SPE-183440-MS

Better Formation Fluid Characterization with a Cost Effective Solution; Fluid

Sampling-While-Drilling: Case Histories from UAE

S. Smith, F. Elarouci, and H. Khairy, Baker Hughes; M. A. Serry, Fazeel Ahmad, and M. H. Al-Feky, ADMA OPCO;
M. Faisal, A. H. Khan, M. M. Al Reyami, and Smeer Al Kilani, ADCO

Copyright 2016, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition & Conference held in Abu Dhabi, UAE, 7-10 November 2016.

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
This paper presents the first new technology applications of reservoir fluid characterization and sampling
while drilling in the United Arab Emirates. Four case histories provide details of this technology in the last
two years, and the value added to the assets operating in different targeted reservoirs.
Cost and rig-time optimization demands has motivated operators to utilize the fluid analysis and sampling
tool designed for LWD to reach formation targets before they have been exposed to long period of invasion.
This technology provides pressure testing, real-time in-situ measurements of formation fluid properties and
downhole capture and retrieval of fluid samples. The applications proved valuable in obtaining required
formation data and reducing operational time, cost and associated risks.
Results of this technology in the UAE were evidenced in the following applications:
1. An offshore field had original formation water with high salinity that, over time, mixed with low
salinity injection water which affects water saturation log interpretation. The objective was to
collect representative water from the formation (either original formation water or injection water)
and this was complicated by water-based mud filtrate with its own unique salinity. Samples from
three depths were collected and confirmed by laboratory analysis to be representative formation
water. The refractive index provided a clear way of discriminating the water-based mud filtrate
from formation water.
2. A field with known condensate was scheduled for fluid sampling to check for injection gas
break-through. LWD sampling was used because of the high mobility of the gas and condensate.
Seven successful samples were collected and subsequent lab analysis confirmed condensate in the
reservoir.
3. Pressure testing and sampling while drilling was performed in a heterogeneous carbonate reservoir.
A valid oil gradient was detected after completing several good pressure tests in a short period after
drilling. The formation fluid pump-out was initiated to identify and collect oil and water samples
that helped in determining an accurate oil-water contact.
4. A fluid sampling operation was performed in a highly deviated offshore well to provide the asset
an operational alternative to a complex pipe-conveyed wireline logging operation. The pump-out
2 SPE-183440-MS

started shortly after drilling to limit invasion. Five samples were obtained and brought to surface
to confirm the real time fluid identification. The case will discuss the challenges and complication
of the operation in a highly deviated well crossing several reservoirs.
A review of the presented cases helps demonstrate LWD sampling technology as a successful method in
the Middle East for characterizing downhole fluid, supporting real-time decision making, minimizing rig
time, cost and associated operational risks.

Introduction
Obtaining reservoir pressures and fluid samples throughout the life of a field provides valuable information
on variations in reservoir fluid properties and the Middle East contains a significant number of producing
fields where this type of additional information, needed for maximizing recovery, is becoming ever more
important. For example, fluid sampling can provide the clear evidence needed to determine if re-injected
gas is breaking through in a condensate producing zone; or if by-passed oil exists in a reservoir undergoing
water injection. Such applications, to give just a couple of examples, provide much-needed information
to guide secondary and tertiary recovery programs and have helped drive the development of advanced
wireline formation testers (WFT) over the years.
Meanwhile, logging-while-drilling (LWD) technology over the last 20 years has largely redefined
formation evaluation and the latest advancement in this series is LWD fluid sampling. Yet while the methods
of acquisition have broadened, the underlying objectives of the applications for fluid sampling remain
largely the same. For this reason, many similarities exist between LWD sampling tools and their wireline
counterparts. A detailed description of this technology is available in multiple papers over the past several
years. One is listed here and several others are listed in the references (Cartellieri, Pragt, & Meister, Fluid
Analysis and Sampling - The Next Big Step for Logging While Drilling Tools, 2011). At the same time,
as with many LWD technologies, there are also important differences between logging while drilling and
logging after drilling (e.g. wireline) that can be exploited to improve operational efficiency.
This paper reviews four different fluid sampling applications from the Middle East that utilized LWD
sampling technology and shows how the fluid sampling objectives were achieved. By doing this, the
paper also highlights how fluid sampling in the LWD environment provides new opportunities to reduce
operational time, costs and associated risks.

Case 1 – Water Sampling in Water Based Mud

Background. This case study is from a Jurassic carbonate reservoirs offshore Abu Dhabi where down-
flank water injection started in the early 1970's to provide pressure support and enhance sweep efficiency.
Formation permeability typically ranges from 1 to 20 mD. It can vary considerably within a small area
which is typical of the highly heterogeneous carbonate reservoirs in this area. The low salinity of the injected
water mixed with the original highly saline formation water increases the uncertainty of the open-hole log
interpretation using standard Archie water saturation models. Therefore, in new water injector wells, where
injection is allowed only below the oil-water contact and away from any moveable hydrocarbons, formation
fluid is verified by sampling or downhole fluid identification with formation testing tools. In this case-study
water-injector well the levels of mixed formation water salinity were close to the drilling water-based-mud
salinity further increasing the formation evaluation challenges in the invaded zone where most of the logging
tools are reading and where it is critical to quantify the remaining oil saturation. Differentiating between
filtrate and formation water to ensure a representative fluid sample is an important factor in successful
evaluation. (Serry, et al., 2015)
Objectives. The primary objectives in the water injector well were to check the presence of bypassed oil
which is a requirement for water injector wells and to collect representative formation water samples for
SPE-183440-MS 3

laboratory analysis. These wells also provide an opportunity to obtain updated reservoir pressure profiles
and construct fluid gradient plots in the target reservoir and adjacent reservoir layers. The petrophysical
log data (e.g. resistivity, bulk density, neutron porosity, etc.) are normally acquired with LWD services and
standard practice is to run a wireline formation testing tool as an additional run to obtain the formation
pressure and fluid samples. Operationally the objective was to confirm that a probe-only LWD pressure
testing and sampling tool can acquire fluid samples in the low-permeability heterogeneous carbonates and
thereby eliminate the need for an additional wireline run.
Results. The real time down-hole fluid identification and sampling started within 17 hours after drilling.
Previous studies indicate that the sooner the formation fluid sampling starts after drilling the faster the
contamination is removed and more representative samples are acquired due to shallower mud filtrate
invasion. The sampling operation oriented the tool face to the lower side of the wellbore for a better pad
sealing efficiency in this case. It is not always ideal in highly deviated wells to sample from the lower
side of the borehole because of additional invasion due to gravity. However, the ability to orient the pad
to achieve a seal on the low side of the borehole when high side sealing is not effective is an advantage of
LWD testing tools. The calculated mobility values from the pressure tests ranged from 1.2 to 9.2 mD/cP.
The pump was therefore operated in pressure-controlled mode due to the low permeability of the reservoir;
this means setting a pressure drawdown limit that, when reached, automatically reduces the pump out rate
in order to mitigate the risk of losing the seal.
Three representative formation water samples were collected and later analyzed and confirmed at the
laboratory as formation water samples in a mixed salinity zone. During each sampling station the pump-
out and clean-up data was continuously monitored. The refractive index provided the best method of
determining cleanup from water-based-mud filtrate to formation water. Figure 1 shows the memory data that
confirmed the real-time data for transition from WBM filtrate to formation water. In each case, the refractive
index shows a consistent trend where the initial fluid being pumped was filtrate and the refractive index
steadily increased to a stable reading which indicated the fluid was no longer changing and was captured
in the sample tanks.

Figure 1—Plots show the refractive index measurement in green for the three water samples acquired; the first
sample is shown on the left, the second sample in the middle, and the third sample on the right. The horizontal axis
is time and shows the duration of the fluid pump-out at each station. The initial fluid at time zero is WBM filtrate and
as the pump-out continues the refractive index increases as the water transitions from filtrate to formation water.

Case 1 – Conclusions. In this case study the LWD testing and sampling service completed the key objective
of acquiring formation water samples and confirming the well placement below the OWC. Furthermore,
the in-situ refractive index measurement clearly confirmed the transition from WBM filtrate to formation
water when the salinity value of the two fluids was nearly identical. This was achieved in real-time with in-
situ measurements which are pulsed to surface through the mud column and later confirmed with the data
stored in the LWD tool memory. Operationally the tool confirmed the ability to acquire samples via a probe
4 SPE-183440-MS

in the low permeability carbonate. A large inlet probe aided this situation as well as reaching the station
depth a short time after drilling to avoid unnecessary deep filtrate invasion.

Case 2 – Sampling in Gas Condensate Reservoir

Background. The field for this case study is an onshore elongated anticline feature with almost four-dip
closure. The reservoirs Zone X and Y are the main gas bearing reservoirs and they are hydraulically isolated
by 25 feet of dense limestone. Zone X is the more prolific zone with average 23% porosity and 60 mD
permeability. Zone Y averages 13% porosity and 2 mD permeability. The field has a dry gas re-injection
program for pressure maintenance and with ongoing production the heavier components of the remaining
formation hydrocarbon increases the potential for early injection gas breakthrough thereby reducing the
effectiveness of the re-injection project. The well for this case study was a vertical pilot hole and penetrated
these reservoirs at a point between injector and producer wells providing an opportunity to determine
reservoir conditions at this field location. (Al Shehhi, El-Hamawi, Ateeq, & Smith, 2015)
Objectives. One of the key objectives for this well was to acquire representative gas samples from Zone X
and Y at this location. Criteria for determining the gas breakthrough was based on lab analysis of the mole
weight of C7+. Samples containing 3% or less indicate injection gas breakthrough whereas 6% or more
indicate negligible injection gas at this point in the reservoir. Well engineering required a high overbalance
over Zone X and Y so there was an operational concern about running a straddle packer in this well for
the gas sampling. Therefore, confirming formation pressures was an objective and given the expected low
permeability of Zone Y another objective was to confirm the ability to obtain the gas sample with a probe.
Results. The LWD formation evaluation and testing BHA was run on a measurement-after-drilling (MAD)
pass because conventional core was acquired on the drilling run. A total of 21 valid pressure measurements
were acquired in Zone X and Y along with gas samples from 4 depths, two each from Zone X and
Y. Overbalance was confirmed at 1050 psi and 1100 psi for Zone X and Y, respectively. Permeability
indications were on the low side of expectations with initial drawdown mobility measurements in Zone X
ranging from 2 to 10 mD/cP and in Zone Y from 0.1 to 4 mD/cP. A gas gradient was confirmed in Zone X
but could not be determined in Zone Y due to supercharged pressures in the low permeability reservoir.
Sampling stations were conducted after pressures were acquired. A total of eight sample bottles were
filled from the 4 stations. Clear indication of gas during the pump-out was available in real-time from a
compressibility measurement that continuously monitors the compressibility of the fluid being pumped from
the formation (Figure 2). Lab analysis confirmed the filtrate contamination ranged from 0 – 14% with six
of the bottles having less than 3% contamination. Furthermore, lab compositional analysis of the samples
showed that in both Zone X and Y the C7+ fraction was above 6% indicating no injection gas breakthrough
at this location.
SPE-183440-MS 5

Figure 2—Continuous compressibility measured during samples from Zone X and Zone Y; the
compressibility of the WBM filtrate is low at the start of the pump-out but increases rapidly
once gas breaks through; after the flowing gas stabilizes the compressibility trend levels off.

Case 2 - Conclusions. The key objectives of obtaining gas samples in Zone X and Y were achieved using
LWD pressure testing and sampling. A couple of factors are worth mentioning from this case study. First
the deep invasion caused by the relatively long time that the hole was open before starting the sampling
has a negative impact on using a probe device for this purpose. Combining this situation with the low
permeability of the formation increases the challenge further still. Fortunately all of this is mitigated by
the high relative mobility of the gas being sampled and by the increased near well-bore permeability that
results from cleaning up the damaged zone. This effect was measured by the LWD sampling tool which
provides a continuous mobility curve during the pump-out. In Zone X and Y the mobility increased by
approximately 5 times during each pump-out (Figure 3). The second important factor to mention is the
operational consideration of acquiring fluid samples while stationary in a highly overbalanced open hole
well. From a drilling perspective the ability to circulate with the rig pumps to the bottom of the string during
the fluid sampling operation is advantageous. Balancing the challenges of acquiring representative fluid
samples for reservoir engineering purposes with the operational demands of delivering the planned well on
time are not uncommon and this case study helps demonstrate that, in many situations, LWD sampling can
provide a new solution not previously available to the industry.

Figure 3—Continuous mobility measured during the sample stations from Zone X and Zone
Y; the mobility increases due to a combination of near-wellbore clean-up of the damaged
zone and from the higher relative mobility of the formation gas compared to the WBM filtrate.

Case 3 – Oil and Water Sampling in Oil Based Mud

Background. The field for this case study is in early production stages and contains several prolific oil-
bearing carbonate reservoirs. The field was discovered in the 1970's and came on production in Q1 2013.
The development strategy involves current oil production from two of the reservoirs, upper and lower, and
pressure maintenance from water injection in both reservoirs which started before oil production. The upper
6 SPE-183440-MS

reservoir was the target for pressure measurements and fluid samples to assess current pressure and monitor
saturation changes (if any). It is highly heterogeneous and contains four sub-layers. The sub-layers are
separated by dense zones that present some barrier to vertical flow. At this well location there is a water
contact in the lowest sub-layer. The well was drilled with oil based mud (OBM) to control swelling and
sloughing of the overlying regional shale that was exposed and was designed as a single horizontal injector
for the lower reservoir.
Objectives. The objective of acquiring the pressure data and reservoir fluid samples was to determine
the reservoir quality and productivity potential in the upper producing reservoir. Another objective was to
confirm hydraulic communication across the sub-layers of the upper reservoir and obtain clean formation
oil samples from each sub-layer for PVT lab analysis.
Results. The logging was conducted on a wipe-pass after the hole section was completely drilled. Pressure
and mobility tests were acquired first and provided a mobility profile over the reservoir. Initial pressure
measurements did not fall on a gradient due to supercharging which is common in the area. The lowest
sub-layer, where water was expected, showed an especially high amount of supercharging and the data was
scattered so that no gradient analysis was possible.
After recording the pressure measurements, pump-out stations were conducted to collect oil and water
samples. Real-time in-situ measurements of the fluid properties were continuously recorded by different
sensors including fluid density, viscosity, compressibility, and sound/speed. Having OBM filtrate invade the
formation makes it more difficult to determine when clean formation oil is flowing because the OBM filtrate
and the formation oil are miscible and the contrast on the sensors is low compared to oil-water systems.
However, the OBM filtrate made it possible to determine the OWC by pumping out fluid to determine the
highest depth where moveable water was identified. An accurate OWC was confirmed using this method.
Formation pressure was measured at 17 stations over the four sub-layers. Additionally, six fluid samples
(4 oil and 2 water) were collected and a fluid-identification station was conducted where water was identified
during the pump-out but not collected.
Case 3 - Conclusions. LWD fluid sampling added value to this operation because the OWC would not
have been identified with only pressures measurements due to the super-charging. To run a wireline tool
for the proper fluid identification would have required an additional run costing extra rig-time and adding
operational risk.
Another benefit of having the capability to pump-out with the LWD tool is that more accurate pressure
measurements were achieved. This is illustrated in Figure 4 where the black points on the center gradient
plot indicate the pressure measured after the pump-out. In almost all the stations where a pump-out was
conducted, the post-pump-out build-up was lower than the initial pressure test. This occurs because fluid
causing the super-charging is removed yielding an accurate formation pressure measurement. The only
exception to this was the pump-out in the upper part of sub-layer 2 which also had the highest mobility
reading (Figure 4) and was unlikely to exhibit super-charging. The GOR measurements on the fluid samples
was lower than expected, indicating that some level of OBM filtrate was mixed with the samples. This
is a challenge due to the miscibility of the fluids. Starting the sampling process earlier after drilling, thus
limiting the time for invasion, could potentially improve this result. Synchronized operations are important
to achieve sampling shortly after drilling and this continues to be a priority in planning LWD sampling
operations. Alternatively, longer pump-out times and techniques like Focused Sampling may also improve
this result.
SPE-183440-MS 7

Figure 4—Data from OBM case study; left side indicates the mobility measurements from the LWD pressure
testing tool; center plot show the measured pressures vs TVD including initial pressures and pressures
measured after pump-outs; right side shows the LWD data collected in the same run (GR, ROP, and Resistivity).

Case 4 – Oil and Water Sampling in Highly Deviated Offshore Well

Background. This case study is from a large offshore field with ongoing gas and water injection. An
inactive well was re-entered in order to side-track and deepen the well to assess the potential of lower
reservoir and recomplete the well with horizontal drain across the lower reservoir. The down dip location of
the well with ongoing injection in the area causes uncertainty so confirmation of movable formation fluid
is required using fluid sampling and/or down-hole fluid identification prior to making final decisions about
completion intervals. The well trajectory for this re-entry well penetrated a total of six sub-layers in two
main reservoir (3 sub-layers in each reservoir). The well was drilled with water-based-mud and the highly
deviated section (+80 degrees) was approximately 7000 feet in measured depth. The drilling BHA included
LWD GR, resistivity, and the LWD pressure testing and sampling tool. The well trajectory is shown in
Figure 5.
8 SPE-183440-MS

Figure 5—Trajectory plot of well for case study 4 with magnified

view of reservoir section indicating porosity and sample locations.

Objectives. The primary objective was to confirm moveable oil from both target sub-layers prior to
finalizing the completion interval. Both reservoirs were at risk of water based on the location of the well.
Secondary objectives were to confirm moveable oil in each of the non-target sub-layers. Operationally the
objective was to perform the complete formation evaluation program, including fluid sampling, in a single
drilling run.
Results. The drilling and evaluation program was coordinated so that the long sidetrack section was drilled
in two stages. Formation pressures and fluid samples and were taken from the first stage before continuing
to drill the second stage. This was coordinated so that the pump out could start shortly after drilling each
section to limit invasion. In this case the first pump-out started approximately 35 hours after the reservoir
was penetrated and from the LWD resistivity logs invasion was apparent. In total five sample stations were
acquired vs. six planned sampling stations because of probe damage. Table 1 summarizes the results of the
samples. The formation mobility ranged from 3–72 md/cp. The downhole fluid analysis did not confirm
the fluid type on all stations, however, downhole samples were collected and analyzed at the surface for
real fluid identification.

Table 1—Summary plot of samples collected for case study 4.

Case 4 - Conclusions. Drilling a 7000 foot lateral while performing a formation evaluation program
including fluid sampling is a highly complex operation and there are still a significant number of unknowns
even when drilling in a highly developed field such as this one. So the objective of completing the full
SPE-183440-MS 9

lateral in a single run was a stretch target and unfortunately was not achieved in this case. In this case, the
BHA was pulled due to damage to the probe. The sampling time for each station was also increased by
approximately 1.5–2 times of the wireline formation tester due to the invasion. However, the opportunity
to achieve this in a single trip presents a significant cost reduction in trip time alone. Risk is also reduced
because of the high tensional strength (more pulling capacity), the ability to rotate the string, and continuous
circulation available with LWD tools. All of these factors are important considerations as cost and rig-time
optimization demands continue to influence project decisions.

Conclusion
The objective of this paper is to demonstrate how LWD sampling technology helps balance the operational
demands of drilling complex wells in large multi-layered reservoirs undergoing various forms of EOR and
pressure maintenance with the necessary formation evaluation data and reservoir engineering information
needed to maximize recovery. Cost savings through rig-time and risk reduction is an important motivator
from the operational perspective. At the same time the objectives of acquiring fluid samples must also
be achieved whether through low contamination fluid samples or in-situ downhole fluid measurements
delivered in real-time or some other engineering aspect concerning the reservoir fluid and pore pressure. The
four case studies presented in this paper cover a wide range of scenarios where LWD pressure testing and
sampling helped meet important reservoir engineering challenges in Middle East fields. Additional industry
experience with this technology and further R&D enhancements should yield even more applications in
the coming years.

Acknowlegments
The authors would like to express their gratitude to ADMA-OPCO, ADNOC, and ISHs for granting the
permission to present this paper at ADIPEC 2016.
The authors would also like to express their gratitude to ADCO for their permission to to present this
paper at ADIPEC 2016.

Nomenclature
LWD = Logging While Drilling
WFT = Wireline Formation Tester
OWC = Oil Water Contact
GOC = Gas Oil Contact
EOR = Enhanced Oil Recovery
MAD = Measurement After Drilling

Bibliography
Al Shehhi, N. S., El-Hamawi, M., Ateeq, B., & Smith, S. (2016). LWD Fluid Sampling Tool Allow for Innovative
Applications in Middle East Carbonate Reservoirs: A Case Study from a Gas Re-injection Project. Abu Dhabi
International Petroleum Exhibition and Conference (pp. SPE-177623). Abu Dhabi: SPE.
Cartellieri, A., Kischkat, T., Niemeyer, E., & Meister, M. (2012b). Enhanced Capabilities For Formation Testing Tools
With A Highly Sophisticated Pump Control System. SPE 159370, paper presented at the SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition held in San Antonio, Texas, USA, 8–10 October.
Cartellieri, A., Pragt, J., & Galvan-Sanchez, F. (2014). Experience and Learning of LWD Sampling in Conventional
Reservoirs, Carbonates and Shaly Sands. SPWLA 55th Annual Logging Symposium, May 18–22. Abu Dhabi, United
Arab Emirates: SPWLA.
Cartellieri, A., Pragt, J., & Meister, M. (2011). Fluid Analysis and Sampling - The Next Big Step for Logging While
Drilling Tools. SPWLA 52nd Annual Logging Symposium, Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA, May 14–18.
Cartellieri, A., Pragt, J., & Meister, M. (2012a). Advantages and Limitations of Taking Samples While Drilling. SPWLA
53rd Annual Logging Symposium, Cartagena, Colombia, June 16–20.
10 SPE-183440-MS

Cartellieri, A., Pragt, J., Galvan-Sanchez, F., & Meister, M. (2013). Challenges and Opportunities of LWD Sampling: A
Case Study From the Gulf of Mexico. SPE 166427, paper presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition held in New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, 30 September - 2 October.
Galvan-Sanchez, F., Cartellieri, A., Pragt, J., & Meister, M. (2012). Fluid Analysis and Sampling - The Next Big Step
for Logging While Drilling Tools. SPE 152223, paper presented at the SPE Latin American and Caribbean Petroleum
Engineering Conference held in Mexico City, Mexico, 16–18 April.
Gravem, T., Holden, A., Normann, H., Pragt, J., & Kroken, A. (2006). Second Generation of LWD Formation Pressure
Testing Technology Improves Data Quality, Increases Sealing Efficiency and Shortens Test Time. SPWLA, the paper
was prepared for presentation at the SPWLA 47th Annual Logging Symposium (pp. June 4–7). Vearcruz, Mexico:
SPWLA.
Kasap, E., Huang, K., Shwe, T., & Georgi, D. (1996). Formation-Rate-Analysis Technique: Combined Drawdown and
Buildup Analysis for Wireline Formation Test Data. SPE 36525, presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition, Denver, Colorado, USA, 6–9 October.
Lee, J., & Michaels, M. (2000). Enhanced Wireline Formation Tests in Low-Permeability Formations: Quality Control
Through Formation Rate Analysis. SPE 60293, presented at the SPE Rocky Mountain Regional/Low Permeability
Reservoirs Symposium, Denver, Colorado, USA, 12–15 March.
Meister, M., Lee, J., Kruger, V., Georgi, D., & Chemali, R. (2003). Formation Pressure Testing During Drilling: Challenges
and Benefits. SPE 84088, paper presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Denver,
Colorado, USA, 5–8 October.
Meister, M., Pragt, J., Buysch, A., Witte, J., Nordahl, G., & Hope, R. (2004). Pressure Gradient Testing with a new
Formation Pressure Testing During Drilling Tool. SPE 90425, presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Houston, Texas, USA, 26–29 September.
Serry, A. M., Kaouche, S., AbouJmeih, H., Smith, S., Elarouci, F., & Khairy, H. (2016). The Innovative Application of
Formaiton Sampling and Pressure Testing While Drilling a Heterogeneous, Jurrassic Carbonate Reservoir with Mixed
Water Salinity, for the first time, Offshore Abu Dhabi. Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition and Conference
(pp. SPE-177796-MS). Abu Dhabi: SPE.