Back to Session IPA12-E-014

PROCEEDINGS, INDONESIAN PETROLEUM ASSOCIATION

Thirty-Sixth Annual Convention & Exhibition, May 2012

ADVANCED MUD GAS DETECTION SYSTEM IMPROVES FORMATION FLUID

CHARACTERIZATION WHILE DRILLING IN CHALLENGING INDONESIA DEEPWATER: A
CASE HISTORY.

Graziano Capone*
Lilik Budi Riyanto*
Carlo Carugo**
Gionata Ferroni***

methodology to obtain gas ratios curves and cross-

ABSTRACT
In this paper, a new gas detection system operating
while drilling is presented. Such system comprises
an array of solutions which greatly reduce the
uncertainties historically attached to mud gas data,
especially in deepwater environment where, due to
the very low temperature of the mud flow out, the
degassing efficiency of conventional gas extractor is
quite poor. A series of analysis and cross
comparisons with independent datasets and
measurements demonstrate the reliability, and
accuracy of the gas data obtained with such system
and how they have supported Real-Time formation
evaluation in deepwater operations.
plots enable to characterize the hydrocarbon phase.
A good match with LWD, wireline logs and fluid
analysis emphasize the reliability of the Gas in mud
data suitable for the formation evaluation
The results obtained challenge common beliefs
associated with gas detection; the system has
effectively overcome the main reliability issues
associated with gas detection in deepwater
environment, and give an effective and suitable cost
saving tool for safety (trustable semi-quantitative
fluid ID). The consistency and repeatability of the
data are also suitable for integrate Formation
Evaluation from LWD or wireline datasets.

The system deployed addresses all sides of gas INTRODUCTION

extraction and detection, implementing solutions
which enable to optimize every aspect of the
process. A drilling mud heater supplies mud to a
constant volume gas extractor. The sample is sent to
the surface logging gas detectors via a controlled
sample flow system. An accurate FID detection
system analyzes a wide spectrum of hydrocarbon
gases (C1 to C8) to maximize the information about
the formation fluid. The gas analysis techniques
utilized comprise a rigorous QC system.
The system has operated in the past months on a
drillship involved in deepwater exploration drilling.
It has enabled to obtain high quality gas data,
unaffected by the typical issues which often damage
the quality of mud gas data in such operating
conditions. The data were QC and analysed using
the Gas While Drilling (GWD™)
In deepwater drilling exploration campaign a series
of new challenges have to be overcome in order to
obtain reliable and cost effective Formation
Evaluation and Reservoir characterization. The high
cost of drilling rigs and ancillary services requires a
strong control of all time effecting operations and to
avoid any lost time. At the same time high bottom
hole pressures and temperatures can limit the
options of measurements and mud-pulse telemetry;
in additions wellbore instability, kicks, lost
circulation are common during the drilling process.
In this context, the utilization of reliable and
accurate acquisition systems while drilling could
play a strong economic impact on the entire
operations. In particular, the best results are
achieved by means of the integration of using
LWD, formation pressure while drilling and mud
logging.

ENI Indonesia started a deep water well campaign

* ENI Indonesia in April, 2011 using a drill ship. The wells were
** ENI E & P
*** Geolog International
located in Kutei Basin, offshore East Kalimantan in
water depths around 1400ft (Figure 1). The wells
were targeting Pliocene and Miocene sand
reservoirs, interpreted as turbidite deposits in slope
channels evolving into slope fans.
The wells in this drilling campaign were drilled
using Synthetic Oil Base Mud (SOBM).
As already experienced in previous campaign in this
type of environment, the fluid distribution (dry gas
– wet gas – condensate – oil – water) is driven by a
wide number of geological factor, and a direct fluid
prognosis and identification from seismic features is
very often not reliable. Fluid generation, migration
and trapping mechanisms can varying from channel
to channel, giving sometimes patchy and random
fluid allocation.
Deep Water Constrains On Mudlog And Gas
Data Acquisition
Considering the mud logging acquisition, one of the
most important requirements is the proper detection
and analysis of the mud gas (Figure 2 shows a gas
chain and its critical points), especially in order to
provide indication about the formation fluid
composition. In deepwater environment, the
acquisition of this parameter can become critical for
several reasons.
The primary cause of issues is the temperature of
the mud. Operating in deepwater environments,
means that the drilling mud, with its load of rock
cuttings and corresponding drilled gases, once
reached the seabed, has to slowly climb up a 20”
riser, exposed to very cold seawater, and long
enough to significantly lower the temperature of the
drilling fluid. This constitutes a problem for the
transportation of the rock cuttings, which tend to
settle at the bottom of the riser, it can also make the
extraction of gases very difficult and inconsistent.
The extraction efficiency of hydrocarbon gas from
drilling mud is a function of the solubility of each
specific hydrocarbon species in each specific
drilling fluid. If the solubility is insufficient, only
the more volatile hydrocarbons will be extracted
and detected, providing an incorrect fluid
composition. Furthermore, if the solubility changes
throughout the drilling process, the volumes of gas
extracted will vary as a function of this parameter,
masking the real causes of gas level changes, which
are the formation properties that the gas detection
system is meant to recognize.
The utilization of SOBM gives several advantages
in drilling sand shale sequences (hole stability, shale
control, best tripping efficiency), but create several
problems in gas in mud measurement. Volatiles can
be liberated which potentially contaminate the gas
readings. So it is necessary to measure accurately
the possible effects of synthetic oil base mud and its
additives and components.
A further problem associated with deepwater
drilling, especially using floating rigs, is the way
drilling fluid flows back to the surface mud system.
Due to the heave effect or simply to the size and
shape of the mud return line, it is commonplace that
the mud levels in the active system change
significantly and frequently. In such way that a
traditional gas extractor (“gas trap”) would be
intermittently submerged or left without mud. As a
result, gas readings would be heavily influenced by
this phenomenon, to the point that they could not be
used for formation evaluation.
Another specific issue attached to deepwater
exploration operations is the value of the
information gathered while drilling. It is important
because exploration always implies an extent of
uncertainty, and it is critical because it does not
impact on the duration of the operation, as it is
instead the case for logging data obtained after the
well is drilled.
Gas data also carry the advantage that they may not
be lost in well in case there is a string failure or
other issue that prevents to recover the downhole
logging tool: they are an insurance data set, which
in an exploration well should be as complete as
practically possible.
Finally, exploration operations require a way to
ascertain the quality of the gas data in Real-Time,
so that any issues can be detected and solved while
drilling, minimizing the amount of data lost or
compromised.
In other cases, this array of conditions has been
tackled in several ways: mud heating systems have
been applied to better liberate the gases entrained in
the drilling fluid, sometimes keeping the fluid
sample in a heater vessel for minutes before it is
released to the extraction system. Gas extraction
systems which aim at dampening the mud
fluctuations effect are commonly utilized
(Quantitative Gas Measurement gas trap, or QGM is
an example; a floating gas trap is another). Gas
detectors based on various technologies (Thermal
Conductivity Detection, Mass Spectrometry) have
been introduced to address specific detection needs.
Finally, mud stills are also employed to validate and
reference the gas detectors readings with a
quantitative datum.
All these systems seen on the field in the past
responded to one or the other of the issues inherent
with gas detection in deepwater conditions.
The system here presented was designed and
deployed with a global approach to the several
crucial points: the gas extraction, transportation,
detection and quality control were all thought so
that they would be accurate, controllable and
repeatable.
METHODS
When choosing the gas detection equipment needed
to operate on this drillship, the authors selected a
system which addressed all the potential sources of
uncertainty mentioned. The resulting gas detection
system therefore is composed of a number of
modular solutions, combined to optimize the
accuracy of gas detection with the practicality of
carrying out a measurement in a harsh operational
environment.
Mud Heating
The problem of extracting gases from cold mud
(where “cold” means a temperature below ambient,
approximately < 25 degC) has been solved inserting
a mud heating system in the gas extraction chain.
This may sound banal, but in reality the type of
heating system, dimensions and specifications need
to be selected keeping in mind the potential issues
involved in heating drilling fluids: the heating must
enable to compensate for changing mud
temperatures, bringing the fluid to a constant,
higher temperature, in order to control and maintain
the gas extraction efficiency. In other words, it is
not sufficient that the mud temperature is high
enough; it also needs to be constant. The heating
process must not disrupt excessively the flow of
mud. In fact, the mud flowing through the gas
extraction system carries gas which is related to a
precise well depth. The heating system must not
homogenize or mix the mud, because this will have
the effect of mixing gas samples coming from
adjacent depths. The result would be a loss of the
vertical resolution of the gas data. Finally, heating
for too long or to excessive temperature can cause
thermal cracking of the mud or its components, with
the consequent liberation of contaminants and
volatiles which may affect the gas reading. The
solution found was ultimately a trade-off among
these parameters: a mud heating system sturdy
enough to run for months on end, processing the
mud very quickly and heating it sufficiently and
consistently enough to obtain a representative gas
sample.
During operations, the surface mud temperature was
measured around 35-40 deg C in the 12 ¼” section,
with a progressive natural increase registered with
depth.
The heating system was regulated to increase and
maintain the temperature of the mud between 65
and 70 deg C.
Constant Volume Gas Extraction
Extraction of gas from drilling mud is normally
done with a “gas trap”. Gas traps sit in the mud
stream, and agitate the fluid with a stirring
mechanism, expelling the mud back in the mud
system and capturing the extracted gas, which is
then sent to the mudlogging cabin, where a suction
mechanism draws the sample through a gas line.
This system, which is still the most popular on the
field, is intrinsically flawed, for two reasons. The
main one is that the trap needs to be in a specific
position into the mud stream for the gas extraction
to be efficient. Mud level changes compromise this
efficiency. Hence, on a floating rig, maintaining
constant extraction efficiency is sometimes simply
impossible. Furthermore, the amount of mud treated
by the trap in a given time is not constant, since it
depends in part on parameters that cannot be
controlled such as the type of flow and the direction
of constantly variable currents in the mud stream.
The solution applied is a Constant Volume Gas
Trap, which samples a fixed amount of mud from
within the mud stream and conveys it to an enclosed
gas extraction chamber. This procedure removes the
issue of trap positioning (so long as the suction
probe is submerged the sampling is constant) and
makes for a more stable and efficient extraction
mechanism. The results of this technique have been
proven in numerous field applications and are not
subject of further discussion in this paper. Finally,
this type of gas extractor only needs a relatively
small probe to be inserted in the mud stream,
connected with a flexible hose to the mud agitation
chamber, which can be sited a few meters away
from the flowline and header box. This also solves
the practical problem often arising on offshore rigs
where space in the shale shakers or flowline area is
at a premium.
Sample Flow Control
Extracting gas from the mud is only the first step of
gas detection. The optimal transportation of the gas
sample to the detectors located in the logging cabin
is as important. Systems which are often accepted
as standard can be rather basic in this department,
relying on a simple suction unit in the cabin which
draws gas from a gas line made of PVC or other
plastic material and pushes it towards gas detection
instruments at a fixed rate. In order to guarantee the
data qualities, the uncertainties left by this basic
architecture must be put under control. To start
with, all gas lines must be made of PTFE; other
plastic materials such as PVC are known to adsorb
some hydrocarbons, particularly the heavier and
aromatic gases. This means that not only the gas
line itself but also the filtering system, the suction
pump and the internal piping of the gas system must
avoid plastic materials other than PTFE. The gas
line itself needs to transport gas from a relatively
hot environment (the mud from which it is
extracted) through a cooler environment (the rig
ambient temperature) to an even cooler one (the
temperature-controlled, pressurized mud logging
cabin). To prevent temperature drops to cause some
of the gas components to condensate or set, the gas
line must be insulated with a neoprene sleeve.
With regards to the pumping system, a simple pump
is not sufficient, since the gas sample flow must be
measurable and controllable. Hence a gas
distribution system must be in place, capable of
measuring continuously the sample flow and
maintaining it within the set thresholds, and to
change as per needed the sample air dilution (re: in
case of very high gas shows). The system must also
enable to distribute the gas sample to all the gas
detectors so that each receives an adequate amount
of sample, and finally it must enable to vent the
excess gas sample outside of the pressurized cabin.
Accurate Gas Detection Of Light And Heavy
Hydrocarbon Gases
All the preparatory work to make sure a high
quality gas sample reaches the cabin is just a means
to deliver the sample to a detector. The detectors
utilized in this application are Flame Ionization
Detectors. The reasons why this technology has
been chosen are multiple: the authors are very
familiar with this technology. Its accuracy and
precision in the detection of hydrocarbon gases is
proven, and so is the sturdiness of the equipment,
considering that field gas detectors are expected to
operate for months or years on end, during which
period they are only occasionally switched off and
receive regular but not deep maintenance.
Furthermore, Flame Ionization Detection (FID) is
the only technology presently utilized in gas
detection which can guarantee the same high level
of accuracy in measuring both the total amount of
hydrocarbons and the chromatography of the single
components. This factor is crucial to guarantee a
correct quality check of the gas data.
The specific detectors utilized for this project are an
array of FID detectors measuring:
 The total hydrocarbon gas concentration
 The chromatography of the following alkane
gas species: Methane, Ethane, Propane, Butane,
Pentane, Hexane, Heptane. Plus light aromatics
and cyclo-alkanes. All these species have been
chosen based on their relative abundance and
relevance in the formation fluid.
The resolution required to be able to utilize these
gas data, particularly the heavier components which
are never very abundant is 1 ppm (part-per-million).
Quality Control
High importance was placed on the quality control
of the gas data measured. This involves controlling
every single step of the gas detection system. The
strict control on data quality involves a series of
sensors and procedures so that the needed control
parameters are gathered and if needed the response
is immediate or, where possible, automated.
The parameters controlled and reported are the mud
temperature, type and density. The mud sample
suction rate and the gas sample suction rate are
monitored too.
The detectors are routinely checked for calibration.
Furthermore the gas line is periodically tested with
a tracer gas for integrity.
A tracer is also used to measure and correct the lag
time, in case hole enlargement has affected it with
the possible consequence of associating gas shows
with the wrong depth.
The system incorporates a software which
continuously cross-checks the readings from the
various detectors, to monitor their consistency. The
dedicated quality control software automatically
displays alarms in case the cross-check results are
outside of the required quality threshold, so that the
operator can intervene as per needed.
The extraction system efficiency is periodically
tested. Since the mechanical agitation of mud
cannot possibly extract 100% of the entrained gas, a
method needs to be utilized to estimate this
efficiency, which varies in time with the mud
conditions and is different for each gas species. The
resulting coefficient is utilized to build a correction
algorithm. This algorithm can be utilized on the raw
data to transform a semi-quantitative reading in a
gas composition value comparable with the results
of PVT (Pressure-Volume-Temperature) tests
conducted post-mortem on the formation fluid.
Figure 3 details all the components of the described
advanced gas detection system.
Contamination Control
The Synthetic Oil Base Mud utilized in the case
history well was known to potentially liberate
volatile compounds which could potentially
contaminate the gas readings. The field crew
systematically tested all components of the drilling
fluid, in order to identify which ones were
responsible for the liberation of volatiles, and in
which amounts. Hence, a reference matrix for the
drilling fluid was created, showing which
hydrocarbons were potentially liberated by the
SOBM at different mud temperatures. Practically,
no significant contamination was detected during
the well operations, but if needed it would have
been possible to estimate and filter them out of the
gas readings.
GWD Method
The data were analyzed using the Gas While
Drilling (GWDTM) methodology, developed in
recent years. The analysis is based on the
computation and analysis of several gas ratios
obtained using the different gas components of the
hydrocarbon mixture (in this case C1 to C7,
including aromatics) continuously extracted from
the drilling mud and monitored at the rig site by the
mud logging company using the advanced gas
extraction system described above.
The purpose of the GWD analysis is to support and
integrate Formation Evaluation in terms of:
 Highlighting the main zones of interest
 Fluid characterization and differentiation,
suggesting depth sample interval
 Reduce remaining uncertainties after
conventional log analysis
The main gas ratios used for the gas analysis of the
case history described in this paper are:
 C1/SC that is the ratio, reported at 100,
between the amount of methane and the
summa of all the components recorded by the
gas chromatograph (C1+C2+C3+C4+C5). The
decrease of this ratio is related to the increase
of heavier components in the analysed mixture
suggesting the presence of heavier
hydrocarbons. It is, practically, the reverse of
the gas “wetness”.
 LHR = Light/Heavy Ratio, is the ratio
(C1+C2) / (C3+C4+C5). Very high values of
this ratio are normally related to lighter
hydrocarbon (gas or gas/condensate).
Details on the GWD methodology are available on
several of the papers mentioned in the references.
GWD Analysis Using Formation Fluid
Prediction Model
Based on the mud gas data obtained using the
advanced extraction system, critical information
was collected, enabling to understand the formation
fluid composition.
To improve the reliability of the GWD
interpretation, a predictive model based on the
relationship between mud gas ratios and PVT
results was defined using data sets from reference
wells drilled in the Kutei basin. The model applied
on the offshore Indonesia wells mainly consists in a
well-defined crossplot (Formation Fluid Prediction
Crossplot or FCP).
The basic procedure to build the crossplot is
described as follows:
 Choose wells drilled in the same conditions (Oil
Base Mud) and where the mud gas was
measured using a similar gas chain
 Choose levels selectively tested by Production
Test or DST or wireline formation testing,
where the formation fluid type has been clearly
defined
 For the different wells and levels define
appropriate cut-off values (normally on C1) on
mud gas values in order to analyze only the
more reliable gas shows (eliminate background
gas, lithological effects, recycling)
 Plot the mud gas data in terms of mud gas ratio
for each level and for each well using a
 different symbol to clearly define each series on
the crossplot. The more common crossplot is
based on the ratio C1/SC (X axis) versus LHR
(Y axis) but different type of gas ratio crossplot
can be used according local conditions.
 When plotting the mud gas data it is necessary
to take into account the possible difference
between the gas reference depth (driller depth)
and the production test or DST depth (logger
depth).
 Define different areas where the points are
related to similar formation fluid.
In the case of Indonesian wells using the FCP,
based on references wells, it was possible to
highlight the difference, in terms of mud gas
signature, between the gas bearing levels and the oil
bearing levels, permitting its application on the new
wells.
Figures 4 and 5 show how the model was created.
RESULTS
Case History
During the drilling of the deepwater wells in the
Kutai basin, different hydrocarbon bearing levels
were crossed. A preliminary indication about the
HC occurrence was noticed by a clear increase of
the resistivity LWD combined with evident gas
shows above the background gas. As previously
discussed in the introduction of this paper, one the
most important point for the preliminary FE was the
identification of the formation fluid. Considering
that the results of LWD data were not conclusive
(see Figure 6) for this scope, the real time analysis
of mud gas shows was utilized.
The first HC bearing level (Level A), drilled in the
12 ¼” phase, was characterized by high gas shows
mainly composed by methane (C1), with only few
ethane (C2) and propane (C3). No heavier
components were measured. Figure 7 shows all the
gas ratio variations vs depth and the optimal
correspondence with the resistivity data.
In terms of gas ratios the C1/SC was around 99.9%
and the LHR more than 10000. Based on the FCP
above described, the level was interpreted as DRY
GAS bearing (see Figure 8).
Another HC level (Level B) was crossed during
drilling the 8 ½” phase. Also in this case good gas
shows above the background gas were recorded,
but, even if characterized by a strong abundance of
methane, a relative increase of heavy gases (up to
C5 traces) was noticed. In terms of gas ratios the
C1/SC was ranging from 98% to 99.2% and the
LHR ranged between 100 and 300. Based on the
FCP above described, the level was interpreted as
WET GAS bearing (see Figure 8).
Finally, a deeper level (Level C) was crossed below
the previous one. Also in this case the HC
occurrence was highlighted but resistivity increase
and gas shows, but in this case the gas shows were
characterized by a clear increase of the heavier
components with also appearance of traces of C5+
components, measured by the advanced gas
chromatograph. This behavior was clearly noticed
by a sharp change in the gas ratios trend in
correspondence of this level. The ratio C1/SC
decreased down to 91% and the LHR values ranged
around 24 to 40. Applying these data on the FCP, it
was possible to interpret the level C as OIL bearing
(see Figure 8).
Real Time Operation Decision Making and
Operation Planning
The mud gas data were utilized in real time in
combination with LWD logs in order to optimize
the wireline log acquisition. At the same time a
focused formation testing-while-drilling campaign
was successfully completed obtaining an accurate
interpretation of fluid gradients: pretests were
attempted only where gas in mud peaks indicated
the most promising petrophysical characteristics in
terms of porosity and possible fluid mobility. The
good quality of the majority of pretests confirmed
the methodology.
All wireline logs acquisition were optimized in
order to acquire only a limited numbers of logs such
as magnetic resonance and image logs.
In addition the WFT sampling string was prepared
taking in consideration the expected fluid
characteristics: sampling chambers where selected
and set correctly in advance for a specific fluid
sample (wet gas, dry gas, oil, water), the pump out
system calibrated for the formation porosity vs fluid
viscosity ratio. During the pump out clean up phase,
fluid ID verified fluid contamination, also by
comparing the fluid variations in the WFT tool flow
line with the chromatograph analysis and gas ratios
from gas in mud.
A comparison table of laboratory chromatograph
analysis on DST, and WFT samples vs gas in mud
chromatograph is highlighting the reliability of the
quantitative interpretation of the real time data from
this innovative system also in deep water
environment.
CONCLUSIONS
In this case history a semi quantitative fluid API
evaluation could be made in real time utilizing the
fluid characterization model.
The high quality gas data and formation pressure
while drilling data allowed to focus the wireline
formation testing campaign (WFT – see Figure 9):
pretests where performed only in thin layers and
more shaly facies while sampling were performed
in the more suitable permeable intervals identified
while drilling. In fact the rate of successful pretests
increased by more than 20% compared to previous
campaigns and the time required completing the
WFT operations decreased by more than 30% in
time and over 35% in logging cost.
The entire wireline logging acquisition decreased
around 30% compared with previous drilling
campaign.
Furthermore, the quality of information acquired
allowed selecting the DST interval and optimizing
the DST string and surface equipments. Result of
the DST confirmed the fluid characteristics
identified by real time fluid analysis from gas in
mud (Table 1).
In conclusion the real time high resolution gas +
LWD data acquisition resulted one of the more
effective key of this successful drilling campaign.
For the future activities, the reliability of this model
will be a very helpful and cost time saving tool
especially during the development phase, where an
immediate reservoir characterization and a fast
correct fluid identification is the decision
mechanism for the well completion and production,
especially in case of high deviated or horizontal
well trajectories.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We would like to thank Giuseppe Uncini (ENI
Indonesia Exploration Manager) for permitting us to
publish this work and the authors would like to
acknowledge the work of the ENI and Geolog
International field crews involved with the project,
particularly Bruno Gabrielli for his work on the
mud contaminants analysis.
REFERENCES
Beda G., Quagliaroli R., Segalini G., Barraud A.,
Mitchell A., 1999, Gas while drilling (GWD): A
real Time geologic and reservoir Interpretation tool:
SPWLA conference, Oslo.
Kandel D., Quagliaroli R., Segalini G., Barraud B.,
2000, Improved Integrated Reservoir Interpretation
using the Gas While Drilling (GWD) data: SPE
65176, SPE European Petroleum Conference.
Carugo C., Chelini V., El Manaa S., 2003: Gas
While Drilling improves Formation Evaluation in
Tight Reservoir (Southern Tunisia): EAGE North
Africa/Mediterranean Petroleum & Geosciences
Conference, Tunis.
Loermans T., Kanj M. and Bradford C., 2005,
Advanced Mud Logging: From ARCHIE’S
DREAM to reality: SPE Technical Symposium,
Dhahran, Saudi Arabia
McKinney D., Flannery M., Elshahawi H.,
Stankiewicz A. and Clarke E., 2007, Advanced
Mud Gas Logging in Combination With Wireline
Formation Testing and Geochemical Fingerprinting
for an Improved Understanding of Reservoir
Architecture: SPE 109861, SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Anaheim, California.
Pinna G. N., Law, D.J., 2008, Advanced in mud gas
interpretation whilst drilling, SPWLA 49th Annual
Logging Symposium, Edinburgh, Scotland
Wenger L.M., Pottorf J., Macleod G., Otten G.,
Dreyfus S., Justwan H. and Sekula E., 2009, Drill-
Bit Metamorphism: Recognition and Impact on
Show Evaluation, SPE 125218, SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition held in New
Orleans, Louisiana, USA.
Ferroni G., Rivolta F. and Schifano R., 2011,
Advanced Formation Fluid Evaluation While
Drilling with a New Heavy Gas Detector, AAPG
International Conference and Exhibition, Milan,
Italy
  
 
 
TABLE 1

COMPARISON BETWEEN GAS IN MUD AND LABORATORIES ANALYSIS ON RESERVOIR FLUIDS

 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Figure 1 - Indonesia Offshore, Muara Bakau Block, East Kalimanatan

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

   
 Figure 2 - Rigsite Gas Detection Chain

Figure 3 - The Advanced Gas Detection System Components:

Mud Heater: this type of heater represents a trade-off: maintaining efficient heating while
minimizing disruption of the mud flow preventing mixing, homogeneization andliberation of
volatiles. Constant Volume Degasser (CVD) provides the double advantage of consistent mud
processing and more efficient gas extraction compared to standard gas traps. Gas Distribution
System is utilized to send a controlled amount of sample, consistently diluted in air, to two
parallel chromatographs, measuring hydrocarbons from methane to Toluene. Light and Heavy
hydrocarbons FID detectors (DualFid and DualFid Star). Dedicated software for Real-
Time data Quality Check and gas ratio analysis.
 
Figure 4 - LHR vs C1/SC ratios on Muara Bakau reference wells
 
 
 

 
Figure 5 - LHR vs C1/SC ratios model for the Muara Bakau reservoirs 
 
 
Figure 6 - Real Time Gas and LWD reservoir characterization. LWD data (density neutron) alone does
highlight the presence of hydrocarbon bearing levels, but doesn’t permit conclusive formation
fluid characterization

Figure 7 - GWD ratios identifying the main reservoir sand 

 
 
Figure 8 - LHR vs C1/SC ratios on New Field Wildcat case history well
 
 
 

Figure 9 - While Drilling and Wireline Formation Testing Results