas trap.
The gas line. The molecules analyzed from methane to
pentane have very different sizes. This is the reason why they
can be separated through gas chromatography. In this respect,
if no care is taken as regards the transport line, it can act as a
chromatographic column and separate the different
hydrocarbons before they arrive at the analyzer itself. For this
reason the construction material for the line has to be selected
with care.
The second essential factor to consider is the inside diameter
of the line. It must be perfectly suited to both the pumping rate
of the mud degassed and that of the extracted gas to the
analyzer. It must be big enough to let all the gas and air flow
in the line but small enough to minimize the risk of dead
volumes, which are responsible for signal dampening.
Last but not least, special training for the Mud Loggers
ensures that the line is installed correctly to avoid
condensations or freezing in cold environments.
The analyser. Two types of system are present in the
analyzer device:
- a Flame Ionization Detector (FID) which analyzes all the
gas flow to yield a Total Gas (TG) content; only
hydrocarbon compounds can be detected by FID, this is
the reason why non hydrocarbon gases such as CO2 and
H2S are not included in the TG content (some mud
logging contractors use Catalytic and Thermal
Combustion Detectors -respectively CCD and TCD, but
they need to be evaluated prior their use for GWDTM) ;
- a gas chromatograph, equipped with FID, which separates
and quantifies the different hydrocarbon compounds from
the C1 to C5 range within 42 seconds; we will focus only
on the gas chromatograph, which will be referred to as
“the analyzer” in this paper.
Experience has shown that some points are absolutely critical
for the analyzer, for obtaining really accurate added-value of
GWDTM for formation evaluation.
• Perfect integration with the other parts of the gas
chain
• High sensitivity
• High accuracy
• Possibility of integrating data from the flow line
(Out) as well as data from the Mud pits (In)
• High speed chromatography
A perfect fit of the analyzer with the rest of the
acquisition chain is mandatory in order to maximize the
meaning of the gas data. In particular, this means that the
pumping rate of the gas/air mixture from the gas trap must be
constant so that the ratio of mud degassed/gas mixture
analyzed stays constant at all times.
High sensitivity is most critical for heavy gases
(butane and pentane). It allows an advanced interpretation of
the compartments in the reservoir thanks to the differential
distribution of the isomers of each component. Moreover,
these isomers prove useful in the early indication of
biodegradation due to a preferential consumption of normal
versus branched alkanes by bacteria.
SPE 84383
High accuracy is essential for detecting the subtle
evolution of fluids along the lithostatic column. For a
homogeneous fluid drilled with a new uncontaminated mud,
the corresponding gas data, plotting a Cm vs. Cn diagram, will
follow a straight line passing through the origin. A lack of
accuracy would give a cloud of points contained within two
lines indicating the extent of the measurement error. This can
be observed for instance on Fig.9.
If an influx of contamination or recycling gas occurs
over a time interval (supposed at a constant rate), the straight
line will be shifted from its origin. Therefore, the possibility of
integrating data from the flow line (Out) as well as data from
the Mud pits (In) allows evaluation of the recycling effect of
gas in mud. Although ignored for years, recycling of the
drilled gas or contamination from mud are well-known
phenomena by all experts in gas logging. The fact of being
able to measure the gas In data on the same analyzer as the gas
Out allows the same calibration for both analyses. It is then
necessary to synchronize both measurements at the bit depth
in order to be able to correlate them and to issue a relevant
differential value “Out – In”.
High-speed chromatography becomes of prime
importance. Due to cost constraints and improved procedures,
drilling always gets faster. In a multi-layer situation or when
thin markers are being looked for, this becomes essential since
thin layers can be missed if the analyzing rate is not fast
enough. Some operational applications in real field cases will
be shown later on in this paper.
Gas data acquisition technical specifications for GWDTM
interpretation. In order to have the best possible gas data
available to perform the GWDTM interpretation,
recommendations to Mud Logging companies were set up
jointly by Total and ENI in 2001. The following technical
specifications are considered as a minimum requirement. They
take into account the whole gas data acquisition, from the gas
trap to data management. These specifications are reported in
Appendix A.
Besides technical recommendations on the different parts of
the gas chain, special attention should be paid to data
management, in particular to the choice of gas data when the
time database is converted into the depth data base. GWDTM
requires that, for a given depth interval, the highest value of
C1 should be chosen, along with the associated corresponding
C2 to C5 values.
We also insist on the sampling rate, which should be at least
50cm (recommended: every 20-25 cm). Fig.10 shows the
difference for chromatographic data logs between a 20 cm
depth sampling rate and a 1 m one. Some hydrocarbon-bearing
levels are likely to be missed or badly analyzed when the
depth sampling rate is too high.
CASE STUDIES
The case studies described in this paper deal with Total fields
spread all over Asia.
5
Case 1 – Field-A and Field-B. The geological environment of
Field-A and Field-B is shaley and sandy Tertiary deposits in a
deltaic basin, in a shallow water offshore location. The main
objective of the studies undertaken was to identify
hydrocarbon-bearing reservoirs and possible lithological
barriers, and provide fluid sampling recommendations.
Additionally, a request was made to attempt to identify
depleted reservoirs and water flushed zones. Comparison of
interpretation with electric logs was done.
The wells investigated are labeled Well-A1, Well-B1, Well-
B2 and Well-B3. Only the main results within the scope of gas
added value versus acquisition quality will be given.
Well-A1. Fig.11 shows a composite log of part of the well-
A1. Besides electric and gas data, interpretation is reported on
the right part, in three distinct columns:
- fluid interpretation mainly based on electric logs: proven
gas in red, possible gas in gray and water in blue
- hydrocarbon-bearing reservoir identification based on
GWDTM (red layers)
- fluid units identification based on GWDTM (single fluid
behavior in yellow layers in that case)
Pressure and equivalent density data are reported in an
attempted correlation with gas data; but this has been
relatively unconvincing so far in that case.
In the meantime, one can easily see the relatively high number
of small reservoir layers. It can be seen from Fig.11 that,
though a rather good correlation exists at first sight between
electric logs and gas data interpretation in terms of
hydrocarbon-bearing reservoir identification, red layers from
GWDTM interpretation are more numerous than the ones
obtained from the usual log interpretation. Obviously, the gas
data bring some additional information that helps in reducing
uncertainties and yields additional net pays.
The use of a high quality level gas chain enables us, not only
to determine with a high level of confidence the existence of
hydrocarbon-bearing reservoirs (gas in this case), but also to
assess a differentiation between fluid behaviors, thus leading
to accurate sampling recommendations at an early stage. In the
case of thin layers in a multi-layer situation as in Well-A1, this
would not be possible without the use of a fast cycle time gas
chromatograph coupled with a constant volume gas trap.
As an example, a double gas acquisition was performed on
Well-A1. The interpretation described above is based on a
high quality acquisition chain corresponding to the one
described in chapter 3 (The “gas chain” technical
specifications), whereas a conventional gas chain was also
used, characterized by a non-constant volume gas trap
associated with a gas chromatograph with a longer
chromatographic time cycle (Geo-FID: 190 seconds).
Fig.12 shows the log representation of gas composition and
TG values for both gas chains. At first glance, the TG
evolutions seem to be parallel for both acquisitions ; however
the TG signal for the Geo-FID gas chain appears to be more
noisy and is likely to lead to wrong hydrocarbon-bearing
reservoir identification (numerous thin red layers without any
real significance). In this respect, the TG/ΣCcor quality
control ratio appears to be more noisy with the Geo-FID
compared to the Reserval data.
6 SPE 84383
A great difference is observed for the gas composition data:
there are far less data with the Geo-FID, with a very noisy
distribution. Moreover, heavy components are rarely
quantified with the Geo-FID chain, whereas significant
amounts are obtained with the ReservalTM chain. The
difference between both gas chains is spectacularly shown on
Fig.13. As a matter of fact, the cross-plot C1/C3 vs. C2/C3
clearly shows that the gas composition signature with the
ReservalTM chain enables 5 fluid units differentiation, while
this assessment is impossible with the gas composition data
obtained with the Geo-FID system.
Well-B1. Fig.14 gives a general overview of the whole
Well-B1, in the same way as previously. Additionally, water
levels identified with GWDTM are also indicated (in blue).
Fig.14 shows the very high number of thin reservoir levels in
this case. It also gives the location of lithological
heterogeneities as seen by GWDTM, as well as the hydrocarbon
fluid behavior differentiation, five different fluid units in
this case.
A more detailed view of well-B1 is given in Fig.15. It shows,
on the one hand, an example of good agreement between
electric logs and gas data interpretation for the identification
of hydrocarbon levels and, on the other hand, the identification
of a hydrocarbon-bearing level and a water-bearing level with
GWDTM while logs were doubtful. This example shows the
added-value of good quality gas data for reducing formation
evaluation uncertainties.
Fig.15 also gives the opportunity to show the potential of gas
data for the identification of flushed zones. Supposed water
flushed levels have been indicated in green on the log
interpretation column. In fact, distinction between original
aquifer and real flushed zones can be done with the gas data,
the former corresponding to a real water level with GWDTM
(low TG, low %C1) whereas the latter exhibits gas signature
typical of a hydrocarbon-bearing level which could be
interpreted as the presence of residual hydrocarbons.
As for Well-A1, the ability to clearly define numerous fluid
differentiated hydrocarbon-bearing reservoirs in thin layers is
possible thanks to a high quality gas acquisition system.
Well-B2. Fig.16 gives a general overview of the whole
Well-B2. Sure gas levels identified with logs are labeled in
red, possible in pink, water in blue and flushed zones in green.
Sure hydrocarbon levels identified with GWDTM are indicated
in black, possible in gray, water in blue. As for Well-B1,
Well-B2 exhibits a very large number of thin layers. Fig.16
shows that, while there is no clear relationship between the
presence of a flushed zone and the composition of the gas, it is
possible to differentiate real flushed zones (with significant
gas signature) and original aquifers (water levels
with GWDTM).
Well-B3. A double gas chain acquisition was also used for
Well-B3, as for Well-A1. Fig.9 shows the difference between
the results obtained by both acquisitions. The cross-plots on
Fig.9 (C3 vs C1, C3 vs C2, iC4 vs C1 and nC4 vs iC4) enable
us to differentiate four fluid units shown by the different
slopes on the cross-plots. It seems obvious that this
interpretation cannot be assessed with the conventional gas
chain, since the quantity of data is far lower (low cycle time),
and randomly distributed (poor accuracy ).
Case 2 – Field D. This case study, based on five wells from a
single basin labeled Field-D, highlights a totally different
approach from the previous case 1 fields. The geological
environment for the Field-D is shaley and sandy deposits in an
off-shore deltaic basin. Here again, special attention is paid to
the impact of the quality of the acquisition chain on the gas
data interpretation as well as operational considerations.
Well-D1, Well-D1-T and Well-D2.Well-D1 is a horizontal
drain. It perforated the main target reservoir twice.
Additionally, a technical side-track was also drilled, labeled
Well-D1-T, which also perforated the same reservoir twice.
The ReservalTM chain was used for gas data acquisition for
these wells. Another similar horizontal drain was drilled
(labeled Well-D2), still in the same reservoir, using
conventional gas acquisition chain.
Fig.17 shows the log data for Well-D1 and Well-D1-T. The
GWDTM method applied in this case led to assessing a change
in fluid behavior at the same vertical depth (x925m TVD),
which corresponds to x625m MD for Well-D1 and x680 for
Well-D1-T). This is particularly well seen on Fig.18 which
represents the C1/C3 vs. C2/C3 cross-plots for the two wells ;
two fluid families are clearly defined, with a break
corresponding to x625 m TVD. Is not well known yet whether
this fluid change corresponds to a GOC or a transition zone
between two oil phases. Further investigation by
PVT/thermodynamic studies will help for a final assessment.
In comparison, the same plots for Well-D2 (Fig.19) clearly
show that a less sophisticated system leads to poor quality data
which prevent us from any accurate interpretation as regards
fluid units, fluid contacts or transition zones.
Well-D3 and Well-D3-T. Other wells were drilled in the
same previous structure, Well-D3 and its side-track Well-D3-
T. As for wells Well-D1 and D1-T, the Well-D3 and D3-T
perforated the reservoir twice. A ReservalTM chain was used
for the gas data acquisition.
The main interesting zones are located at the same vertical
depth intervals (Fig.20) even though the well diameter (hence
the volume of rock drilled) was different.
The composition analysis, processed with various plots, leads
to the determination of four different fluid units that the two
wells share in common (Fig.20).
The gas analysis confirms good connectivity between the
formations encountered in the two wells.
Some barrier identification and characterization has been
carried out between the hydrocarbon-bearing zones. The
abrupt change in the C1/C3 ratio (at the exit/entrance of the
reservoirs) indicates that the barrier presents a good efficiency,
which explains that different fluids units have been identified
during the fluid composition analysis. Fig.21 shows one of
these barriers.
Technical evolution : FLAIR
To reduce the current mud logging gas system uncertainties
and enhance gas data potential, the three components of the
gas chain – gas trap, transport line and detection system
SPE 84383
(analyzer) - had to be improved all together. This has led to
the development of a completely new kind of gas
chromatograph coupled to a mass spectrometer (GC-MS), able
to work at the rig site. This new system includes a new heated
gas extractor, a new transport line, and a new compact
analyzer situated in the mud logging unit. The heated gas
extractor provides significantly better extraction from drilling
mud, especially in cold muds in deep water drilling
environments. The new non-condensing gas transfer line
eliminates absorption of aromatic and paraffin hydrocarbons.
The GC-MS analyzer continuously measures a greatly
increased range of components at a rate of 60 to 90 seconds.
This new gas chain is able to continuously analyze gas and
hydrocarbon vapors from C1 to the heavier hydrocarbons C6
to C8, the light aromatics (benzene, toluene, xylenes), and the
non-hydrocarbon or sour gases such as He, H2, Acetic Acid,
CO2 and H2S, by mass spectrometry, even in severe
conditions. The innovative aspect of this technology is the use
at the rig site of a mass spectrometer used as a detector
coupled to a gas chromatograph, instead of the classical flame
ionization detector, allowing simultaneous qualitative and
quantitative detection of components of interest. Only recent
advances in mass spectrometry design have made the use of
this tool possible at well sites, often in critically
severe conditions.
This brand new gas chain has been called FLAIR, for Fluid
Logging &Analysis in Real time13,14.
FLAIR equipment description.
Gas Trap: The C1-C8 FLEX extractor. A constant flow
and volume extraction by mechanical agitation is used to
produce a representative sampling of components of interest
from the drilling fluid, from C1 to C8 including the aromatic
compounds and sour gases.
Features of the FLEX (C1-C8 Fluid Extractor) include:
• A specific sampling device which can be placed close
to the bell nipple to reduce gas losses during
surface circulation.
• A volumetric pump used to suck the mud into the
degassing chamber to avoid the effects of variations
in the mud level.
• A second pump, located in the Mud Logging unit,
maintained at a specific rate to keep a constant ratio
between the pumped mud volume and the volume of
gas to be analyzed: extracted gas and additional
carrier gas such as air, nitrogen or helium.
• A pre-extraction mud heating system to extract heavy
components usually found in liquid state at ambient
conditions, such as hydrocarbons like C8.
Moreover, a specific effort has been made to enhance
extraction efficiency mechanically by increasing the amount
of energy available at the extractor and optimizing the ratio of
gas and mud volumes.
Transport Line. A mud-logging unit can be placed up to
100m from the sampling point. To minimize sample loss
during transport, a new transfer line and specific couplings to
7
the extractor and analyzer have been designed. With this new
line, absorption of paraffinic or aromatic hydrocarbons, a
known problem with standard transfer lines, is negligible.
To minimize the transit time and avoid any condensation in
the line, transport of the sample is performed under non-
atmospheric conditions. This procedure provides a new
standard set of working conditions for the extraction system
and the line. Performed under these new conditions, response
from an injection of toluene proves there is absolutely no
condensation of heavy compounds in the transportation line.13
Analyzer: The GC-MS. Detection systems placed in mud
logging units must be designed to perform under severe well
site conditions. Despite the drilling conditions, they must be
able to detect very low concentrations and produce repeatable
data that are accurate enough to be interpreted. Furthermore,
analyzed gas data have to be automatically inserted in a time
or depth database and available for an on-demand, real-time
log, combining ROP, lithology, etc.
The chromatographs equipped with flame ionization detectors
that are currently used can detect C1 to C5 quickly (less than
one minute). However, it takes too long for them to analyze
the heavier hydrocarbons (C6-C8) and they cannot measure
the non hydrocarbons or sour gases at all. Furthermore, they
very often provide a relatively limited C1/C2 discriminating
ratio (this ratio is generally up to 350, therefore the detection
of C2 when the quantity of C1 is 350 times greater is
very difficult).
To overcome these limitations and obtain universal detection
of the components leaving the chromatographic column, a
specific mass spectrometer has been designed to be used as a
detector, since it can detect non-hydrocarbon and sour gases as
well as hydrocarbons. With the addition of the mass
spectrometer, this analyzer can detect co-eluting peaks since
each different ion current is measured. The maximum allowed
C1/C2 ratio is thus dramatically improved and can be as high
as 8500.
To get an analyzing cycle up to C8 in 90 seconds and up to C7
in less than 60 seconds, an electronic pressure control device
has been introduced into the analyzer, allowing a variation in
the flow rate of the carrier gas versus the cycle time. Thus the
lighter components such as C1 or C2, with lower flow rates,
are retained more than the heavier components such as
benzene to octane which are intentionally accelerated. Another
innovative feature of the GC-MS analyzer is a device that
allows injection into the chromatographic part of the analyzer
of a constant volume of sample taken from the transfer line
under particular temperature and pressure conditions.
A specific pneumatic module permits the use of two different
C1-C8 extractors with the same analyzer. Two complete and
independent gas circuits allow real-time comparison between
Gas OUT (mud taken close to the bell nipple) and Gas IN
(mud taken at the pit). This equipment is stacked in two 19-in
racks and can be easily installed in a mud logging unit. After a
complete cycle, which takes 90 seconds up to C8, results are
sent automatically to the computerized mud logging system
for real-time monitoring, storage and interpretation. A new
cycle then begins. The process thus ensures continuous
measurement of gases while drilling.
8 SPE 84383
By way of example, Fig.22 shows the gas log versus depth
obtain with the FLAIR system. This log proves the extremely
good consistency of heavy components data compared to
regular C1 to C5 measurements. This example comes from an
oil base mud taken at the shale shakers, with temperature of
the mud around 15°C in a deep offshore situation.
FLAIR potential for GWDTM. We have demonstrated that
C1 to C5 hydrocarbon mud logging gas data can provide
essential information for formation evaluation, i.e. net pay,
water saturation, porosity, fluid contacts or lithological
changes for example, similar to the aims of electric logging.
To this end, crosscheck any of results obtained from mud-
logging gas data with interpretation of electric logs needs to be
done. However, once the validation is done, a scenario can be
envisaged where the formation evaluation by mud logging gas
data with just a minimal suite of electric logs will be sufficient
for the development of an oil/gas field.
Extending the range of components classically measured at the
well site opens new prospectd with respect to the identification
and interpretation of formation while drilling, such as :
CO2. CO2 quantification while drilling is of prime interest.
The ability to log CO2 gas with such surface equipment would
help to eliminate wire-line RFT sampling runs. This could
provide significant savings during the course of an extensive
drilling program particularly when the inability of supercombo
and RFT logging runs to reach bottom can become a frequent
occurrence. Nevertheless, to be able to mud log the CO2
correctly, a lime-free drilling fluid system is recommended15
since lime reacts strongly with CO2 and inhibits
surface logging.
C6s and aromatics compounds. C6s (or C6+) and
aromatic hydrocarbon logging is a new measurement which
will need to be deeply understood to be interpreted.
Comparison between two different hydrocarbon chemical
series such as alkanes and aromatics will certainly point out
new interpretation aspects in mud logging gas data analysis.
This can be noted for instance on Fig.23 where the C6H6/C6s
log presents some differences (trend, peaks) compared to the
C1/C6s log.
Furthermore, the difference in their solubility in water could
help in the characterization of fluid contacts or may be used in
conjunction with other water soluble compounds such as
acetic acid to better estimate the type of fluid in place, or
evaluate distance of a given level from the water zone.
In any case, it seems obvious that these new measurements
should involve not only geologists but also geochemists and
PVT specialists. The use of light hydrocarbons is well known
in organic geochemistry. 16-21 For instance, the different
molecules of the C7 family (e.g. n-heptane, toluene and
methyl-cyclohexane) proves useful for the assessment of an
oil’s geochemical history in terms of maturity level, diffusion,
water washing, evaporative fractionation or biodegradation.18
It has also been proposed that relative proportions of
isoalkanes, cyclo-pentanes and cyclo-hexanes (+ toluene)
could help in assessing the origin of oils and condensates
(marine, terrigenous or lacustrine).21 Thus, the data obtained
with the new FLAIR gas acquisition chain, associated with the
improved interpretation method from GWDTM, will give birth
to real geochemical logs while drilling which will be
integrated in formation evaluation and reservoir modeling at a
very early stage of the petroleum E&P process. However, this
raises the question of the differential bottom to surface transfer
function for these different molecules.
Conclusions
Thanks to great improvements in both the gas chain equipment
and the interpretation method, the gas data obtained while
drilling proves to be very useful in early formation evaluation.
Special emphasis is laid upon the need for the gas chain to
comply with minimum technical specifications in order to
ensure good quality gas data. If these specifications are
correctly taken into account, the GWDTM method is able to
bring important added-value within the petroleum E&P
process, for instance in reducing uncertainties for
hydrocarbon-bearing reservoir identification where electric
logs remains doubtful, or even in yielding additional pay zones
not seen by logs. This is particularly the case in multi-layered
environment, associated with thin beds.
Furthermore, a good quality gas chain (from gas trap to the gas
chromatograph) is essential for hydrocarbon fluid behavior
differentiation. It is impossible to get a valid interpretation for
thin hydrocarbon-bearing reservoir identification with
determination of fluid units if the gas chain does not comply
with the technical specifications required by GWDTM. Not
only does the gas chromatograph needs to combine fast cycle
time, sensitivity and accuracy, but the gas trap has also to be a
real of the constant volume type. This is of prime importance
for providing accurate fluid sampling recommendations.
The use at the rig site of a GC-MS instead of the current GC
analyzers, is a major technical evolution for the gas chain
acquisition within the scope of added-value interpretation for
formation evaluation. Preliminary results show the great
potential of this new way of monitoring the mud gases while
drilling. Fundamental understanding of thermodynamic and
geochemical behaviors of light hydrocarbons will lead to the
emergence of an innovative geochemical log at the well site.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank the management of Total as well as
the Total operating subsidiaries for permission to publish this
paper and the data it contains. We would also like to extend
our appreciation to Carlo Carugo, Gianfranco Bagnoli and
other ENI people, as well as to Denis Kandel from Total, for
their contribution to the construction of the GWDTM method as
well as to the gas chain technical specifications, within the
joint Elf EP / ENI Agip Div. well data project. Special thanks
to Bernard Barraud and Gérard Ségalini from Total for their
contribution to the construction of the GWDTM method, their
involvement in the field cases treated as well as fruitful
discusions. Lastly, thanks to Yves Kerbart who initiated the
cross-plot interpretation method at Geoservices.
SPE 84383
REFERENCES
1- Pixler, B.O.: “Formation Evaluation by Analysis of Hydrocarbon
Ratios,” JPT (June 1969) 665.
2- Haworth, J.H., Sellens, M. and Whittaker, A.: “Interpretation of
Hydrocarbon Shows Using Light (C1-C5) Hydrocarbon Gases from
Mud Log Data” AAPG Bull.(1985) 69, No.8, 1305.
3- Whittaker, A. and Sellens, G.: “Advances in Mud Logging-2,
Analysis uses alkane ratios from chromatography,” Oil & Gas J, (18
May 1987), 42.
4- Pratap, V.: “Formation Evaluation of Cambay Shale Using Real
Time Mud Log GC Analysis and Statistical Log Parameter “P1/2” – A
case Study of Well Khambel-4, North Cambay Basin”, Bull. Oil &
Nat. Gas Corp. Ltd (1995) 32, 43.
5- Wright, A.C.: “Estimation of Gas/Oil Ratios and Detection of
Unusual Formation Fluids from Mud Logging Gas Data,” paper
presented at the 1996 SPWLA Annual Logging Symposium.
6- Holm, G.M.: “Gas Chromatograph Monitoring: an Empirical
Method to Detect the Onset and Magnitude of Overpressure While
Drilling, with Particular Reference to Elgin Well 22/30C-G4” in
A.Mitchell and D.Grauls eds., Overpressures in Petroleum
Exploration: Bull. Centre Rech. Elf Exploration Production (1998)
Memoir 22, 233.
7- Beda, G., Quagliaroli, R., Segalini, G., Barraud, B. and Mitchell,
A. : “Gas While Drilling (GWD) ; A Real Time Geologic and
Reservoir Interpretation Tool,” paper presented at the 1999 SPWLA
Annual Logging Symposium, Oslo, Norway, 711732.
8- Loos R.: “Gas-detection technology improves reservoir
interpretation”, Oil & Gas Journal (1999) August 16th, 54.
9- Ten Haven, H.L., Simon, B.S., Brevière, J. and Le Cann, J.P.:
“Applications and Limitations of Mudlogging Gas Data in Formation
Evaluation and Hydrocarbon Detection” AAPG International
Conference & Exhibition (2000)
10- Kandel, D., Quagliori, R. Segalini, G. and Barraud, B.:
“Improved Integrated Reservoir Interpretation Using Gas While
Drilling Data”, paper SPE65176 first presented at the 2000 SPE
European Petroleum Conference, Paris, France, 24-25 October,
published by SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering, (December
2001), 489.
11- Wright A.C., Hanson S. A. & De Laune P. L.: “A New
Quantitative Technique for Surface Gas Measurements”, SPWLA
34th Annual Logging Symposium (1993).
12- De Pazzis, L.L., Delahaye, T.R., Besson, L.J. and Lombez, J.P.:
“New Gas Logging System Improves Gas Shows Analysis and
Interpretation,” paper SPE 19605 presented at the 1989 SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, 8-11
October.
13- Brevière, J., Herzaft, B. and Mueller, N.: “Gas Chromatography –
Mass Spectrometry (GCMS) – A New Wellsite Tool for Continuous
C1-C8 Gas Measurement in Drilling Mud – Including Original
Extractor and Gas Line Concepts. First Results and Potential”,
SPWLA 43rd Annual Logging Symposium (June 2-5, 2002), 1.
14- Brevière, J., Evrard, J.F. and Duriez, G.: “Enhanced, Continuous
C1-C8 Data from Mud Logging : Deep Offshore Results and
Potential”, OWA-03 Conference and Exhibition (2003).
15- Harrison, J.R, Stansbury, M., Patel, J., Cross, T. and Kilburn, M.:
“Novel Lime-Free During Fluid System Applied Successfully in Gulf
of Thailand”, SPE/IADC 52817 (1999).
9
16- Thomson, K.F.M.: “Light Hydrocarbons in Subsurface
Sediments”, Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta (1979), 43, 657.
17- Thomson, K.F.M.: “Classification and Thermal History of
Petroleum Based on Light Hydrocarbons”, Geochim. Cosmochim.
Acta (1983), 47, 303.Whittaker, A. and Sellens, G.: “Advances in
Mud Logging-2, Analysis uses alkane ratios from chromatography,”
Oil & Gas J, (18 May 1987), 42.
18- Thomson, K.F.M.:”Gas-condensate Migration and Oil
Fractionation in Deltaic Systems”, Marine & Petr. Geol. (1988)
5, 237.
19- Lafargue, E. and Le Thiez, P.: “Effect of Waterwashing on Light
Ends Compositional Heterogeneity”, Org. Geochem. (1996) 24,
1141.
20- Mango, F.D.: “The Light Hydrocarbons in Petroleum: A Critical
Review”, Org. Geochem. (1997) 26, 417.
21- Ten Haven, H.L.: “Applications and Limitations of Mango’s
Light Hydrocarbon Parameters in Petroleum Correlation Studies”,
Org. Geochem. (1996) 24, 957.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Philippe BLANC is currently the GWD leader for Total in
Pau. He is a graduate engineer from the Ecole Nationale
Supérieure de Chimie de Strasbourg, with a PhD
specialization in organic geochemistry. He joined Elf EP in
1998 as Head of the Organic Geochemistry Laboratory and
manages the GWD team in Pau since 2002.
Jérôme BREVIERE is at present Head of the Fluids
Department in Geoservices, France. He is a graduate physicist
and his research work focuses on PVT, gas chromatography
and mass spectrometry, adapted to well site applications.
Francis LARAN is a reservoir engineer in the GWD team for
Total in Pau. He joined Elf EP in 1975 and worked in
reservoir department in different subsidiaries in France,
Netherlands, Congo and Cameroon for formation evaluation
and field monitoring mainly and performed reservoir
simulation in head quarter. He holds a diploma of Physical
measures from IUT in Toulouse, France.
Hervé CHAUVIN is currently the Head of Mud Logging
interpretation products for Geoservices in Paris, France since
2002. After graduating in geology from the University of
Rennes, France, in 1985, he joined Geoservices in 1988. His
career with Geoservices started as mud logger. He then
worked as head of training and head of Operation Assistance.
He joined the Research and Development Department in
September 2001.
Claudine BOEHM is a senior operation geologist in Pau, in
charge of well preparation process. She is a PhD graduate in
Structural Geology with a specialization at the Ecole Nationale
Supérieure des Pétroles et Moteurs. She joined Elf EP in 1983
as a log analyst. She currently manages a project concerning
advanced interpretation of mud logging data.
10 SPE 84383

Nicolas FRECHIN is currently in charge of Gas interpretation

at Geoservices. He is a graduate engineer from the Ecole
Nationale Supérieure des Mines de Nancy, France. He joined
Geoservices, France in 2000. Since then he worked in
Research and Development Department.

Michel CAPOT is an operations geologist in Total subsidiary.

He holds a Master degree in Geology. He joined the company
as a reservoir geologist in 1988 and has been in his current
position since 1998.

Alexandra BENAYOUN is currently working as Research and

Development Engineer on gas interpretation at Geoservices,
France. She is a graduate engineer in Geology from the Ecole
Nationale Supérieure de Géologie de Nancy, France, with a
specialization in Mining. She worked in mining industry as
Mine geologist before joining Geoservices in 2002.
SPE 84383
APPENDIX A
Gas data acquisition technical specifications for GWDTM :
minimum requirements
Gas trap
• Type: Constant Volume Trap or closest equivalent
• The gas trap should not be situated downstream of any
major steps or turbulent zones in the flow-line
• The gas trap should be located near the bell-nipple, taking
into account the safety (equipment) and its accessibility
(maintenance)
• Mud outlet below the mud level
Gas line
• 2 independent gas lines (one active and one spare)
preferably with continuous purge capability
• Kept to a minimum length; thus, no loops or twists at
anytime
• Condensation collector on each gas line
• No polyethylene (to avoid segregation effects of the gas
components) or steel allowed for gas lines. PVC gas line
is recommended.
• Gas line should be available for extreme temperatures (i.e.
5 - 40°C).
• Use an insulation system.
• Air inlet far from any pollution sources (such as
rig engines)
• ‘Gas mixture + Air vector’: pressure and suction flow
should be constant, according to the specification of the
equipment, with a visual control into ML unit.
• Suction flow must be checked daily and each change must
be reported on the Master (Mud) Log.
• Gas line diameter as small as possible.
• Transit time through gas line: maximum 2 min depending
on gas line diameter & length
• Desiccant product: silicagel not allowed. Calcium
Chloride is recommended.
• Gas injection at gas trap location is only to check that the
line is not blocked, but not used for checking gas
line efficiency
• T-valve with hypodermic needle for vacutainer samples
Gas detector
• Type: FID for hydrocarbon gases (possibly TCD, but not
yet proven for GWDTM analysis)
• Eventually TCD type for acid gases (CO2, H2S), not yet
proved for GWD analysis
11
• Type of analysis: Total hydrocarbon Gas
continuous/semi-continuous measurement (in equivalent
methane in air)
• Sampling rate no more than 15 sec.
• Measurement unit: % or ppm. TG values stored in ppm
unit into database but values should be displayed in
percentage on detector front panel.
• Accuracy: +/- 5 %
(Relative error between observed values and true values)
(see glossary)
• Resolution: 10 ppm
(Smallest variation in the gas composition which produces
a detectable change in the signal)(see glossary)
• Transit Time from gas trap to TG detector to be checked
routinely
• Visual and audible alarms set on TG inside the unit
(alarms threshold to be fixed according to company
request).
• The systematic computation of NTG (Normalized Total
Gas) uses the following formula:
Normalized Gas (m3/m3) = 14.71*(TG*Flow
Rate*0.2642)/((ROP*3.281)*(Bit Size 2))
where :
TG = Raw Total Gas (%)
ROP = Rate of Penetration (m/h)
Flow Rate = l/min
Bit size = inch
Calibration
• Unit: compulsory in equivalent methane in air (EMA)
using calibration bottles with only methane (do not use
multi-components mixtures).
• Type: master calibration using minimum of 3
points at different methane concentration (C1= 1 000, 10
000 and 100 000 ppm).
calibration check using 2 points at
different methane concentration (C1= 1 000 and
100 000 ppm).
• Frequency: master calibration must be performed before
the Spud In (in the Contractor’s base or laboratory or at
well-site). A master calibration chart has to be provided
by the Contractor to the Company representative at well-
site for unit acceptance.
Calibration check must be performed 1 per trip to surface
or 1 per drilling phase. Minimum once a day. In case the
calibration check gives bad results (exceeding the required
accuracy range), a new master calibration must be
performed at well-site.
12 SPE 84383

• Policy: no manual dilution allowed. Certified calibration Contractor to the Company representative at well-site for
gas bottles are compulsory. unit acceptance.
Calibration check must be performed 1 per trip to surface
Gas chromatography or 1 per drilling phase. Minimum once per day. In case the
calibration check gives bad results (exceeding the required
• Type: FID (possibly TCD type, but not yet proved accuracy range), a new master calibration must be
for GWDTM analysis) performed at well-site.
• Type of analysis: Chromatographic analysis from C1 • Policy: no manual dilution allowed. Certified calibration
to nC5. gas bottles are compulsory.
• Use high resolution gas chromatograph with a cycle time
maximum 90 sec (C1-nC5)..
• Measurement unit: ppm.
• Component values computed using peak areas (do not use
peak height).
• Accuracy: +/- 5 %
(Relative error between observed values and true values)
(see glossary)
• Resolution: 1 ppm
(Smallest variation in the gas composition which produces
a detectable change in the signal) ) (see glossary)
• Threshold of quantifiable value: 10 ppm (see glossary)
• Saturation limit must be clearly defined
• C1/C2 separation capacity: ratio minimum requested
value = 200, recommended = 500.
• Each tool (main and/or backup) has to be identified by
Contractors (serial number, technical specifications &
characteristics including software version used) before
well spuding
• Displayed on front panel: oven Temperature, sample
pressure and flow. It is recommended to insert these data
on the database.
• Type and version have to be recorded on database and
displayed on Master (Mud) Log document.
• No gas sample must be trapped into chromatograph for
later analysis to avoid possible gas
alteration/deterioration.
• It is required the possibility to display or print the
chromatograms on request.
Calibration:
• Type: master calibration: minimum 3 points using gas
mixture (C1-nC5) at known components concentration
(with C1= 100, 1 000, and 100 000 ppm,).
calibration check : 1 point using gas mixture
(C1-nC5) at known components concentration (with C1=
10 000 ppm).
• Frequency: master calibration must be performed before
spuding (in the Contractor’s base or laboratory or at well-
site). A master calibration chart must be provided by the
SPE 84383 13

Data management
• Compulsory: both time and depth database
Versus depth:
• Sampling rate : maximum every 50 cm, recommended
every 20-25 cm
• List of parameters compulsory to be recorded versus
depth (Table A-1).
• Depth database without gas events as: trip gas, PCG,
calibration, etc…).

Label indicator standard units of measure Description note

Depth m (or ft) Depth
Depth TVD m (or ft) Depth TVD
TG ppm Total Gas TG & chromatographic data
must be referred at the same
sampling depth
C1 ppm The highest C1 value recorded in
the depth interval
C2 ppm Value associated to the C1 value
of the same chromatographic
cycle
C3 ppm As above
iC4 ppm As above
nC4 ppm As above
iC5 ppm As above
nC5 ppm As above
ROP m/h (or ft/hr) Rate of Penetration
FLOW IN l/min Flow IN From pump stroke or flow-meter
FLOW OUT l/min Flow OUT From flow-meter
MW IN g/l Mud Weight IN
BIT SIZE inch Bit size
WOB ton Weight on bit
Losses mc/h Mud Losses Mud Losses Rate
SPP Kg/cm2 Stand Pipe Pressure
TORQ Kgm Torque
RPM
rpm Revolution per minute
TRPM rpm Revolution per minute Motor+rotary/top drive

Table A-1
14 SPE 84383

Versus time:
• Sampling rate optimized with Total Gas sampling rate
requirement
• List of parameters compulsory to be recorded versus time
(Table A-2).

Label indicator Standard units of Description NOTE

measure
TIME sec
BITPOS m (or ft) Bit positions
Depth m (or ft)
LDepth m (or ft) lag depth
ROP m/h (or ft/hr) Rate of Penetration
WOB ton Weight on bit
WOH ton Weight on hook
RPM rpm Revolution per minute
TRPM rpm Revolution per minute Motor+rotary/top drive
TORQ Kgm Torque
MW IN g/l Mud Weight IN
MW OUT g/l Mud Weight OUT
FLOW IN l/min Flow IN from pump strokes or flow -
meter
FLOW OUT l/min Flow OUT from flow-meter
SMP1 nr Pump strokes
SMP2 nr Pump strokes
SMP3 nr Pump strokes
SPP Kg/cm2 Stand Pipe
TV01 m3 P
Active Volume Suction Pit
TVO2 m3 Active Volume Trip Tank
TG ppm Total Gas
C1 ppm
C2 ppm
C3 ppm
iC4 ppm
nC4 ppm
iC5 ppm
nC5 ppm
Table A-2
Data storage
• All acquired data (both versus depth and time) shall be
stored systematically on CD-ROM in ASCII format. The
CD-ROM shall be delivered to Company at the end of the
well activities or on Company request.
2 copies requested (Subsidiary and HQ)
SPE 84383 15

TM
Fig. 2 Needed data for a GWD study

TM
Fig. 1 GWD interpretation method workflow

TM
Fig. 4 Typical gas data logs and cross-plots used in GWD
interpretation

Fig. 3 Example of TG/ΣCcor log showing artifacts

Fig. 5 Typical %C1 vs. TG cross-plot for hydrocarbon fluid
determination cut-off

Fig. 7 View of the

location of the GZG
gas trap suction
probe in the flow
line: optimisation of
Volumetric gas trap with its adapted the gas trap position
flange for closed flow lines

Fig. 6 Constant volume GZG gas trap from Geoservices

Suction probe Volumetric
in the flow line degasser
16 SPE 84383

Fig. 8 Influence of the location of the gas trap on the

recovered gas quantity

Fig. 9 Cross-plots illustrating the influence of the accuracy of the

gas chromatograph on the fluid units determination

Fig. 10 Comparison of chromatologs obtained at different depth

sampling rates (20 cm and 1 m)

Fig. 11 Composite log for well A1: uncertainty reduction on net pays
TM
identification with GWD
SPE 84383 17

TM
Fig. 12 Comparison of GWD interpretation for well A1 based on Reserval and GeoFID gas chains results

Fig. 13 C1/C3 vs. C2/C3 cross-plots for well A1:

TM
comparison of results obtained from Reserval
and Geo-FID gas chains data

TM
Fig. 14 Synthetic Log for well B1: fluid and lithological interpretation from logs and GWD
18 SPE 84383

TM
Fig. 15 composite log for well B1: uncertainty reduction on net pays identification with GWD

TM
Fig. 16 Composite log for well B2: fluid interpretation from logs and GWD , an example of differentiation between water flushed
and original aquifer levels

Fig. 17 Comparison of reservoir gas logs for wells D1 and D1-T: change in gas composition
SPE 84383 19

Fig. 18 C1/C3 vs. C2/C3 cross-plots for wells D1 and D1-T:

assessment of two different hydrocarbon fluid behaviours

Fig. 19 Composite log for well D2: reservoir gas log, C3 vs. C2
and C1/C3 vs. C2/C3 cross-plots

Fig. 21 Example of lithological barrier for Wells D3 and D3T

Fig. 20 C3 vs. C2 cross-plot showing the determination of similar
hydrocarbon fluid behaviours in well D3 and its sidetrack D3-T:
colors are reported on the gas logs profiles after fluid cut-off (C1
ppm, iC4/nC4 and C1/C3)

Fig. 23 Example of C6H6/C6s gas ratio logs obtained from

FLAIR acquisition

Fig. 22 Example of C1-C8 gas log obtained with FLAIR