CASE STUDIES

FLAIR Service

No. Objectives
1. Contamination from mud / cement & recycling
2. Quantitative analysis of gas in Deep Offshore
3. Characterization of formation fluids
FLAIR Service

No. Objectives
1. Contamination from mud / cement & recycling
2. Quantitative analysis of gas in Deep Offshore
3. Characterization of formation fluids

Fluid Logging: Cement contamination in the drilling fluid

C7 iC5
iC5 C7

nC5 nC5

C6 C6

nC4 nC4

iC4 iC4

Mud chromatograms showing the change in composition of the background gas

after a cement squeeze job.

This difference is due to a probable reaction between the chemicals present in

the cement and the alkanes present in the mud.
Fluid Logging: Contribution from the drilling fluid

The presence of contamination coming from the

MASS 15
Synthetic Oil Base mud in some well has been
C1 ascertained.
The mud analysis performed with the GC-MS
Extra component highlight the presence of a different component.
w/same iC4 retention time Although the identification of this component is
still not possible at the moment, the effect it
produces on the gas measurement has been
entirely eliminated.

MASS 15 CAUSES OF CONTAMINATION

C1 - Long period with no circulation

- Presence of cement
Extra component
- Effect of chemicals additives
w/same iC5 retention time
REMOVAL OF CONTAMINATION

- Correct gas out by gas in data

FLAIR Service

No. Objectives
1. Contamination from mud / cement & recycling
2. Quantitative analysis of gas in Deep Offshore
3. Characterization of formation fluids
Fluid Logging: Deep off-shore results

C6H6
Deep Off-shore
Low Mud temperature
C7H14

C6 C7

Comparison between Conventional and Flair

FLAIR Service

No. Objectives
1. Contamination from mud / cement & recycling
2. Quantitative analysis of gas in Deep Offshore
3. Characterization of formation fluids
Fluid Logging Interpretation: GOC location from Gas data

The star diagram clearly differentiates

between the Unit 1A and 1B.
This difference is not very visible on the
plot and the Star diagram permits to
establish a fluid contact, GOC in this case.
This is also supported by the appearance of
Benzene and Methylcyclohexane at 1910 m.

Fluid Logging Interpretation: Multiwell Study

Intervals
from
different
wells on
Pilot Side the same
Hole Track
plot

Depth
in TVD
Fluid Logging Interpretation: Multiwell - Connectivity study
Well-7 Well-8 Well-5 Well-6

Fluid Logging Interpretation: Multiwell Study

Fluid Logging Interpretation: Geosteering using Flair gas data

Fluid Logging Interpretation: Biodegradation - iC5/nC5 ratio

A biodegradation effect has been noticed as

soon as we enter the Reservoir section.
The effect of biodegradation is detected early
in the gas zone, and the rate increases in the
Oil zone.
The star diagrams confirms the same.

Gas
Biodegradation
effect
Gas
Zone

GOC
Oil
Oil
Zone
Fluid Logging Interpretation: Benzene as water indicator

Benzene/nC6 ratio
clearly marks entry
into and out of the
reservoir section.

Increase in the ratio

also indicates the
presence of water in
the formation.

Fluid Logging Interpretation: Detection of fault zones

C2/C1 and IC4/nC4 ratio changes

Fault @ +/- xxxx ft

No indication from LWD

Fluid Logging Interpretation: Reservoir Compartmentalization

Compartments could be delineated

using the changes in the formation fluid
signatures.
This matches perfectly with the pore
pressure profile ( bold black line)

Fluid Logging Interpretation: Aromatics content

A – Evaporative Fractionation
B – Maturity
C – Water Washing
D – Original Oil
E - Biodegradation
A

Top fluid

Bottom fluid

C
E D

Thompson diagram 1987

Bottom fluid exhibits higher aromatics content probably due to

Evaporative Fractionation during migration
Fluid Logging Interpretation: Criteria for MDT sampling

From gas composition

analysis :
Zone I
Fluid in zone I =
Fluid in zone II =
Zone II

Zone III
Fluid in zone III =
Fluid in zone IV
Zone IV
=> 2 fluid samples
instead of 4

Fluid Logging Interpretation: Estimation of Fluid Composition

Following figure shows gas data corrected to D.E.T.

The corrected FLAIR data and DST data are comparable.
Fluid Logging Interpretation: Flushing effect

Mud overbalance inducing flushing

Low gas
recorded in
FPG 1.21 ECD 1.4
effect in unconsolidated
Sands permeable Sands, enhanced by
slow drilling rate.
Increase in
BG to
normal
levels in Flushing effect can be limited to a
Shale few inches ahead of bit and not
Decrease in always leads to the mud invasion
FPG 1.2 ECD 1.42
recorded Gas effect which would depend on the
Levels in
reservoir efficiency of the mud cake
FPG 1.19 formation on the well bore.

Fluid Logging Interpretation: Pore Pressure

The data recorded give a good indication
about the pore pressure and the gas ratios
correlation.

In order to differentiate the behavior of the

C1\C2 ratio in different formations, a filter was
applied to the GR to discern the sandy
formations.

The MDT results are plotted vs the C1/C2

ratio log. The correlation appears to be quite
consistent.
It is quite clear the relation between the ROP,
the Pore Pressure and gas ratio logs.

It remains to understand whether the gas ratio

changes because of the ROP related to the
Pore Pressure or independently by the PP.
Characterizing the Reservoir while Drilling

‰ Give an independent diagnostic about potential zones location

(Fresh water context, thin beds, presence of tight zones)
‰ Fluids contacts location: GOC - OWC - GWC
‰ Identify markers for Geosteering
‰ Connectivity study between different zones
‰ Cap rock efficiency
‰ Biodegradation
‰ Criteria for MDT sampling
‰ Mud contamination & recycling