SPE-201323-MS

Real Time Reservoir Fluid Log from Advanced Mud Gas Data

Ibnu Hafidz Arief and Tao Yang, Equinor

Copyright 2020, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Annual Technical Conference & Exhibition originally scheduled to be held in Denver, Colorado, USA, 5 – 7
October 2020. Due to COVID-19 the physical event was postponed until 26 – 29 October 2020 and was changed to a virtual event. The official proceedings were
published online on 21 October 2020.

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

Abstract
In a recent paper (Yang et al., 2019a), we published a machine learning method to quantitatively predict
reservoir fluid properties from advanced mud gas (AMG) data. This approach has clear advantages due to
early access, low cost, and a continuous reservoir fluid prediction for all reservoir zones. In this paper, we
demonstrate how real time reservoir fluid logs are generated and compare the results with PVT samples or
production data from the same well.
We develop a workflow of generating reservoir fluid logs from AMG data and PVT database. The
workflow consists of two main processes; first a quality assessment of AMG data and second the
computation of reservoir fluid properties (in this paper we use gas oil ratio). The entire workflow is written in
python and embedded into existing commercial petrophysics softwares. The final product of the workflow
are three log tracks which we call the reservoir fluid logs and those are 1) the concentration readings of the
AMG data, 2) the QC metric score, and 3) the predicted GOR log. These three logs are plotted together
with other standard open hole logs such as gamma ray, neutron-density, sonic and resistivity log to get a
more comprehensive formation evaluation.
Reservoir fluid logs derived from AMG data has two main advantages. First, it is the only approach to
acquire continuous reservoir fluid properties along the well path. The continuous fluid profile can be used
to understand the variation of reservoir fluids in both vertical and lateral direction. The second advantage is
that the reservoir fluid log is obtained while drilling and therefore the information can be used to optimize
the drilling process or the downhole sampling program during wireline operation.
In this paper, we demonstrate the application of the reservoir fluid logs in four conventional field cases.
In the first study case we show the benefit of using the reservoir fluid logs in a horizontal well as a substitute
for downhole fluid sampling. In the second case study, we demonstrate how the reservoir fluid log is utilized
to optimize the downhole fluid sampling program which results in reducing the subsurface uncertainty.
Next, we exhibit the use of the reservoir fluid logs to locate gas oil contact in a case where pressure data
does not show clear distinction of gas and oil gradient in the reservoir. In the last example, we illustrate the
use of reservoir fluid knowledge from AMG to characterizing the fluid variation across a field. The field
applications demonstrate the success of the new method for conventional reservoirs, provided good-quality
AMG data are available.
2 SPE-201323-MS

Introduction
Well logging has been the main tool for reservoir characterization during the drilling period. Various logging
tools are employed to gather different rock information such as rock types and mineralogy, porosity, water
saturation and other rock features. Even though well logging is a powerful tool to gain insightful information
about the subsurface formation, currently there is no continuous logging tool which can either directly or
indirectly classify the hydrocarbon content of a reservoir into black oil, volatile oil, gas condensate or wet/
dry gas.

Open hole logging

It has been a common practice in the industry to use density and neutron log to differentiate oil and gas
bearing reservoir. The gas zone is commonly identified with lower reading of bulk density and neutron
porosity than the oil zone. The gas zone is characterized by a large crossover between the two curves (Figure
1a). Such a density-neutron pattern is typically found in clean sandstone, but in some other cases particularly
with more complex lithology and depleted reservoir (Darling, 2005), the gas zone is not always characterized
by larger density-neutron crossover than oil bearing reservoir (Figure 1b).

Figure 1—An example of hydrocarbon type determination using density-neutron log. The left figure
shows a log where gas is shown with larger density-neutron crossover than oil. The right figure
exhibits density-neutron readings where no significant crossover differences between gas and oil.

Bateman (Bateman, 1977) proposed a method which uses parameters derived from density, neutron
and sonic log to predict reservoir fluid type. However, the proposed method requires a fully known
reservoir lithology which is not frequently available. Another method was proposed using data from
shear, compressional, density and porosity log to predict reservoir fluid type in a carbonate reservoir
(Ramamoorthy, Murphy, 2006). The same method was implemented in the North Sea chalk reservoir
(Souder, 2002). It is reported in both papers that the method fails to identify the fluid content in a low-
porosity reservoir (<15%) because the rock mechanical properties will converge irrespective of the fluid
content.
More advanced attempts to characterize the reservoir fluid made by industry professionals is using nuclear
magnetic resonance (NMR) fluid typing log. The method uses the transverse relaxation time (T2) and
the molecular diffusion reading from the NMR log. Prammer (Prammer el al., 2001) claim that the NMR
method can estimate gas oil ratio in real time but there are no published papers which demonstrate its field
implementation. The available field implementation papers of this technology (Spears, Saha, 2006; Oifoghe,
Okowi, 2018) show that the NMR log can provide a rather qualitative classification of the fluid into oil,
light oil, gas and water, but is not able to quantify the gas oil ratio of the reservoir fluid. Some of the reported
SPE-201323-MS 3

limitations of the fluid typing using NMR log are that the output fluid typing is heavily influenced by the
effect of mud filtrates and the method itself requires prior knowledge of the typical hydrocarbon properties
in the region/nearby wells.

Downhole sample and pressure measurement

The current best practice in the industry to characterize the reservoir fluid is by taking downhole fluid
samples and pressure measurements using wireline formation tester tools. While this method provides the
most accurate results, it has some disadvantages such as:
1. Downhole samples are commonly taken at a few depth locations of interest points. Therefore, it is
difficult to describe the detailed vertical variation of the reservoir fluid in the reservoir. Gas oil contact
is commonly estimated from an interpolation of the pressure plot even though in some cases the
gradient derived from the pressure plot might not reflect the actual fluid type (Spears, Saha, 2006).
2. The depth locations are predetermined before the sample collection and without reliable prior
information, it could lead to a sub-optimal sampling.
3. It is practically difficult to take samples in deviated and horizontal wells. Consequently, the reservoir
fluid mapping only comes from limited number of exploration wells.
4. Taking samples from tight reservoir could be a challenging task and, in most cases, it is found to be
unsuccessful.
5. From the economical point of view, downhole fluid sampling is expensive as the cost does not only
covers the sampling services but also the drilling rigs.

Downhole fluid analyzer

Downhole fluid analyzer (DFA) is a more advanced development of downhole fluid sampling. In the
traditional downhole fluid sampling, samples are collected at the downhole and transported back to the
surface for compositional/PVT analysis in the laboratory. DFA is essentially adding one tool assembly which
comprises various sensors/instruments to measure fluid properties such as C1-C6, CO2, live density and
viscosity, gas oil ratio, flourescense properties, etc. This technology has gained popularity in recent years due
to its live results during the wireline operation. The DFA is not continuous but consists of discrete stations.
The more stations to run, the better fluid mapping will be revealed. However, the operation cost for DFA is
rather high, especially in the current low oil price environment. The cost issue limits the application of the
technology and the number of stations that are employed. This is especially true for offshore operations in
a mature area, like in Norwegian Continental Shelf (NCS).

Advanced mud gas

Mud gas logging has been used in the oil industry for decades. Mud gas logging is a process of measuring
the concentration of released gas from the returned drilling mud. The main use of mud gas logging during
drilling is to obtain early warnings of serious well safety issues e.g. gas kick (Blue et al., 2019). In recent
implementation, with more advanced measurement instruments and workflow, mud gas logging is also used
to identify reservoir fluid content. The term "advanced mud gas (AMG) logging" refers to the improved
version of standard mud gas logging. AMG logging employs more sophisticated instruments such as
constant volume degassing chamber, correction of gas recycling and better extraction efficiency, such that
measured concentrations of released gas are more representative for the reservoir fluid composition.
Typical data obtained from AMG logging is the concentration (in ppm) of various gas components such
as methane (C1), ethane (C2), propane (C3), butane (C4), pentane (C5). In its implementation, it is common
to derive additional parameters from C1 to C5 data e.g. wetness (Wh), balance (Bh) and character ratio term
(Ch)as shown in equations 1, 2 and 3.
4 SPE-201323-MS

(1)

(2)

(3)

AMG data offer reservoir fluid identification during or shortly after drilling. This proves to be a great
advantage as the information can be used to assist or optimize various operations such drilling and downhole
sample collection. AMG data are used to maintain well trajectory to stay in the oil zone and prevent the well
to encounter the overlying gas zone (Liew et al., 2010). AMG data are also used to optimize downhole fluid
sampling and placement of DFA stations (Kyi et al., 2014). Another application of AMG data is to locate
fluid contacts (both hydrocarbon water contact and gas oil contact) (Kyi et al., 2014; Dashti el al., 2016).
In general, AMG data can be used to identify the variation of reservoir fluid in both vertical and lateral
direction which is critical to improve the understanding of field connectivity or compartmentalization.
To the authors’ knowledge, the current interpretation of AMG data is still limited to qualitative analysis.
This is probably due to lack of mathematical formulae to convert AMG data into reservoir fluid properties.
In addition, the validity of the current AMG interpretation relies upon the presence of reference fluid
composition which could come from either the target well or nearby wells. These two reasons are the main
factors which limit the derivation of quantitative analysis of AMG data.
We first proposed to use a machine learning algorithm to predict PVT properties using a PVT database
(Arief et al., 2018). After achieving good results, we further developed the machine learning algorithm
for GOR prediction using AMG data (Yang et al., 2019a). With the machine learning method, a continous
GOR log can now be derived from AMG data and no reference fluid is needed since the PVT database,
which is used to train the machine learning model, acts as the reference fluids to the AMG responses. The
objective of this paper is to demonstrate various applications of the proposed methodology in conventional
fields. Application of the methodology in unconventional fields was discussed in an earlier paper (Yang et
al., 2019b). Reservoir fluid log consists of all reservoir fluid properties in demand. We demonstrate in a
separate paper (Yang et al., 2020) how to calculate other PVT properties besides GOR using AMG data. In
this paper, we will focus on the GOR log as an example of fluid logs.

Methodology
In this section we describe the methodology to generate reservoir fluid logs from AMG data. The only input
to the workflow is the AMG data from the operator and a PVT database for building a machine learning
model. The workflow consists of two main processes; first a quality assessment of AMG data and second
the computation of the gas oil ratio in hydrocarbon filled formation.
AMG data, just like any other log data, contain errors and noise, and this should be carefully considered
before using the data for GOR prediction. In the first process of the workflow, we therefore quality control
(QC) the AMG data with a predefined set of rules and grade the AMG data with a QC metric score from 0
to 1. A score of 1 indicates perfect quality AMG data while score of 0 shows poor data quality. Examples
of the criteria indicating compromised data quality used in this assessment are:
1. Large fluctuations of a component within a small depth range.
2. The first observations after missing measurements.
3. C1 content below a given threshold.
4. C4 or C5 content below a given threshold.
In the second steps of the workflow we compute the gas oil ratio (GOR) using the method proposed
by Yang et al. in 2019. The GOR computation is only performed within hydrocarbon zones of the
SPE-201323-MS 5

reservoir where the QC metric of the AMG data is above a user-defined threshold. The distinction between
hydrocarbon and water zone in the reservoir is governed by the total gas responses: The water zone would
show lower total gas reading by one to two orders of magnitude, compared to the hydrocarbon zones.
The final product of the workflow are three log tracks which we call the reservoir fluid logs and those
are 1) the concentration readings of the AMG data, 2) the QC metric score, and 3) the predicted GOR log.
To facilitate log analysts in the company to use the reservoir fluid logs, the entire workflow is written in
python and embedded into existing commercial petrophysics software such as Techlog and Geolog. We
believe that this provides a more efficient way to visualize and extract information from AMG data than
the existing implementation by professionals in the industry which usually use more than 5 log tracks to
visualize AMG data.

Figure 2—Workflow to generate reservoir fluid logs from AMG data

Results and implementation

In the remainder of this paper we present four study cases covering different use of reservoir fluid logs. The
four cases are briefly explained below, and the detailed case descriptions follow in the subsequent pragraphs:
1. Case study 1: The reservoir fluid log is used to characterize the reservoir fluid of an exploration target
which is drilled from a horizontal well.
2. Case study 2: The reservoir fluid log is used to assist the downhole sampling program.
3. Case study 3: The reservoir fluid log is used to locate gas oil contacts.
4. Case study 4: The reservoir fluid log is used to understand the fluid variation across a field.

Case study 1
In this case study, AMG data are acquired in an exploration well which is a sidetrack of a horizontal
production well. The well is named Well 1A. The exploration target formation is in a deeper stratigraphic
layer than the existing producing formation. The decision to combine a production and an exploration well
is driven by a cost-efficiency program in the asset. AMG logging was employed primarily to identify the
reservoir fluid content in the exploration target and secondarily to characterize the hydrocarbon content
in the producing formation. No downhole fluid sampling or analysis program was planned due to the
complexity of the well trajectory which could pose a risk to the production well. Figure 3 shows a schematic
view of the well trajectory and the location of both producing and target exploration formation.
6 SPE-201323-MS

Figure 3—Well trajectory of the combined production and exploration well. The horizontal section
is aimed to target the producing formation and the last vertical section aims the exploration
target. The box size of the formation schematic does not represent the actual size boundary.

Figure 6 shows logging information from LWD and the reservoir fluid log from the AMG data. The
displayed log from the LWD data are gamma ray (GR), neutron, density and resistivity. The last 3 tracks in
Figure 6 shows the reservoir fluid logs from the AMG data. The first in the reservoir fluid log tracks is the
original gas concentration reading of methane to pentane. The second track displays the QC metric value
which indicates the quality of the AMG data (as explained in the Methodology section). The last track is
gas oil ratio (GOR) log. The GOR exhibited in the track is only for points where the QC metric is above
0.5 and the GR reading shows a reservoir indication.
AMG logging was not performed from the start of the horizontal section but rather towards the end of the
horizontal section and the beginning of the exploration hole. The producing formation starts from a relatively
clean sand in the heel and more shale contents towards the toe. Resistivity data shows a decreasing trend
which agrees with the increasing trend of shale contents. AMG data reads a relatively high concentration of
gas readings in the last portion of the horizontal section. Reservoir fluid (GOR) log was derived from the
AMG data and the calculated GOR is in the range of 200 – 400 Sm3/Sm3. This predicted GOR agrees with
the production GOR of the horizontal well which is around 300 - 400 Sm3/Sm3. The production GOR value
most likely comes from the clean sand section, so this exercise shows that AMG can pick up hydrocarbon
signals even when the sand is not clean and that the calculated GOR from the AMG matches the surface data.
The log profiles in the exploration zone shows low resistivity reading. The AMG data obtained from
this section has less quality than the upper section. It is indicated with low QC metric score (the shading
color is mostly red). The low QC metric score is mainly caused by large fluctuations in butane and pentane
concentration. The methane reading, on the other hand, is relatively stable and the magnitude is decreasing
with depths. The recorded methane concentration in the exploration zone is more than 10 times lower than
the producing formation. The decreasing trend of methane concentration indicates a minimal hydrocarbon
charging to the mud system and along with the decreasing trend of the resistivity reading this could indicate
a nonhydrocarbon zone (water). The exploration target is indeed considered dry.

Case study 2
In the second study case we demonstrate the use of the reservoir fluid log to reduce the subsurface
uncertainties and optimize a downhole sampling program for an appraisal well. The well is named Well 2.
There are three zones of interest identified in this well. These zones are characterized with low resistivity
reading which could indicate high water saturation. AMG logging was performed during drilling to be used
for additional information for fluid typing. To further confirm the reservoir fluid content, a downhole fluid
analyzer (DFA) was deployed for downhole fluid sampling.
SPE-201323-MS 7

The sampling was planned in 3 different locations (see DFA#1, #2 and #3 in Figure 7). The overall quality
of the AMG data in this well is poor. As seen from the QC metric log in Figure 7, we only have limited
section of the well with better quality AMG data (ref. the green QC metric in the top of zone A, a small
section of zone B, and the top of zone C). The sample collection in location#1 and #2 was done in a time-
consuming manner because the reservoir is tight. From the DFA analysis, the reported GOR are 280 Sm3/
Sm3 in DFA#1 and 310 Sm3/Sm3 in DFA#2, and the oil contamination level in those two points is 10%. This
measured GOR is in line with the predicted GOR from AMG data as shown in Figure 7.
The sampling plan in the third location was under evaluation because the pressure measurement shows
large pressure gradient (leaning towards water). There was a concern that some days of rig time might be
wasted if the sampling in the third location is to be continued, knowing that the content will most likely be
water. However, the AMG data show a different conclusion than the pressure measurement. The reservoir
fluid log indicates that the reservoir zone at DFA#3 comprises the same oil (GOR) as in the upper two
sampling points. The third sampling was eventually performed and the results from DFA indicate an oil
with GOR of 200 Sm3/Sm3. Lower GOR reported by DFA is because the sampling was cut out short thus
the contamination level is still high (40%).
From this case study we learn that the decision to sample the third location is a correct call. This results
in reducing the uncertainty with regards to the water contact and at the same time increases the oil in place.

Case study 3
In the third study case, we use the reservoir fluid log to locate the gas oil contact of a reservoir. An exploration
well (named Well 3) was drilled to confirm hydrocarbon presence in the target reservoir. AMG logging was
employed to complement downhole fluid sampling for reservoir fluid identification. The log interpretation
of Well 3 is shown in Figure 8. The pressure plot does not indicate a change of pressure gradient (Figure
4). Two downhole samples were collected; the first sample was taken from the relative depth of 25 m and
the second sample was from 34 m. The first sample is a gas sample (25 m) and the second sample is an oil
(34 m). The measured GOR of the oil sample is 150 Sm3/Sm3 and no GOR is reported from the gas sample
due to limited condensate yields.

Figure 4—Pressure plot of Well 3

The predicted GOR derived from the AMG data is shown in the last track of Figure 8. The GOR log
shows that there is a change of hydrocarbon type from gas to oil in the reservoir. The predicted GOR of
the lower section matches the reported GOR from the oil sample (150 Sm3/Sm3), while the predicted GOR
around the shallower sample location indeed indicates gas. Around 25 m relative depth the GOR log shows
8 SPE-201323-MS

a peak. This peak should not be interpreted as richer gas at the top of the reservoir but is a consequence of the
gradual changes in the AMG data going from a non-hydrocarbon zone at shallower depth to a hydrocarbon
zone. One of the benefits of using reservoir fluid log is that it provides a continuous GOR profile along the
reservoir. This can be utilized to determine the GOC location. From the GOR log we can deduce that the
GOC is at approximately 27 m of the relative depth. The case study thus shows that reservoir fluid log from
AMG could be used to determine the gas oil contact (GOC).

Case study 4
In this case study we look at the reservoir fluid logs from three production wells (Figure 5). Well 1BT is
the sidetrack of well 1B which was abandoned due to experiencing massives losses in a fault, and well 1A
is the same well as discussed in case study 1. AMG logging was implemented in all wells and even though
well 1B was not completed, AMG data was successfully acquired in the target formation.

Figure 5—Well location map (seen from above)

From the production GOR, it is known that the produced oil from well 1A is lighter (400 Sm3/Sm3) than
the oil from well 1BT (150 Sm3/Sm3). The predicted GOR in the reservoir fluid logs in Figure 9 indeed
show that the predicted GOR of the oil in well 1A is higher than the predicted GOR in well 1B (Figure 9).
For well 1BT, the AMG data quality is mostly poor, particularly the reading of heavier components such
as C4 and C5. This influences the GOR log in this well which is not in agreement with the production data.
So due to poor AMG data quality, the production data from 1BT rather matches the predicted GOR from
well 1B than well 1BT.
SPE-201323-MS 9

Figure 6—Log interpretation of Well 1A. The green dash line in the Predicted
GOR track shows the production GOR (~300 Sm3/Sm3) from the horizontal well.
10 SPE-201323-MS

Figure 7—Log interpretation of Well 2. The star icon in the Prediction

GOR track indicates the measured GOR from the DFA analysis.
SPE-201323-MS 11

Figure 8—Log interpretation of Well 3. There are two samples collected in this well; the first sample
was taken from the relative depth of 25 m and the second sample was from the relative depth of 34 m.
12 SPE-201323-MS

Figure 9—Well log interpretation of the wells in study case 4

The key lesson we learn from this study case is that reservoir fluid logs can be used to identify
the hydrocarbon variation in a field and provide better understanding of field connectivity and
compartmentalization. The reservoir fluid logs shown in wells 1B and 1A match the production data and this
SPE-201323-MS 13

proves that the reservoir fluid logs generated from AMG data can identify insitu reservoir fluid properties
(gas oil ratio) with fair accuracy. This application can also be used to monitor changes of insitu hydrocarbon
properties with time especially if there is gas injection implemented in the field. This information will be
useful to evaluate the flooding pattern and eventually locate unswept area.

Conclusion
In this paper we propose a workflow to produce reservoir fluid logs from AMG data. The workflow produces
an efficient and yet a powerful way to visualize and extract reservoir fluid information from AMG data
shortly after drilling and before the wireline operation. Reservoir fluid logs in combination with the standard
open hole logs would enhance the characterization process of both reservoir and fluid properties. The field
implementation of the reservoir fluid logs is illustrated with four case studies.
The reservoir fluid logs derived from AMG data could be used complementary to the downhole sampling
program or as a substitute if downhole sampling cannot be performed. In the first study case we show the
benefit of using the reservoir fluid logs in a horizontal well as a substitute for downhole fluid sampling.
In the second case study, we demonstrate how the reservoir fluid log is utilized to optimize the downhole
fluid sampling program which results in reducing the subsurface uncertainty. Next, we exhibit the use of the
reservoir fluid logs to locate gas oil contact in a case where pressure data does not show clear distinction of
gas and oil gradient in the reservoir. In the last example, we illustrate the use of reservoir fluid knowledge
from AMG to characterizing the fluid variation across a field.

Acknowledgement
The authors would like to thank Equinor ASA management for granting permission to publish this
paper. Marianne Houbiers kindly proofreads the manuscript. Special gratitudes goes towards Research and
Technology (R&T) division, especially from Camilla Vavik Pedersen, Svein Tollefsen, and Peter Eilsø
Nielsen. We wish to acknowledge the supports from Equinor's Digital Subsurface, especially Tina Todnem,
Bart Willem Hendrik Hendriks, and Mark Thompson. Special thanks are extended to Martin Niemann,
Christopher Thomas Boyle, and many team members in various Equinor's assets for actual field applications.

References
Arief, I. H., Forest, T., & Meisingset, K. K. 2017. Estimating Fluid Properties Using Surrogate Models and Fluid Database.
Presented at the SPE One Day Seminar, Bergen, 5 April. SPE-185937-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/185937-MS
Bateman, R. M. 1977. The Fluid Identification Plot. Society of Petrophysicists and Well-Log Analysts. Presented at the
SPWLA 18th Annual Logging Symposium, Houston 5-8 June. SPWLA-1977-C.
Blue, D., Blakey, T., & Rowe, M. 2019. Advanced Mud Logging: Key to Safe and Efficient Well Delivery. Presented at
the Offshore Technology Conference, Houston 6-9 May. OTC-29469-MS. https://doi.org/10.4043/29469-MS
Darling, T. 2005. Well Logging and Formation Evaluation. Jordan Hill, Oxford. Elsevier.
Dashti, J., Al-Awadi, M., Al-Ajmi, B., Rao, S., Shoeibi, A., Estarabadi, J., Nadiminti, A. 2016. Use of Advanced Mud Gas
Chromatography for Reservoir Quality Prediction While Drilling. Presented at the International Petroleum Technology
Conference, Bangkok, 14-16 November. IPTC-18624-MS. https://doi.org/10.2523/IPTC-18624-MS
Kyi, K. K., Lynn, C. S., Haddad, S., Chouya, S., Wa, W. W., & Gligorijevic, A. 2014. Integration of Downhole Fluid
Analysis and Advanced Mud Gas Logging Reduces Uncertainty in Reservoir Evaluation. Presented at the International
Petroleum Technology Conference, Doha, 19-22 January. IPTC-17485-MS. https://doi.org/10.2523/IPTC-17485-MS
Liew, Y. Y., Fornasier, I., & Hartman, A. 2010. Integration of Mud Gas Analysis with Conventional Logs to Aid Fluid
Typing in Thinly Bedded, Argillaceous Clastic Reservoirs. Presented at the SPWLA 51st Annual Logging Symposium,
Perth, 19-23 June. SPWLA-2010-80310.
Oifoghe, S., Sy, R., & Okowi, V. 2018. Fluid Typing Using Magnetic Resonance Data with High Diffusivity. Presented
at the SPE Nigeria Annual International Conference and Exhibition, Lagos, 6-8 August. SPE-193377-MS. https://
doi.org/10.2118/193377-MS
Prammer, M. G., Bouton, J., & Masak, P. 2001. The Downhole NMR Fluid Analyzer. Presented at the SPWLA 42nd
Annual Logging Symposium, Houston, 17-20 June. SPWLA-2001-N.
14 SPE-201323-MS

Ramamoorthy, R., & Murphy, W. F. 1998. Fluid Identification Through Dynamic Modulus Decomposition in Carbonate
Reservoirs. Presented at the SPWLA 39th Annual Logging Symposium, Keystone, 26-28 May. SPWLA-1998-Q.
Souder, W. W. 2002. Using Sonic Logs to Predict Fluid Type. Petrophysics 43 (05). SPWLA-2002-v43n5a1.
Spears, R. W., & Saha, S. 2006. Improved Fluid Typing with NMR: Better Field Development Planning in Deepwater
Nigeria. Petrophysics 47 (06). SPWLA-2006-v47n6a2.
Yang, T., Arief, I. H., Niemann, M., Houbiers, M., Meisingset, K. K., Martins, A., & Froelich, L. 2019a. A Machine
Learning Approach to Predict Gas Oil Ratio Based on Advanced Mud Gas Data. Presented at the SPE Europec featured
at 81st EAGE Conference and Exhibition, London, 3-6 June. SPE-195459-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/195459-MS.
Yang, T., Arief, I. H., Niemann, M., & Houbiers, M. 2019b. Reservoir Fluid Data Acquisition Using Advanced Mud
Logging Gas in Shale Reservoirs. Presented at the Unconventional Resources TechnologyUnconventional Resources
Technology Conference, Denver, 22-24 July. URTEC-2019-383-MS. https://doi.org/10.15530/urtec-2019-383
Yang, T., Yerkinkyzy, G., Uleberg, K., Arief, I.: "Predict Reservoir Fluid Properties from Advanced Mud Gas Data",
SPE-201635-MS. SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, 12-14 October, Houston, USA, 2020.