SPE-171714-MS

New Approach for Formation Evaluation Using Advanced Mud Gas

Analysis of Conventional and Unconventional Reservoirs: A Case Study
from Onshore UAE
Atef Farouk, ADCO; Giovanni N. Pinna, Weatherford; Syed Asif Ahsan, and Gehad Mahmoud, ADCO;
Stephanie Heard, Weatherford; Ahmed Al Hanaee, Kanu Kingsley, and A. Al Shehhi, ADCO

Copyright 2014, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition and Conference held in Abu Dhabi, UAE, 10 –13 November 2014.

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
The formation evaluation of any wildcat, exploratory and/or appraisal well is challenging due to scarcity
of information with respect to reservoir presence, its characterization and the expected pressure. It is
expected that hydrocarbon bearing reservoirs, especially those located in low resistivity zones and without
core for calibration of physical properties, might possibly be overlooked as these are difficult to interpret
from petrophysical logs for the presence or absence of hydrocarbons.
An advanced surface mud gas acquisition and analysis system, based on membrane technology, was
utilized for the first time in the United Arab Emirates. Advanced mud gas analysis and interpretation of
conventional and unconventional carbonate reservoirs sections identified interesting hydrocarbon bearing
zones which were subsequently confirmed by integration of core, electric log and well-test data.
An exploratory well was drilled to explore the hydrocarbon potential of unconventional reservoirs and
appraise the conventional carbonate reservoir. Reliable results were achieved in a highly challenging
environment including petrophysical uncertainty and a variety of reservoir fluids present. The results from
the advanced mud gas analysis were confirmed by down hole sample testing results.
The approach developed can be modified or customized to explore/appraise a prospect to capture any
hydrocarbon zones, including by-passed zones, and subsequently optimize logging and testing programs
resulting in a reliable data set and cost savings.

Introduction
The identification of fluid type while drilling in a tight reservoir is crucial to all technical disciplines
managing or monitoring drilling activities (e.g. geologist, petrophysicist, drilling and reservoir engineers)
in order to execute and/or modify the proposed well program.
One of the most common methods for formation evaluation and fluid identification while drilling is
logging while drilling (LWD) but this method has uncertainties in tight reservoirs and needs support and
confirmation from other methods, which are most likely interfacing only with the reservoir zones.
2 SPE-171714-MS

Figure 1—A log representing the different sub-zones for the interested reservoir.

Figure 2—Thin section images for zones A, B & C

Conventional mud logging services are considered the most popular method to identify the fluid type
while drilling in addition to a lot of other objectives such as; lithology description, sample retrieval, gas
detection, and monitoring of rig operations. However, traditional mud logging gas detection methods have
limitations when qualifying the amount of gas coming from reservoirs because of inefficiencies associated
with traditional agitator type gas traps resulting from fluctuating mud levels, variable mud densities and
viscosities, and changes in mud temperature. These limitations are substantially reduced with membrane-
based advanced surface mud gas acquisition technology.
This paper will introduce the integration/comparison between a membrane-based advanced surface
mud gas acquisition system and the well data analysis (core data, logs, test and PVT (Pressure Volume
Temperature) in conventional reservoirs, Moreover in unconventional reservoir integration was done
between the advanced gas analysis with logs and core data which showed a very good match however the
test data and PVT analysis still need to be proved (not yet done).
SPE-171714-MS 3

Figure 3—Differences in oil shows staining from the slabbed core under normal & UV light

Figure 4 —Semi-permeable membrane installed by the shakers with probe immersed in the header box.

Geological Background
The undeveloped reservoir in this study is in one of Abu Dhabi’s onshore fields with a limited number
of total well penetrations. Only one sample for test data was retrieved in the reservoir. The reservoir
thickness is 60 feet, and consists of three distinct reservoir zones namely A, B and C from top to bottom
4 SPE-171714-MS

Figure 5—Methane percentage (C1%) and fluid phase identification.

Figure 6 —Formation Evaluation method for advanced gas application.

respectively. These zones are separated by tight, low porosity and permeability zones that are commonly
referred to as dense zones (Figure 1).
Zone C at the base is dominated by algal boundstone, skeletal packstone-floatstone, with average
porosity of 13% and permeability of 1.3mD. Light brown oil stains are observed from core data; however
no supporting fluid analysis or test was performed.
The Zone B reservoir is dominated by wackestone and highly argillaceous packstone. The average
porosity is 20%, with average permeability of 0.9mD. Core data from several wells consistently show
patchy oil stain development due to intensive burrowing during or subsequently after deposition (Figure
2 & 3).
The water saturation calculated from available wells showed values of more than 90%. The core data
revealed the reservoir is dominated by microporosity and is considered a low resistivity pay zone, which
accounts for the high water saturation.
Zone A is dominated by skeletal packstone. High porosity development from skeletal dissolution
increases the reservoirs production potential with average porosity of 20% and permeability of 1.3mD.
SPE-171714-MS 5

Figure 7—Quality Control Flow Chart

The petrophysical evaluation for this reservoir face many challenges as having low resistivity and low
permeability, character; without special logs (such as NMR, Dielectric) increased the uncertainties in
water saturation calculations. Moreover no or limited test data availability. This combination of challenges
makes the evaluation for water saturation difficult and places a large reliance on the accurate detection and
calculation of hydrocarbons at surface.

Advanced Mud Gas Analysis Technology

The advanced mud logging service consisted of the application of the semi-permeable membrane gas
extractor fully immersed in mud (30 inches under the air/mud interface) and the high speed thermal
conductivity detector placed 3m from the point of extraction. The gas line consisted of a heated umbilical
to prevent gas condensation from occurring which can cause lack of detection of heavier components. The
semi-permeable membrane allows the passage of light and heavy hydrocarbon components (free or
dissolved) in the mud for a more enhanced range of hydrocarbon components and more accurate fluid
analysis.
The gas molecules are carried to the gas detector by helium gas that constantly flushes the membrane.
Once the liberated molecules arrive at the chromatograph’s thermal conductivity detector (TCD), they are
measured and proprietary software calculates the exact concentration of each component in mud (total
soluble phase and non-soluble phase) based on the mud temperature, mud type, and known gas solubility
related to the mud type.
This unique methodology produces a more precise measurement that is not based on previously
processed data, but is applicable for any type of reservoir including new explorative wells.
The application of helium carrier gas offers several advantages:
6 SPE-171714-MS

Figure 8 —Petrophysical evaluation based on LWD and conventional gas analysis.

Figure 9 —Conventional Mud Log for all zones of interest.

1. It is a non-explosive mixture that improves safety at the well site, and permits placement of the
detector near the point of extraction.
2. Helium, a noble gas, has no interaction with the other hydrocarbon molecules.
The thermal conductivity detector provides three main advantages:
1. Excellent gas peak separation, especially between methane and propane and also between ethane
and propene (commonly produced by bit metamorphism).
2. Detection of non-hydrocarbon molecules such as nitrogen and carbon dioxide. When H2 or N2 is
the carrier gas, the TCD chromatograph represents the sufficient detector for helium.
3. Fast and easy calibration compared to the standard flame ionization detector (FID) calibration
which reduces human error and improves data quality.
During drilling of the 12¼⬙ hole section the semi-permeable membrane probe was positioned in the
header box (gas OUT position) by the outlet of the flow line (Figure 4). This position provided an
SPE-171714-MS 7

Figure 10 —LWD data and Gas While Drilling from advanced mud logging plot generated in semi-real time. The top of the reservoir is characterized
by increment of hydrocarbons. Zone A presents consistent heavy components.

Figure 11—Hydrocarbon fingerprints from Gas While Drilling are displayed on the left. The zones have all have a similar fingerprint. The ternary
plot (on the right) discriminates the Zones A, B and C. In particular, as water saturation increases the greater the dispersion of the points in zone
B (blue).

excellent flow regime and no issues with cuttings build up, the two main factors that generally inhibit the
quality of gas data obtained.
The following gas components were monitored by the detector:
8 SPE-171714-MS

Figure 12—C1/C3 versus C2/C3 binary plot. The 3 areas present a single trend, most probably in line with a single source rock. The compartmen-
talization could be driven mainly by the rock properties, where zone A presents greater gas ratios (higher permeability) compared with Zone C
(tighter formation). Zone B is influenced by the water saturation (dispersed diamonds).

● Alkanes: Methane (C1), Ethane (C2), Propane (C3), iso-Butane (iC4), normal-Butane (nC4),
iso-Pentane (iC5), normal-Pentane (nC5), normal-Hexane (nC6), normal-Heptane (nC7), normal-
Octane (nC8).
● Aromatics: Benzene (C6H6), Toluene (C7H8)
● Other gases: Carbon Dioxide (CO2), Nitrogen (N2).

Note: Other gases (Methylcyclohexane, Ethene and Propene) can be potentially measured.
Mud gas analysis in formation evaluation consists of: gas trend observation, hydrocarbon bearing zone
and associated seals, fluid phase characterization based on gas ratios and integration with other supporting
data (LWD, WL, PVT, etc.).

Advanced Real-Time Gas Measurement Methodology

Before proceeding with the gas ratios analysis, the acquired gas data must be evaluated considering the
following supporting information: local geological information, LWD, and Mud Report Data vs time and
depth.
As a standard procedure, calibration checks are carried out prior to drilling each phase or during
tripping within the same phase. Probe checks are carried out in such a way that any blockages within the
system will also be identified.
Fresh mud chromatography (Mud Background Analysis or Fingerprint) is performed before the start of
each new drilled section by the semi-permeable membrane system. The probe with the membrane is
placed in a sample of drilling mud and performed to identify any existing hydrocarbon components, or
components of the mud system that are measured by the chromatograph within the drilling mud.
SPE-171714-MS 9

Figure 13—Fluid analysis while drilling from the advanced gas analysis suggested presence of oil. Zone A presents higher C1% volume compared
to Zone C, while the Zone B is influenced by the water saturation.

Hydrocarbon components retained within the chromatograph columns will be removed by ‘burning
off’.
10 SPE-171714-MS

Figure 14 —The Fluid Saturation vs Gas/Liquid plots an increase in water saturation within Zone B. The binary plot of Fluid Mobility vs Gas/Liquid
could give a qualitative indication about the rock permeability. The greater the Gas/Liquid ratio from gas while drilling technique, the greater the
expected GOR (Gas/Oil Ratio) from the well testing.
SPE-171714-MS 11

Figure 15—From the gas while drilling, it was possible to calculate the fluid density from the molecular mass weight of each component measured.
Zone A shows APIⴝ42. This value is indicative of high gravity oil (0.80<SG<0.85), and was confirmed by the PVT results. Zone C showed an increase
in specific gravity. In this case the lower rock permeability influenced the gas while drilling value; the tighter the rock the lower the possibility of
light components escaping from the pores of the rock, which could produce an underestimated value. Zone B presents values around 1 SG, due to
the water presence.

If non-formation gases are detected, they are considered contamination gas and must be identified to
remove any confusion when formation gases are detected and analyzed.
Once a potential reservoir has been identified by total hydrocarbon levels over 3 to 5 times the
background, the gases measured can used in multiple gas ratios and plotting techniques to enhance
formation evaluation. The gas data should however, always be compared with other types of real-time data
as possible, such as drilling parameters, cuttings analysis and fluorescence indications, and eventually
with wireline logs in order to provide an overall and consistent interpretation of potential hydrocarbon
bearing zones.
The gas ratio interpretation system is developed worldwide and can be adjusted on a regional basis to:
y Improve analytical methodologies while drilling
y Identify reservoirs and reservoir limits
y Estimate fluid mobility
y Characterizee hydrocarbons
y Determine net pay zones
y Facilitate picking formation tops and geological correlations with other wells.
y Estimate maturity of hydrocarbons in terms of fractionation, biodegradation and water
washing
y Perform fluid correlation studies on a field by field and regional perspective.
The following gas ratios can be utilized in both conventional and unconventional reservoirs and are the
primary ratios for initial fluid identification and reservoir quality assessments:
12 SPE-171714-MS

Figure 16 —Pressure gradient for Zones A, B & C (scattered points, no gradient).

Figure 17—Perforation intervals (Track 6) and the PVT samples with average downhole mobilities (Track 7) for Zones A, B & C.

Total Hydrocarbon Components (THC) is the sum of the (alkanes and aromatics) hydrocarbons
measured by the chromatograph.
THC⫽C1⫹C2⫹C3⫹iC4⫹nC4⫹iC5⫹nC5⫹C6⫹C7⫹C8⫹Benzene⫹Toluene.
SPE-171714-MS 13

Figure 18 —The fluid sample from Zone A is comparably lighter than Zone C, except for oil viscosity. The PVT parameter measured from Zone A
is consistently less dense than fluid sample from Zone C.

All gas ratios have to be compared to the THC. The trend of THC is already explicative although it
doesn’t give any information about the fluid phase of the reservoir. The THC and also the background gas
percentage have to be indicated in the plot.
A significant gas event produces FG⬎3 to 5*BG (formation gas at least 3 to 5 times greater than
background gas).
The percentage of methane (C1%) gives an indication about the fluid phase and about lithological
change.
For conventional reservoirs the table in Figure 6 can be used as reference:
C1/C2 Ratio
C1/C2 ⬎ 22 Gas phase
14⬍ C1/C2 ⬍ 22 Condensate phase
C1/C2 ⬍ 14 Oil phase
Fluid Mobility/Potential Porosity FM/PP ⫽ (C1⫹C2)/(C4⫹C5) is a ratio between alkanes with
different molecular size that escape from the porous walls of the rock with different mobilities. It is a
qualitative indication for fluid mobility. In an intercalation of sand and shale FM⬎10 indicates sand and
it can be locally calibrated.
For unconventional reservoirs this ratio gives an indication of potential porosity.
Gas/Liquid (C1ⴙC2ⴙC3ⴙiC4ⴙnC4) / (iC5ⴙnC5ⴙC6ⴙC7ⴙC8) ratio is a ratio between those
compounds that exist in gas phase at 1 atm and 20° C and those compounds that exist in liquid phase
always at 1 atm and 20° C.
Gas/Liquid ⬍ 10 ⫽ Very viscous hydrocarbon
10⬍Gas/Liquid⬍100 ⫽ Oil
100⬍Gas/Liquid⬍200 ⫽ Condensate
100⬍Gas/Liquid⬍1000 ⫽ gas.
HC ⫽ C1/(C4⫹C5⫹C6⫹C7⫹C8)
ARO/ALK ⫽ (Benzene⫹Toluene)/(C1⫹C2⫹C3⫹C4⫹C5⫹C6⫹C7⫹C8)
HC highlights the increment of methane, hence the permeable zones. ARO/ALK produces a local
decrease in presence of hydrocarbons. The larger the area of crossover on the plot is, the higher the
hydrocarbon enrichment is. Lighter products produce larger areas.
14 SPE-171714-MS

Figure 19 —Test results summary for Zone C

Light Heavy Ratio (LHR) ⫽ (C1⫹C2)/(C3⫹C4⫹C5⫹C6⫹C7⫹C8)

This indicates fluid density. In general a liquid phase has LHR⬍20 and gas phase has LHR⬎20.
WH (Wetness) vs. BH (Balance) vs. CH (Character)
Wetness ⫽ (C2⫹C3 ⫹ iC4 ⫹ nC4⫹ iC5 ⫹ nC5)/(C1⫹C2⫹C3 ⫹ iC4 ⫹ nC4 ⫹ iC5 ⫹ nC5) x 100
Balance ⫽ (C1 ⫹ C2)/(C3 ⫹ iC4 ⫹ nC4 ⫹ iC5 ⫹ nC5)
Character ⫽ (iC4 ⫹ nC4 ⫹ iC5 ⫹ nC5)/C3
Fluid Saturation (FS) ⫽ (C1/C3)-(C1/C4)
Referenced from Pixler ratios, these ratios indicate water presence whenever this ratio is positive and
hydrocarbon (HC) presence whenever this ratio is negative. In other words, the FS trend qualitatively
displays the relative increment or decrement of Sw/Sh (water saturation versus hydrocarbon saturation).
For unconventional reservoirs such as shale gas, tight gas sands/Carbonates, coalbed methane (CBM), gas
ratios are generally lower than conventional reservoirs due to low porosity. This is due to the fact that the lower
the porosity, the lower the mobility of the molecules to escape from the porous walls. During analysis it is
important to observe the background gas and the significant gas events in relation to the lithology.
Quality Control
The standard QC best practice starts from the master calibration which occurs at the beginning of the job.
The maximum acceptable calibration gas error on a standard job is as follows:

y C1 1%
y C2 to C8 5%
y Toluene, CO2, N2 5%
y Benzene 20%
SPE-171714-MS 15

Figure 20 —Comingle test results summary for Zone C and Zone A

Calibration tests are performed before any new bit run. If the test produces an error outside of the
acceptable limits, a master calibration is performed again.
After calibration, three different measurements are stored in the database:
y Baseline reading (values in absence of formation gas, with the membrane in air);
y Mud fingerprint (values in absence of formation gas, with the membrane in mud);
y Formation gas (values during drilling, reaming, swabbing and during POOH or RIH).
Figure 7 summarizes the quality control performed for each of the measurements.

The Case Study

The case study is introducing the integration work done in a conventional carbonate reservoir where a
vertical well was recently drilled in one fields of Abu Dhabi, the reservoir of interest was covered with
an extensive logging program including LWD, conventional and special Wire line logs, and both
conventional and advanced mud gas analysis.
For the unconventional reservoir same technique and methodology was applied however it needs to
confirm with well test data which will be done later.
The petrophysical evaluation for logging while drilling (LWD) logs showed good hydrocarbon
saturation in the top and bottom zones (A & C). Zone B was evaluated as a water zone (Figure 8).
Conventional gas analysis showed a high peak of gas across Zone A only, the gas dropped in Zones
B and C. Core and cuttings descriptions showed very good oil staining with very good fluorescence in
both Zones A and C, however in Zone B there was no oil or oil staining (Figure 9).
Advanced gas analysis based on membrane technology showed that the fluid type in Zones A and C
is oil but with different properties; the oil in Zone A is lighter than the oil in Zone C (Figures 10 to 13).
The advanced gas analysis also indicated water in the middle reservoir B (Figure 14).
A wire line formation pressure test showed scattered points and no clear gradient was defined due to
the tight nature of the reservoir (Figure 16). However formation testing sampling was acquired and three
16 SPE-171714-MS

PVT samples were collected in Zone A, B & C respectively (Figure 17). Laboratory analysis was carried
out one the three PVT samples and the results indicate that the oil in zone A is lighter than the oil in Zone
C (Figure 18). Zone B however, is water; these results wholly match with the advanced gas analysis and
interpretation.
In terms of density (API), fluid sample from Zone A has a higher value which implies less density than
Zone C. Also, in terms of mole percent of components, Zone A has more methane (C1) and less of the
heavy components. Furthermore, it has higher solution GOR and oil formation volume factor.
A cased hole test was performed only in Zone C and tested oil with average rate of about 350 stb/d.
The basic sediment and water (BS&W) test stabilized at 22% and GOR at 1000scf/stb (Figure 19).
Later, Zone A was perforated and both zones were tested commingled. The average rate recorded was
550 stb/d; the BS&W reduced to 10% and fairly stable GOR of 1000scf/stb (Figure 20).
Conclusions
In exploration and appraisal reservoirs, the advanced mud gas analysis technique has proven to be
predictive and valuable for formation evaluation and fluid identification especially in tight and low
resistivity pay reservoirs.
This developed approach can be modeled to explore/appraise a prospect to capture any hydrocarbon
zones, including by-passed zones, and subsequently optimize logging and testing programs resulting in
cost saving and a reliable data set.
The advanced gas detection method provided information about the fluid type, reservoir compartmen-
talization and fractionation occurring between Zone A and Zone C, and highlighted increased water
saturation within Zone B. Fluid analysis and properties interpreted from the advanced mud gas analysis
compared favorably with the PVT laboratory analysis and test results.

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Abu Dhabi National Oil Company (ADNOC) and Abu Dhabi Company
for Onshore Oil Operations (ADCO) for permission to publish and present the figures shown, and both
ADCO and Weathrford Oilfield Services for the time and effort required to publish this paper.

About the authors

Atef Farouk Abdelaal has more than 17 years experience in oil industry, currently he is working as a
Senior Field Study Petrophysicist for Abu Dhabi Company for Onshore Oil Operations (ADCO). With
ADCO he is focusing mainly on exploration and undeveloped fields and reservoirs. Before joining
ADCO, Atef worked in Egypt for Agiba-ENI, APACHE and Dana-Gas, where he was involved in
exploration wells and prospect evaluations in Egypt, Tunisia, Nigeria and Iran. He earned a Bachelor’s
degree in Geology/Geophysics in 1995 from Ain Shams University, Egypt and has previous experience
as an operational geologist and in mud logging. Atef is member in SPWLA, SPE & SEG.
Giovanni Nicola Pinna is a Senior Formation Evaluation Specialist with Weatherford Surface
Logging. He holds an MSc in Geology from the University of Cagliari, where he worked with XRF, EDS
and WDS. Former teacher of Mathematics, Chemistry and Physics, he joined the Oil Industry in 2002. In
the last 9 years Giovanni has become expert in Gas Whilst Drilling and Quality Control process, focusing
on gas interpretative models and correlation with WLL, DST data, PVT, MDT, SRA, XRF, XRD,
isotopes, applying his research in conventional and unconventional reservoirs.
Stephanie Heard is currently the Global Product Line Manager for Advanced Hydrocarbon Evaluation
and Interpretation with Weatherford Surface Logging. She has over 14 years experience in the oil industry,
specifically with oil service companies, and holds a Bachelor’s degree in Geology from Oberlin College.
Her experience originated with laboratory XRD, SEM, and XRF analysis and interpretation. Following
laboratory work, she focused on Business Development for geochemistry, field and laboratory formation
SPE-171714-MS 17

analysis, microbiology, and fluids analysis. Stephanie joined Weatherford in 2010 as the Region Forma-
tion Evalution Manager, providing hydrocarbon interpretation, business and production line development,
and general surface gas evaluation support for North America.
Syed Asif Ahsan Syed Asif Ahsan attained his B. Sc. (Hons.) and M. Sc. degrees from University of
Karachi in 1987. In 1988 he proceeded to Norway where he completed M. Phil and Ph. D. in Petroleum
Geochemistry. During his stay in Norway, Dr. Asif worked for BP Norge UA and Saga Petroleum a.s. Dr.
Asif has been involved in a team that did pioneering work in petroleum inclusion studies. He came back
to Pakistan in 1999 and worked for BP Pakistan and Mari Gas Company Limited. Dr. Asif’s main fields
of interest have been oil-oil, oil-source, gas-oil and gas-source rock correlations using tools in petroleum
geochemistry. Studies of petroleum inclusions are also been among his interests. Previously, he has
worked on projects related to petroleum phase predictions, understanding gas compositional variations
and field compartmentalization. Currently, he is working as Senior Geochemist in the EUFR department
of ADCO
Kanu Kingsley is a Senior Reservoir Engineer with Abu Dhabi Company for Onshore Oil Operations
(ADCO) where he focuses mainly on building reservoir simulation models for undeveloped fields and
reservoirs. Prior to joining ADCO, Kanu had worked for Schlumberger – (DCS - Consulting services) as
reservoir engineer in many countries: Libya, Nigeria, Thailand, Romania, India etc. He has over 14 years
experience in oil and gas industry. Also, Kanu has M.Sc (Petroleum Engineering) from Heriow-Watt
University and member of SPE.
Gehad Hegazi is operation team leader in exploration and undeveloped reservoirs in ADCO, he has
more than 16 years experience in oil & gas industry, he has Ph.D. In petroleum engineering and he gave
teaching courses of petroleum engineering in British university in Cairo, he is SPE member.
Ahmed Al Hanaee has 3 years experience in oil industry, currently he is working as a Study
Petrophysicist for Abu Dhabi Company for Onshore Oil Operations (ADCO). With ADCO he is focusing
mainly on exploration and undeveloped fields and reservoirs. He holded a Bachelor’s degree in Petroleum
Geosciences Engineering in 2011 from the Petroleum Institute - Abu Dhabi, UAE. Ahmed is a member
in SPWLA and SPE.
Amani Al Shehhi has work as reservoir engineer with 8 years’ experience in an Abu Dhabi Oil
Company Onshore (ADCO). She works as a management reservoir engineer for undeveloped reservoir in
onshore field. Amani has Bachelor’s degree in Chemical Engineer from Al Ain University, UAE she is
an SPE membership.

References
Atef Farouk, ADCO, SPE; Suryadi Wibowo, SPE; Gary Aillud, ADCO; Amanei Al Shehhi, ADCO.
Water Saturation Uncertainty of Tight, Microporosity Dominated Carbonate Reservoirs and the Impact on
Hydrocarbon Volume; Case Study from Abu Dhabi, UAE.
Stephen Newton; Chengbing Liu; Majed Sultan Al-Dwaish; Musaad Al-Harbi; Javad Esterabadi;
Ahmad Shoeibi; Gionata Ferroni. The application of mud gas analysis in the evaluation of a complex
carbonate reservoir (SPWLA, May 18-22, 2014).
C. Carugo, Eni; S. Joshi, Shlumberger; L. Magini, Eni Ghana; Giovanni N. Pinna, Weatherford. A
multidisciplinary application for an exploration well in the Tano basin, Ghana (EAGE 2012).
Graziano Capone; Lilik Budi Riyanto; Carlo Carugo; Gionata Ferroni. Advanced mud gas detection
system improves formation fluid characterization while drilling in challenging Indonesia deepwater: a
case history (IPA12-E-014, 2012).
Giovanni Pinna; Karim ElMaslout; David Tonner; David Forber; William Davies; J Chopty; M.
Jaipersad The benefits and application of semi-permeable membrane surface gas detection during
managed pressure drilling (SPE14308 14th June 2011).
18 SPE-171714-MS

Michele Sabiu; Giovanni Pinna; David Tonner; Diego Ortiz,. Gas analysis whilst drilling in ultra-
viscous hydrocarbons (Second EAGE Workshop on Tar Mats & Heavy Oil 2010).
Giovanni Pinna and Doug Law, Weatherford. Advances gas interpretation whilst drilling (SPWLA
49th Annual Logging Symposium, May 25-28, 2008).
Carugo C.; Chelini V.; El Manaa S. Gas While Drilling improves Formation Evaluation in Tight
Reservoir, Southern Tunisia (EAGE, Tunis, 2003).
Beda G.; Quagliaroli R.; Segalini G.; Barraud A.; Mitchell A. Gas while drilling (GWD): a real time
geologic and reservoir Interpretation tool (SPWLA 1999 conference).