SPE 109902

Characterization of Arab Formation Carbonates Utilizing Real-Time Formation

Pressure and Mobility Data
Seifert, Douglas J., Neumann, Peter M., SPE, and Dossary, Saleh M., SPE, Saudi Aramco, and Chew, Kuen Kong,
Hahne, Ulrich, SPE, Bacciarelli, Mark, SPE, and Pragt, Jos, Baker Hughes Inteq

Copyright 2007, Society of Petroleum Engineers

control of each acquired data set. An extensive, highly
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2007 SPE Annual Technical Conference and detailed, data set was transmitted to the end user, displayed
Exhibition held in Anaheim, California, U.S.A., 11–14 November 2007.
real time both on the rig-site as well as in the operator data-
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
center to properly place the horizontal well for its intended
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to objective.
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
Introduction
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than
300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous With the introduction of LWD formation pressure testers, it
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, Texas 75083-3836 U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
has become possible to acquire formation pressure and
mobility data during short breaks in the drilling process.
Formation pore pressure and near-wellbore mobility are key
Abstract parameters for reservoir description. Traditionally, these data
are acquired with wireline formation testers upon reaching
Wireline logging formation testing tools have long been used section or well Total Depth (TD). In high-angle wells, this is a
in the Arabian Peninsula for open hole formation pressure time-consuming operation, as the tools must be conveyed by
testing.Presently, a large number of wells are being drilled drillpipe. Providing this type of formation evaluation data with
horizontally as producers and injectors, and often even as an LWD tool allows for a continuous approach to data
multilateral wells. This aggravates or prevents the use of evaluation and decision making and represents a significant
conventional wireline logging technology. Formation pressure opportunity for safe and cost-efficient wellbore construction1.
data are required to monitor the efficiency of production and
injection for pressure maintenance. This paper discusses the application of Formation
Pressure While Drilling (FPWD) in some of the oil fields of
The Arab formation is a very prolific producing formation Saudi Arabia with different applications and challenges:
that consists of several members deposited in a carbonate shelf
environment. Besides formation pressure, a representative • In a production well, a FPWD tool was used to evaluate
permeability is an important element of the data acquisition. formation pressure of seperate formations for drilling
The Arab formation porosity and permeability are variable and optimization. Special attention was paid to operating
dependant on original facies, mineralogy and diagenesis. procedure and data delivery as real time drilling
Highly porous rock can have variable permeability dependant optimization decisions were being made with the data.
on a number of these factors. • In a power water injector well the technology was used to
geosteer a 6 1/8” open hole section parallel to the strike
Conventional logs can show zones to be porous and of the formation and OWC. Again, real time drilling
hydrocarbon filled. These zones can be difficult to produce or decisions were being made.
inject due the presence of viscous heavy oil and tar. Therefore • It was used to identify tar with formation pressure and
complicating the geosteering of the horizontal producers and mobility data along with LWD NMR porosity-density
injections. It has been found that the best way of recognizing data.
such zones reliably, is through the utilization of real-time • It has been used for reservoir management applications to
formation pressure testing data while drilling, preferably monitor injection pressure and production in situations
combined with magnetic resonance data. where running wireline tools would be difficult.

This paper will discuss examples of carbonate reservoir Drilling BHA and Proceedure
characterization utilizing formation pressure testing in
combination with a full LWD logging suite. Operating The Drilling Bottom Hole Assembly (BHA) is designed
procedures were specifically optimized to allow quality primarily to drill the required directional well path correctly
2 SPE 109902

and efficiently. An integrated mud motor combined with a results are transmitted to the surface. Then a detailed 60 or 120
rotary steerable system is preferred for the type of wells being pressure point curve is transmitted and displayed at the
drilled for these long horizontal well applications. Combining surface. A pump-cycle or separate downlink will then switch
a rotary steerable system with a motor mitigates stick slip in the tool back to normal LWD logging mode.
long lateral sections, providing better hole quality.
Rotary Steerable Resistivity, Az. Gamma,
Bit Stabilizer Directional, An. Pressure High Speed Telemetry
A typical BHA incorporates the LWD sensors including
natural gamma ray, multiple propagation resistivity, bulk
density, photoelectric, acoustic caliper, neutron porosity and
formation pressure tools above the rotary steerable or motor Rotational Density,
Neutron Porosity Formation Pressure, Mobility
assembly. Optional high resolution electrical imaging and
NMR have been used in additional cases which have allowed
for more complete formation evaluation of the reservoir
section while drilling. The only capabilities then lacking were Electrical Resistivity Nuclear Magnetic Resonance,
Image T2 Distribution
the ability to take a fluid and/or a rock sample. Depending on
the well’s geosteering or data acquisition requirements, these
sensor subs can be positioned for optimal sensor to bit distance
should a particular measurement require closer to bit priority. Figure 1: “Hexa Combo” BHA used in one of the wells to
identify tar with formation pressure and mobility data
The LWD tool string, including the pressure testing derived by the LWD formation pressure tester and LWD
device, is designed to operate in any type of drilling NMR Porosity-density data.
environment and wide range of hole sizes ranging from 17
1/2” to 5 7/8”. The real-time pulsed data is chosen such that
during drilling, formation evaluation and imaging BHA and Sealing Efficiency
measurements are transmitted to surface continuously. The
type of data transmitted and the data rate can be changed while To analyze the effect of the utilized drilling assemblies,
drilling by performing a downlink, a controlled variation of pressure test sealing efficiency was compared. Bent housing
the flow rate, detected by the tool as change in command. mud motors are known to drill spiral boreholes in rotational
While drilling with multi-sensor BHA’s, as in Figure 1, mode. In addition, each time a mud-motor is pulled off the
telemetry rates of up to 20 bits per second have been used to bottom; ledges can form due to the side cutting action of the
provide high density LWD data of all sensors is in real time. PDC drilling bits used.

Testing procedures used are those that had been learned Wells drilled with the rotary steerable BHA show a
from many years of utililizing FPWD tools2, 3. Field remarkably high sealing success. Conventional motor
procedures for the permeable Arab carbonates can be equipped BHA’s show a lower seal success, although
summarized as follows: Determine compression versus tension acceptable in comparison to conventional pressure test
depth difference. Drill the stand down that has the depth where acquisition, Table 1. Comparisons were done to show whether
the formation pressure is to be measured. The drill pipe is hole or bit size would play a role in operating efficiency. The
worked to release torque and orient the pad of the FPWD. The examples described in this paper represent hole-sections
BHA is pulled in tension in one complete motion to the drilled with 6 1/8” and 8 1/2” bits. No difference in sealing
desired depth that has been determined by the difference in the performance was observed between the two sizes.
compression-tension depth. Proceed with test. If the test is
unsuccessful, pull up a few feet and repeat. LWD neutron- Pressure Seal
density porosity measurements are used to ensure that BHA Type No Seal
Stations Success
pressures were attempted in high porosity formations and Rotary Steerable BHA 52 0 100%
therefore assumed to be of high permeability. Additionally, for AKO Mud Motor BHA 17 4 76%
geosteering, for the first 500 ft of drilling, a formation pressure
was taken every 100 ft to become familiar with the pressure Table 1. Comparison of the pressure test seal success
profile. Thereafter, pressures were scheduled to be taken every versus BHA type
500 ft to confirm the location of the well in the strata. More
pressures would be taken if necessary to steer the well. Data Acquisition

In tight carbonate formations where low mobilities can be While drilling, a prospective porous interval is identified by
expected drilling with a motor can cause motor noise up to one the density-neutron log. Real time identification of suitable
psi4. Consideration should be made whether to use a rotary porous zones increases the chances of a good pressure test. In
steerable or position the formation tester as far from the motor most cases, the formation exposure time is typically over a
as possible. few hours which allows for mud cake buildup to seal the
formation from the borehole.
The tool is programmed in a way that after a pressure test,
first the acquired pressures, mobility and quality control data
SPE 109902 3

The FPWD tool is positioned at the depth of interest in the

X800
reservoir and a downlink command is sent to activate a 3, 5, 7
or 10 minute pressure test. The tool confirms the downlink and
stops pulsing during the test. After the tool has performed

X850
A Reservoir
three drawdowns and build ups, and the monitored formation
pressure is stable to within a 0.1 psi/min tolerance, the pad is
Base A Anhydrite
retracted and the formation pressure, mobility and quality
control data is pulsed to surface.

X900
B reservoir

Orientation of the pad to high or low-side is basically not

required to obtain stable formation pressure3. It has been

X950
found, however, that low-side pressure testing often presents a
lower mobility compared to pressure testing on the high side
Figure 2. Shows that the Reservoir A + B is separated by a
of the borehole. This is interpreted as being caused by
20 ft Anhydrite layer.
formation damage present on low-side of the borehole. The
drill string usually lies on the low-side of the hole. With each
Figure 3 shows the details of the pressure points taken in
trip or pass of stabilizers, the mud cake and other solids are
the reservoirs. It shows that both reservoirs exhibit different
mechanically pressed into the formation pores. It is therefore
pressure regimes where the B reservoir has a higher reservoir
recommended to orient the sealing pad towards the high side
pressure than the A reservoir. Both reservoirs are isolated by
of the borehole.
the anhydrite layer between them and no fluid connectivity is
observed between them. This information is very critical for
The tool calculates near wellbore mobility using
the drilling of the deeper reservoirs below A and B where the
Formation Rate Analysis5 which utilizes combined drawdown
drilling fluid system must be carefully balanced in order to
and buildup data. This analysis considers the configuration of
prevent unnecessary drilling problems, either stuck pipe or
the pad type, tool design, drawdown and test time. The flow
formation fluid flow, which results in lost time. Using the
model is considered to be hemispherical Darcy type
FPWD date allows us to make real time drilling decisions in
isothermal, steady state flow.
these kinds of reservoirs.
The basic equation for calculating mobility is the FRA Pressure Plot (QTIF_401_0) Data

equation which can be expressed by: 0.46psi/ft+65psi

0.44psi/ft+620psi

⎛ μ ⎞⎛
Pressure, psia
dp (t ) ⎞ 3200 3400 3600 3800 4000 X200
4200 X400
4400 4600 X800
4800

p (t ) = p * −⎜⎜ ⎟⎟⎜ C sysVsys

X200 X400 X600 X800 X000 X600

+ qdd ⎟ 6800
X800

⎝ kGo ri ⎠⎝ dt ⎠ 6820
X820 A Reservoir
A Reservoir

(Symbols defined in the Nomenclature section) 6840

X840

X860
6860

This equation provides a value of mobility. After each

TVD,ft

X880
6880
drawdown the tool plots the pressure against formation rate B Reservoir Base A Anhydrite

and calculates both the mobility from the slope and also the X900
6900

correlation factor (R2). A high correlation factor indicates that X920

6920
B Reservoir

Darcy flow was achieved during the drawdown, and is the

basis for real time quality control. X940
6940
Overpressure zone??

X960
6960

Evaluating Formation Pressure

Figure 3. Shows pressure points taken along the wellbore,
confirming no fluid connectivity is present between both
The first application of this FPWD tool in Saudi Arabia
reservoirs.
formation pressure was to measure the pressure differential
between two separate reservoirs.
Geosteering with LWD Formation Pressure
Figure 2 shows carbonate reservoirs A and B in a field.
In a different oil field located in the Eastern Province of Saudi
Both reservoirs are separated by a 20 ft thick anhydrite layer. Arabia the formation pressure data of the LWD formation
Pressure tests were performed in these reservoirs in order to testers were used to geosteer in the horizontal section. The
quantify the reservoir pressure differential. well was designed to be geosteered above the tar mat to avoid
placing the well in the tar or heavy oil layer above the tar3,
Fig. 4 .

The field has a known undulating tar mat that was

partially delineated with vertical wells earlier in the life of the
field. Injection and wireline formation pressure tests
4 SPE 109902

confirmed the existence of a layer of viscous heavy oil on top Ray. (Col 1), Multiple Propagation Resistivity (Col 2),
of the tar that had to be avoided in order to meet business plan Density image (Col 3), Resistivity image (Col 4), NMR T2
injection rates3. distribution (Col 5), Density-Neutron-NMR data in (Col 6).
In blue (Col 2) are the mobility’s as measured by the
FTWD tool.

Reservoir Management

Figure 6 below shows the formation pressures versus True

Vertical Depth (TVD) for one of the example wells. The
hydrocarbon bearing zone at X200 ft TVD shows effects of
offset production. While the zones at X100 and X400 show
the effects of active offset pressure injection.

Pressure depletion and even elevated pressure due to

Figure 4. Sketch of a well where the LWD formation nearby water injection can be identified. With these results,
pressure tester was used to geosteer in the horizontal water injection strategy for that specific zone can be optimized
section above the tar mat to avoid injecting in the tar or to prevent pressure depletion or over pressuring, enhancing the
heavy oil layer underneath3. reservoir management and increasing the ultimate recovery.

Formation Pressure [psia]

2800 3000 3200 3400 3600 3800 4000 4200 4400 4600
Figure 5 is a log example from a well where a tar mat is X800 X000 X200 X400 X600 X800 X000 X200 X400 X600

7000
X000

encountered. Tar is not easily identifiable and needs an Tight (below 0.1 mD/cP)

Supercharged (0.1-3 mD/cP) X050

7050
integrated interpretation methodology. Typically, pressure Good (mobility 3-200 mD/cP) H2O Bearing
tests in tar will show as very tight tests (very low mobility) or Annular Pressure before
X100
7100

tight or lost seals. This alone will not identify tar as carbonates 7150
X150

naturally can have very low permeabilities, while higher 7200

X200
TVD [ft]

HC Bearing
(fractured) permeable zones may prohibit a good seal around
7250
X250
the pad/probe. In this case this is a known clean carbonate. It
has a low gamma ray, high resistivity and reasonable porosity 7300
X300

as indicated by density and neutron. Three key observations 7350

X350

indicate the presence of tar: NMR porosity under-call to the High Injection
pressure 7400
X400

equivalent density and neutron porosity, the presence of a fast

7450
X450
T2 decay in the Clay Bound Water region in the known clean
carbonate, and very low mobilities of 0.1 mD/cP and 0.2 Figure 6. Formation pressures versus True Vertical Depth
mD/cP from the LWD formation pressure tester. (TVD) for one of the discussed wells.

Pressure and Mobility Data

Table 2 shows a summary listing of the pressure data acquired

on the first three wells drilled with the LWD formation
pressure tester. It can be seen that the apparent permeability of
the different carbonates varies strongly. This has been
measured in different fields and different reservoirs.

X320
Interval Lowest Highest
Incl. Pressure
length Mobility Mobility
deg tests #
X330
0.2 mD/cP (ft) (mD/cP) (mD/cP)
Well 1 2300 93 38 0.1 29.0
X340
Well 2 3815 84 17 9.9 135.0
0.1 mD/cP
0.11 mD/cP Well 3 990 55 26 0.2 199.0
X350

Table 2. Overview of LWD pressure testing results in the

X360
first three wells where the tool was used.

X370

Figure 5. Log display of LWD data including Gamma

SPE 109902 5

Pressure Test Architecture

X400
Based on previous experience in Middle East Arab formation
X332.11
carbonates, an optimized tests sequence has been defined6. X200

This guarantees the shortest and most time-efficient method of X000

acquiring up to three repeatable formation pressures. This can
X800
be important in depleted zones which represent a higher risk of
getting stuck. Three tests are required since a single test would X600

not provide a good indication of potential supercharging. The

X400
drawdown and build up to formation pressure of the optimized
X126.046 X125.900
sequence consisting of: X200
X125.863
X000
1. Medium rate 5 cc or 10 cc initial drawdown and build
up to establish flow contact with the formation and
Figure 7. Pressure test history of a 64 mD/cP Arab
clean up the mud-cake.
carbonate. The horizontal axis ranges from 0 to 200
2. Second drawdown optimized based on the calculated
seconds.
mobility of the first test. Optionally the second
drawdown can be designed to be a large volume at a test history of a 0.2 mD/cP formation. In this case a so called
fixed rate similar to the first drawdown. “supercharged” test type was selected to pump as much fluid
3. A third and final drawdown that can be pressure or from the formation as possible, resulting in a deep drawdown.
rate controlled, or a combination of both. The first buildup pressure shows reasonable stabilization after
about 270 seconds. The choosen test time of 10 minutes was
In all cases the build up is only terminated after the not sufficient for the second 10 cc drawdown to stabilize. For
formation pressure has stabilized within a rate of this environment a longer test time is required if the objective
0.1psi/minute, measured over a 20 second interval. is to obtain at least two repeating formation pressures. At 0.05
mD/cP, only one drawdown and build up is observed in the
In the example wells, no evidence of tool plugging or test time of 10 minutes.
sanding was encountered. The only artifact often seen is a
sandface cleaning effect on the first drawdown, resulting in a X500
X644.82

lower calculated mobility for the first test. The mud-cake

X000 X654.416
cleaning process requires some delta pressure to effectively
X500
clean the well-formation pores. The mobility of the second and X646.731

third drawdown are therefore thought to be more X000

representative for the formation pressure and mobility. X500

X000
From the data gathered in these wells, three types of
X500
formation response can be observed and grouped based on
X000
mobility. The mobility ranges stress the complications of
obtaining formation pressure in real time in low permeable X500

formations in a limited time frame.

1) Carbonates with mobility above 0.3 mD/cP

Figure 7 shows the results of an optimized test in a 64 mD/cP

carbonate formation with approximately 1,200 psi
overbalance. The optimized test sequence here performed an
initial clean up, a second 300 psi pressure controlled
drawdown and a final rate controlled drawdrown which keeps
the pressure stable at 300 psi below formation pressure for a
minimum of 3 seconds. This allows mobility calculation using
a steady-state solution. The pressure test was completed after
about 180 seconds and the results are transmitted to surface.

2) Carbonates between 0.05 mD/cP and 0.3 mD/cP Figure 8. Pressure test history of a 0.2 mD/cP carbonate.
mobility

These are carbonates that have some permeability, although a 3) Carbonates below 0.05 mD/cP mobility
typical 10 minute test is not sufficient to obtain three
repeatable formation pressures. Figure 8 shows a pressure These formations essentially produce a “tight” response, Fig.
9, where the final buildup pressure after 10 minutes is far
6 SPE 109902

boutique below the lowest expected formation pressure. The upper plot shows the conventional pulsed data, the lower plot
build up is flat, and does not show a characteristic pressure shows a detailed pressure test history for which 60 pressures
transient of a producible formation. The pressure test took 600 are pulsed to surface. This detailed data set is optional, and is
seconds. In the 10 minute time frame, no stabilization of the normally only requested if the conventional data shows little
pressure occurs. The final buildup pressure is far below the pressure stability.
expected value.

Extremely low matrix permeability causes the tight X936.96 X931.97

X750
response mentioned above. This response can be due to either
a non-interconnected carbonate porosity framework, or by a X500
highly viscous product such as tar contained within the X294.23 X294.11 X294.17
carbonate pore space. Neumann3 showed a case history where X250

the presence of tar and pyrobitumen was confirmed by a tight

response of the LWD pressure test tool. The tar presence was X000 X942.31 X942.31

verified by sample cutting geochemical analysis. X751.56

X750

X500
X414.44
X000 X250

X500
X000

X000
X750
X500
X500
X000
X250
X500

X000
X000

X500 X750
X652.366

Figure 10. Real-time deliverable of a pressure test in

permeable (16 mD/cP) carbonate.

Where important decisions are made based on the real time log
results, a fast interface has proven to be worth the extra
investment. Detailed pressure history is extremely important
on deciding whether the quality of the test is an indicator of
low mobility hydrocarbons. Geosteering and petrophysical
experts can be based in a central office, overviewing the
results from several wells. Expertise can be shared in real time
and corrective action taken and communicated swiftly.
Figure 9. Pressure test history of a tight 0 mD/cP
carbonate.
Conclusions

Real-Time Data Delivery Formation pressure measured by a LWD tool has proven itself
to be a viable alternative to wireline conveyed logging tools.
The pulsed data is initially decoded and displayed on the rig- This is has been especially true in high angle or horizontal
site acquisition system. Following a QC procedure, the data is wells.
then sent to a server and is displayed in the office. The real
time pressure data is available in different formats which can In Saudi Arabia where this technology was used the
be selected, Fig. 10: following was found:

1. Annular, Formation and Drawdown pressures - LWD formation pressure data has been used to optimize
combined with mobility and QC information. A basic mud weights and drill formations with large pressure
plot can be constructed based on this data. differentials.
2. 60 or 120 pressure points are used to construct a
detailed pressure history plot. - LWD pressure and mobility data combined with sample
surfaces measurements such as pyrolysis or hydrocarbon gas
The solid dots in Fig. 10 represent actual pulsed data. The ratios has been used to identify tar in real time which has been
blue line is interpolated based on the real time mobility. The utilized to geosteer the horizontal section of pressure injectors
SPE 109902 7

above a tar mat to avoid injecting into the tar or heavy oil 4. Strobel, J., Bochem, M., Doehler, M., Meister, M., Buysch, A.,
layer. Pragt, J. and Schrader, H.: “Comparison of Formation Pressure
and Mobility Data Derived During Formation Testing While
- Real time pressure and mobility data integrated with Drilling with a Mud Motor with Production Data and Core
Analysis.” This paper was prepared for presentation at the
conventional logs and LWD NMR has been used to indicate SPE/IADC Drilling Conference held in Amsterdam, The
the presence of movable or immovable hydrocarbon (tar) Netherlands, February 23-25, 2005.
while drilling.
5. Kasap, E., Huang, K., Shwe, T. and Georgi, D.: “Formation-
- LWD FPWD tools have been utilized to monitor field Rate-Analysis Technique: Combined Drawdown and Buildup
production and injection performance. Analysis for Wireline Formation Test Data,” paper SPE 36525
presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and
- LWD FPWD tools have been used to obtaining Exhibition, Denver, Colorado, October 6-9, 1996; SPE REE. 2,
formation pressure where a pipe conveyed wireline runs would June 1999.
be needed, especially in the presence of zones with pressure 6. Gravem, T., Holden, A.J., Normann, H.P., Pragt, J., Kroken, A.:
differentials that increase the risk of sticking wireline tools. “Second Generation of LWD Formation Pressure Testing
Technology Improves Data Quality, Increases Sealing
- Rig-to-Office data transmission and visualization Efficiency and Shortens Test Time,” SPWLA 47th Annual
reduces response time, improves communication and Logging Symposium, June 4-7, 2006.
effectively reduces rig-site manpower. The ability to provide a
detailed plot improves operational procedures and economizes
on operational time. Nomenclature

Csys Compressibility of the fluid in the tool (Lt2/m, 1/atm)

References k Permeability (L2, darcy)
p(t) buildup pressure (m/Lt2, atm)
1. Fletcher, J., Seymour, G., Flynn, T. and Burchell M.: p* true formation pressure (m/Lt2, atm)
“Formation Pressure Testing While Drilling for Deep Water qdd Volumetric flowrate (L3/ t, cm3/second)
Field Development,” SPE 96321 presented at the Offshore ri Probe radius (L, cm)
Europe 2005, Aberdeen, Scotland, U.K., September 6-9, 2005. t time (sec)
Vsys System (flowline) volume (L3, cm3)
2. Seifert, D.J., Dossari, S.M., Burinda, B.J. and Kellett, S.: µ viscosity (cp)
“Application of Formation Testing While Drilling in the Middle
East,” Paper presented at the 14th SPE Middle East Oil & Gas
Go probe geometric shape factor
Show and Conference held in Bahrain International Exhibition
Center, Bahrain, March 12-15, 2005.

3. Neumann, P.M, Salem, K.M., Tobert, G.P., Seifert, D.J.,

Dossary, S.M., Khaldi, N.A. and Shokeir, R.M.: “Formation
Pressure While Drilling Utilized for Geosteering,” SPE paper
110940, 2007 SPE Saudi Arabia Technical Symposium held in
Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, May 7-8, 2007.