You are on page 1of 6

Oil-Based Mud Contamination

in Gas-Condensate Samples
R&D Results to Date
March 2008
Work Completed 2005-2006
Norsk Hydro / ConocoPhillips
Open Research Results

Curtis H. Whitson
Robert Mott
Øivind Fevang
r-z-θ Sensor EOS Compositional Model

40 cm
Region contaminated
Uncontaminated region with OBM
Well connection to
represent sampling tool
Main Conclusion
Standard GC-based decontamination methods
can provide accurate estimates of true in-situ
composition.

• Even when BHFP drops below the dewpoint.


• Independent of relative permeability effects.
• For any type of OBM.
• For any richness of the condensate.
• Even though the measured PVT properties are not
representative of in-situ fluids.
Sensitivities Studied
• Reservoir Fluid • Lean & Rich Condensates
• Initial pressure • Near-saturated
• OBM type • 2-component & Diesel
• Grid • Heterogeneities
• Relative permeability • Rock & Linear Curves
• Horizontal permeability • 10 & 1 md
• kv/kh • 1 & 0.1
• Production rate • 0.5 – 1 L/min
• Clean-up time • 6 – 24 hr
• OBM volume • 5 – 13 cm invasion
• How to introduce OBM • Initialize & Injection
• Rate for sampling • Constant & Variable / Shut-in
• Tool contact area • 5 cm x 5 cm & 10 cm x 10 cm
Obervations
1. Key to degree of OBM contamination:
– Initial OBM depth of invasion.
– Cumulative production before sampling.
– kv/kh ratio.

2. Less important parameters:


– Heterogeneity.
– Drawdown.
– Flow area into tool.
– Relative permeability.
Observations
(continued)

3. Leaner gas condensates have higher OBM


contamination, all else being the same.
4. Dewpoint may either rise or drop because of OBM
contamination.
5. Recommended method for extrapolating OBM
contamination uses mol-% vs time on log-log plot.
6. Avoid large rate changes just prior to sampling.
7. It is still possible to obtain in-situ representative
samples when FBHP drops below dewpoint.

You might also like