SPE-180010-MS

LWD Formation Fluid Sampler Tool Collects First Fluid Samples While
Drilling In Deep Water On The Norwegian Continental Shelf
Tommy Solbakk, Henrik Erevik Riise, Ellen Ambjørnsen Strøm, and Jerry House, Halliburton; Kåre Otto Eriksen
and Gunnar Digranes, Statoil

Copyright 2016, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Bergen One Day Seminar held in Bergen, Norway, 20 April 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
Fluid samples were acquired in an exploration well and subsequent pilot hole for an operator in deep water
on the Norwegian continental shelf to identify the reservoir fluids and to check for potential connectivity
between two reservoir targets. Several limiting factors meant that pipe-conveyed logging after drilling was
not a viable option. Consequently, a logging while drilling (LWD) formation fluid sampling tool was run
as a part of a LWD evaluation program to collect fluid samples while drilling and when pulling out of the
hole after reaching TD (total depth) of the section.
A team of global and local experts was established to plan the job. The team performed a risk analysis
to identify risks and plan mitigating actions. Several challenges were identified, including the potential
damage to equipment from vibration when drilling out the shoe track or from hitting stringers while
drilling the formation. Other challenges identified involved potential tool movement from rig heave during
sampling and required sampling time as a function of the duration of formation exposure to drilling mud
before sampling.
The team assessed the risks and established a plan to mitigate them, and the job was performed
according to plan in February and March of 2014. A total of nine fluid samples were collected in two well
sections, completing each section in one drilling run. This paper discusses the results of the third-party
laboratory sample analysis. The formation evaluation logs were inconclusive as to whether or not the
reservoir contained oil, condensate, or gas at some depths because of the laminated structure of the
formation. The LWD fluid sampling technology confirmed that the reservoir contained gas. This paper
also discusses the job planning, mitigating actions that were introduced, implementation and results of the
job, and the benefits of fluid sampling while drilling.

Field
Visund field is an oil and gas field located in blocks 34/8 and 34/7, 22 km northeast of the Gullfaks field
in the Tampen area of the Norwegian North Sea. The field came on-stream in the spring of 1999 and
includes a floating production, drilling, and accommodation platform.
2 SPE-180010-MS

The subsea-completed wells on the field are tied back to the floater with flexible risers. Oil is
transported by pipe to Gullfaks for storage and export. The Visund field began producing and exporting
gas to continental Europe on 7 October 2005.
Visund North
Visund North is an oil and gas field located 10 km from the Visund A platform. The field is developed
by means of a subsea installation (Visund C) with four wells and is tied back to the Visund A platform.
The Visund North volumes have been estimated to be approximately 29 million BOE. Visund North began
producing in November 2013.
Reservoirs
The main reservoirs on the Visund field are the clastic Brent group and the Statfjord formation.
The Brent group was deposited during the Middle Jurassic Aalenian to Early Bathonian, through the
progradational and retrogradational development of the Brent delta. The Lower Jurassic Cook formation
forms a regressive and transgressive sandstone wedge of shallow marine reservoir sandstones, and is not
yet part of Visund production (Fig. 1).

Figure 1—Stratigraphy.
SPE-180010-MS 3

Objectives
The fluid sampling objectives were to identify the reservoir fluid as gas, oil, or condensate and to prove
potential connectivity between two reservoir targets. Because of efficiency demands on the Fast Track
projects, traditional pipe-conveyed wireline logging after drilling was not considered as a viable option.
The Fast Track project in Statoil is a field development project with the goal of reducing the time from
discovery to production by 50%. The main targets for the Fast Track project were smaller accumulations
of hydrocarbons, not viable as standalone projects, that could be tied in to existing infrastructure. As part
of the effort to reduce time, and thus cost, wireline or pipe-conveyed logging after drilling were not
considered to be an option for the Fast Track wells.
The LWD provider offered a solution to the operator, which included running a formation sampling-
while-drilling (FSWD) tool in the bottomhole assembly (BHA) to collect fluid samples while drilling and
while pulling out of hole after finishing the section. A team of global and local experts performed a risk
analysis and planned mitigating actions.
Well 34/-17 S was drilled to explore the Helene and Methone prospects in the Statfjord and the Lunde
formations, respectively. The 12 ¼-in. section reached total depth (TD) in the lower part of the Shetland
group to ensure well integrity before reservoir drilling. The TD requirement for the 8 ½-in. section was
to confirm contacts in the Helene and Methone prospects (Table 1).

Table 1—Wellbores drilled from C-1 slot on Visund North.

Wellbore Comments

34/8-17 S Explore possible hydrocarbon resources east of Visund North.

34/8-C-1 H Pilot for C-1 AH to verify top-of-reservoir and gas/oil contact.
Secondary objective: explore Cook formation

In Well 34/8-C-1 H (landing pilot), the 12 ¼-in. hole was drilled out from the 13 3/8-in. casing shoe
to just above the top of the reservoir, where a 10 ¾ ⫻ 9 5/8-in. production casing would be set. An 8 ½-in.
pilot section was drilled into the reservoir, and the 8 ½-in. landing pilot hole was permanently plugged
and abandoned. A LWD fluid sampling tool was used in this last part of the 8 ½-in. hole.
The primary targets of this section were to investigate and confirm the stratigraphy and oil/water
contact (OWC) and to gain depth control to optimize the location of the producer. The secondary target
was to find and explore the Cook formation.

Tool Background and Description

FSWD was performed using the GeoTap® IDS tool. The tool consists of four main sections (collars).
Beginning from the top, these collars include the terminator collar, containing the battery for electronics
power and exit valve for the flow line and tool electronics (Fig. 2), the sample collar with five sample
chambers that can be nitrogen charged if required, the power collar containing the power generation for
the hydraulic pump that powers the hydraulics on the tool (Proett et al. 2010), and the probe collar
containing the fluid ID section.
4 SPE-180010-MS

Figure 2—LWD pressure and fluid sampling tool basic layout.

The probe type used is an oval-shaped pad with a snorkel in the center. This pad has two rubber rings
sealing against the formation; the inner seal keeps out most of the contamination, and thus ensures lower
contamination of the fluid sampled by the tool (Proett et al. 2011) (Fig. 3).

Figure 3—Shaped oval pad.

Tables 2, 3, and 4 provide the specifications used for the tool.

Table 2—FSWD tool specifications.

FSWD Specs

Nominal tool OD 6-3/4 in.

Hole size range 8-3/8 to 10-3/4 in.
Tool length (with 1 sample collar) 48.4 ft
Max operating pressure 20,000 psi
Operating temperature range 20 – 150 °C
Oval probe 1.2 in. equivalent diameter
SPE-180010-MS 5

Table 3—Sensors specifications.

Sensors in FSWD Tool

Quartz pressure gauge 200 – 30,000 psi

Formation fluid temperature 20 – 150 °C
Formation fluid density 0.0-2.2 g/cc
Accuracy 0.01 g/cc
Precision 0.003 g/cc

Table 4 —Pretesting and pump specifications.

Pretesting Flush Pump

Volume 100 cc Rate w/ 4k psi differential pump 0.5 – 50 cc/sec

Rate control 0.1 – 10 cc/sec Rate w/ 8k psi differential pump 0.5 – 24 cc/sec
Max. differential 10,000 psi 1 liter sample barrel rating 20,000 psi1

During pumping, before obtaining samples, density, temperature, and bubblepoint measurements are
taken to determine the properties of the fluid. After pumping has been initiated, commands can be sent
at any time to change the rate/pressure or to perform discrete bubblepoint tests with continuous pumping.
Several chambers can be filled on a single pump out if desired.
The tools used in wells 34/-17 S and 34/8-C-1 H had an 8 ksi flush pump because of tool availability
(see Table 4). One of the benefits of this tool is that it provides feedback about how it is operating. On
each pump cycle, it provides a status of critical electronic and hydraulic components. The tool will test
critical sensors, electronics, and hydraulic components, and pulse up a pass, degraded, or fail status.
Knowing the tool status throughout the drilling run has been proven to be valuable. While the tool is
operating, it provides regular updates about critical operational items of the tool, which enables adjust-
ments and changes, if necessary. These real-time tool status updates include, turbine rpm, probe extension
percentage, hydraulic system pressure, downhole algorithm status, pump efficiency, and drawdown status.
Operations
The wells discussed in this paper were planned and drilled as deviated (⬎60°) wells. In the planning
phase, a risk assessment was performed highlighting and mitigating the risks found in Table 5 and Table
6. The actual number of pressure points and depths of sampling points would be determined by what was
shown on the real-time logs.

Table 5—Probability and risk.

Probability Rating

Level Description

A Frequent; likely to occur repeatedly during operation

B Reasonable probability; likely to occur several times
C Occasional; likely to occur sometimes
D Remote; possible but not likely
E Extremely improbable; occurrence cannot be distinguished from zero
Risk Priority Code (RPC)
Code Action Required
1 High risk - mandatory to suppress to a lower level
2 Medium risk - operation may require waiver by management to continue
3 Operation permissible
6 SPE-180010-MS

Table 6 —Risk assesments performed before FSWD.

Residual Risk

Risk # Control Measure to Reduce Risk Severity Probability RPC* Contingency Plan

1 Send tool in one piece, which requires a 2 D 3 If the tool cannot be shipped in one piece,
16 or for any other reason must make it
m basket. This basket size cannot be up offshore, extra resource should
transported between 4 p.m. and be obtained offshore and take the time
8 a.m. Monday according to required.
Norwegian regulations.
2 Quality check configuration with technical 2 D 3 Mode switch when required.
advisors and customer representatives
before initiating tool.
3 Orient tool before sampling, use 2 E 3 Use downhole WOB/TOB to validate that
downhole WOB/TOB tool is
tool validate. stable before sampling
4 2 D 3 In bad weather, perform a dedicated drill-
– Control rig heave out run.
– Use anti stick-slip tool
– Use drilling efficiency engineers to
monitor vibration
– Drill out shoe carefully with good control
on WOB and torque.

5 2 D 3 Data supports that if extra over-pull is not

– Perform a 30 minute test simulation experienced after being stationary
30 minutes, becoming stuck when
stationary for longer periods
is unlikely.

The FSWD tool was tested and prepared in the Tananger shop. Electronic tests and simulated
operational runs were performed, both in the tool alone and together with the other tools in the BHA,
without experiencing issues. Sample chambers were prepared and installed into the collar. The shop has
the capacity to simulate a job as it would occur, and to perform the same functions that would occur
downhole on a job. After the risk assessment at the rig was performed (Table 7), it was suggested that the
tool should be sent to the rig in one piece to minimize time for picking up the BHA. The tool was sent
to the rig with the FSWD support kit.

Table 7—Risk assessments at the rig and when downhole with LWD tools.
Initial Risk
Risk
# Task/Activity Risk Cause Effect Severity Probability RPC*

1 Picking up tools Damage to Making up tools Damaged 2 C 2

connectors while rig equipment, and
is moving not possible
to run the
service
2 Tool software Not having the Poor NPT 2 C 2
configuration right data for communication
decision
making
3 Orient probe Plugging of system Lack of orientation NPT 2 D 2
according to or lack of
procedure formation seal
before
initialization of
tool
4 Drilling out Vibration and Vibration and Possible tool failure 2 C 2
shoe-track heave shock to BHA and NPT
5 Drilling new Vibration and Vibration and Possible tool failure 2 C 2
formation heave shock to BHA and NPT
SPE-180010-MS 7

34/8-17 S (BHA #8, 8 1/2-in. Drilling BHA)

The objectives of the run were to drill the 8 ½-in. exploration pilot to planned TD at 4558 m MD to
explore the Helene and Methone prospects, and collect fluid samples and record pressure points. The goals
were to obtain at least eight pressure tests to determine the pressure gradient and cement plug placement
on the pilot, as well as to obtain one fluid sample while drilling to determine the pump out time with a
formation exposure of less than ten hours.
At the rig, the tools were retested, and the BHA was picked up and assembled on the rig floor on
February 25, 2014 with no issues. The start of the turn and build section was initiated at 3720 m; the
second tangent section was reached by 3960 m with an inclination of 70° and an azimuth of 101.5°.
At 3838 m, the downhole movement was monitored by observing the downhole weight on bit (WOB)
sensor to determine whether or not the 2.2 m rig heave caused movement of the string on bottom. String
movement could be detrimental to the formation fluid sampling tool. The heave was found to not induce
downhole movement. A procedural sticky test to check for differential sticking was performed; after the
string was static for 10 min while monitoring for movement, with 1700 liters per minute flow, the string
rotated off with 20 kN m torque. Free rotating torque before the test ranged from 12 to 15 kN m.
It has been studied and proven with actual data that a drillstring that is free after 30 minutes of being
stationary will not experience a large percentage increase in chances of becoming stuck after that time
(Prasad 2012).
A pressure point was taken at 3946 m. Formation pressure of 1.51 SG was measured, and the estimated
fracture pressure was 1.89 SG. Table 8 shows the pressure points and fluid sampling. Drilling then
continued. It was requested to limit the rate of penetration (ROP) to a maximum of 25 m/hr. Typically,
in these sand formations, a WOB of 2 to 8 metric tons produces a ROP of 25 m/hr. In claystones, the WOB
was increased to 15 tons. Limestone stringers and cemented sand stringers were encountered, which
reduced the ROP to 1 to 3 m/hr.
8 SPE-180010-MS

Table 8 —Pre-tests pressure points and fluid test results, 34/8-17 S.

Test Depth DD Rate DD Vol. BU Time
Date (number) (m) (cc/s) (cc) (s) Comments Mobility

2/28/2014@12:40 1 3940 1 20 160 Tight test XX

2/28/2014@13:27 2 3946 1 10 160 Good test 180mD/cP
2/28/2014@17:40 3 3983 1 10 160 Good test 1.9D/cP
2/28/2014@20:38 4 4000. 5 2 20 224 Good test/1 sample 492mD/cP
3/1/2014@11:09 5 4145 1 10 160 Good test 47mD/cP
3/1/2014@21:17 6 4294 2 20 224 No seal XX
3/1/2014@22:46 7 4294 2 20 224 No seal XX
3/2/2014@23:26 8 4454 2 20 224 Good test 69mD/cP
3/3/2014@01:37 9 4301 2 20 224 Lost seal XX
3/3/2014@02:13 10 4301 2 20 224 No seal XX
3/3/2014@02:55 11 4292 2 20 224 No seal XX
3/3/2014@03:52 12 4292 2 20 224 No seal XX
3/3/2014@05:43 13 4128 2 20 224 No seal XX
3/3/2014@06:09 14 4128 2 20 224 Tight XX
3/3/2014@06:48 15 4101.5 1 10 224 No seal XX
3/3/2014@06:48 16 4101.5 1 10 224 Supercharged 0.6mD/cP
3/3/2014@07:22 17 4054 1 10 224 No seal XX
3/3/2014@08:44 18 4054 1 10 224 No seal XX
3/3/2014@09:25 19 4033 1 10 224 No seal XX
3/3/2014@10:19 20 4034 1 10 224 Good test 42mD/cP
3/3/2014@10:49 21 4018 1 10 224 No seal XX
3/3/2014@12:25 22 4018 1 10 224 Good test 3.8mD/cP
3/3/2014@13:38 23 4011 1 10 224 No seal XX
3/3/2014@14:16 24 4011 1 10 224 Good test/hcim off downlinking 24.3mD/cP
3/3/2014@17:01 25 4011 1 10 224 Good test/lost seal pumping out 73mD/cP
3/3/2014@18:05 26 4010.5 1 10 224 No seal XX
3/3/2014@18:32 27 4010.5 1 10 224 Good test/lost seal pumping out 23.3mD/cP
3/3/2014@21:55 28 4029 1 10 224 Good test/2 samples 2mD/cP
3/4/2014@21:55 29 3987 1 10 224 No seal XX
3/4/2014@02:18 30 3986 1 10 224 No seal XX
3/4/2014@02:41 31 3977 1 10 224 No seal XX
3/4/2014@03:12 32 3978 1 10 224 No seal XX
3/4/2014@04:15 33 3938 1 10 224 Good test/2 samples 87.1mD/cP

Throughout the run, the vibration was minimal with some stick/slip and a few average Y and average
X vibration readings. During the trip out, pressure points and fluid samples were taken, in accordance with
the plan. After a sample at 3965.5 m, a stand was racked back and, after bringing the pumps up, losses
were experienced. After observing the well and losing 6.5 m3, it was decided to pull out of the hole
(POOH) to surface. The hole, up to the point of losses, was in good condition, and no tight spots or ledges
were encountered. After the losses, the string was tripped out to the shoe without problems.
Operations were completed on March 4. The FSWD tool was successfully read on the rig floor. The
tools were laid down on the deck, and all five chambers were extracted from the tool and prepared for
shipment to shore. The bit was graded as 1/1/WT/A/X/I/NO/TD.
During the operation, a total of 33 pre-tests were performed, of which thirteen pre-tests were ⬙good⬙
and two were in ⬙tight zones.⬙ There was pad damage on the tool, and this is believed to be attributable
to significant heave during the operation while the probe was extended on some of the first pressure tests.
Before sampling began, the downhole WOB and torque tool was used to verify that torque was worked
out of the string; it also verified stable downhole conditions in 2.2 m heave (Fig. 4).
SPE-180010-MS 9

Figure 4 —Verification of downhole WOB and torque before sampling.

The FSWD tool and rig site kit were returned to shore and the post-run sample QC of the chambers
was performed successfully. This is a non-invasive procedure that provides the density, opening pressure,
and compressibility of the fluid captured in the chamber. After sample QC was performed, the pressure
was bled off on the back side of the chambers, and they were prepared for delivery to the laboratory
performing the fluid analysis.

34/8-C1 H
Four pressure tests (pre-tests) were performed while drilling, and an additional four pressure tests and four
formation fluid samples were gathered while tripping out. The first result was a ‘tight test’; the other test
results were ‘good tests.’ No bubblepoint measurements were attempted.
The FSWD tool was sent out premade; the collar was 14.7 m long. At the rig, the tools were retested;
the BHA was picked up and assembled on the rig floor on March 21, 2014 without issues, and run in hole
(RIH).
The short section required a turn in azimuth from 62 to 76.5° to align on the Top Cook target, with
inclination decreasing from 65 to 61.6° to land out on TVD.
Pressure point measurements were taken while drilling the section, as shown in Table 9; sampling was
performed while POOH after reaching TD with an eight-minute sticky test performed before the first
sample point. All pressure points were taken with pumps on. As shown in Table 8, pressure points were
also taken when POOH along with four fluid samples on two stations, which required approximately two
hours.
10 SPE-180010-MS

Table 9 —Pre-tests pressure points and fluid test results, 34/8-C1 H.

Date Test N. Depth DD Rate DD Vol. BU Time Comments Mobility

3/23/2014@9:44 1 3285m 1cc/s 10cc 160s Tight test XX

3/23/2014@10:07 2 3287m 1cc/s 10cc 160s Good test 604 (?)
3/23/2014@12:01 3 3318m 2cc/s 20cc 160s Good test 2580 (?)
3/23/2014@14:25 4 3356m 4cc/s 30cc 96s Good test 25.8
3/24/2014@02:23 5 3462.5m 4cc/s 30cc 96s Good test/2 samples 261.76
3/24/2014@06:22 6 3337.5m 4cc/s 30cc 96s Good test 13.73
3/24/2014@06:47 7 3332m 4cc/s 30cc 96s Good test/2 samples 57.1
3/24/2014@09:55 8 3326.5m 4cc/s 30cc 96s Good test 2.7

The FSWD tool was successfully read on the rig floor. The tools were laid down on the deck, and all
four chambers were extracted from the tool and prepared for shipment to shore. The intention was to
perform all post-run QC on the rig, but because of significant heave, this proved to be difficult.
The FSWD tool and rig site kit were returned to shore on March 29, 2014, and the post-run QC of the
chambers was performed successfully. After QC was performed, the pressure was bled off on the outlet
side of the chambers, and they were prepared for delivery to the laboratory performing the fluid analysis.
Pressure had to be bled off because the laboratory had pressure constraints when transferring the contents
of the sample chambers.

Results

34/8-17 S
A total of 33 formation pressure points tests were attempted; 15 of these tests had a good seal. Five fluid
samples were gathered during the operation: one fluid sample while drilling the Helene prospect with 6.8
hours of formation exposure before sampling, and two fluid samples in each prospect while tripping out
of the hole. The formation exposure time before taking fluid samples on the way out of the hole in the
Helene and Methone prospects was 78 and 98 hours, respectively. The testing was conducted with a heave
of 2.2 m, and the heave compensator was active.

Sample 1
On Test 4 (6.8 hours exposure time), after a pre-test was performed, the mud density was recorded before
the flush pump began (Fig. 4). When the flush pump began pumping, the density began transitioning as
the fluid changed from mud to mud filtrate. As the flush pump rate was increased to 5 cc/sec, the flowline
temperature increased as more formation fluid entered the flowline. The density declined to a gas level,
fluid slugs were observed, and the sample eventually seemed to begin cleaning up again. As the pump rate
slowed to 3 cc/sec, the temperature decreased, and it seemed that fluid was dropping out. A sample was
taken and overpressured with a very small volume being pumped for cleanup. After the sample was taken,
the probe was retracted, and drilling operations resumed.
SPE-180010-MS 11

Figure 5—34/8-17 S gas sample in OBM with 6.8 hours of formation exposure time before sampling. 1. Begin flush pump and slowly
increase the rate, transitions from mud-filtrate-gas. 2. Increase the rate to 5 cc/sec and observe the flow line temperature increase and
density measurement decrease to a gas reading. 3. Fluid slug comes across the density sensor 4. Fluid begins to clean up again. 5.
Decrease in the pump rate to 3 cc/sec and observe the flowline temperature drop and probable fluid dropping out of the gas. 6. Sample
is taken and overpressured.

Sample 2 and 3
On Test 28 (78 hours exposure time), a laminated section was encountered in which it was difficult to
determine fluid type with the standard triple combo log (Fig. 6). A pre-test was performed and shortly
thereafter, pumping began with the flush pump. The sample transitioned from mud to filtrate and to a
density of approximately 0.4 g/cc, slowly decreasing at a pump rate of 10 cc/sec. It was decided to perform
bubblepoint and compressibility measurements to confirm the flow through the tool. The measurement
confirmed that a gas was being sampled (Fig. 7 and Fig. 8). Bubblepoint and compressibility measure-
ments can confirm the fluid type early in the process of the pumpout. Because cleanup was estimated to
require a long time, two samples were taken early.
12 SPE-180010-MS

Figure 6 —34/8-17 S triple combo log display. Without the capability of looking at the fluid, It would be difficult to determine the fluid
that is at 4029 m. In this case, the LWD sampling technology determined it on a drilling run. There is gas from 4000 to 4029 m.

Figure 7—34/8-17 S gas sample in OBM with 78 hours of formation exposure time before sampling. 1. Begin flush pump and slowly
increase the rate, transitions from mud-filtrate-gas. 2. Increase the rate to 10 cc/sec. 3. Slow flush pump to 5 cc/sec. 4. Perform three
consecutive bubblepoint and compressibility measurements while pumping. Compressibility measurement indicated gas. 5. Increase
pump rate to 10 cc/sec. 6. Take two samples.
SPE-180010-MS 13

Figure 8 —First bubblepoint and compressibility measurement from Fig. 8. This result indicates gas.

Sample 4 and 5
The sequences used for these samples were similar to the previous two samples. The exposure time was
98 hours, and although the samples had the greatest amount of contamination, they were useful in
determining fluid type. The samples were taken in a cleaner sand. The contamination could have been a
result of pad damage because of the heave on the rig at the time of sampling.

34/8-C1 H
A total of eight formation pressure points were attempted: four while drilling and four while POOH. Four
fluid samples were gathered while tripping out of the hole. The formation exposure time before taking
fluid samples on the way out of the hole was approximately 10 hours for the while-drilling samples, and
22 hours for the samples taken while POOH. No bubblepoint measurements were attempted. Fig. 9 shows
the pumping sequence for Test 5, and Fig. 10 shows the Cook formation where Test 5 and samples #1 and
#2 taken. Fig. 11 and Fig. 12 show the same for Test 7 and samples 3 and 4.
14 SPE-180010-MS

Figure 9 —34/8-C1 H 1. Flush pump is started. 2. Transition from mud to filtrate. 3. Sensor responses have stabilized. 4. Take two
samples. Fluid is believed to be oil, based on the density response.

Figure 10 —34/8-C1 H Cook formation where Test 5 and samples #1 and #2 taken.
SPE-180010-MS 15

Figure 11—Two gas samples taken with small volume pumped.

Figure 12—34/8-C1 H Gas samples taken for samples #3 and #4.

Lessons Learned
Several lessons were learned during the two runs with the fluid sampling tool. The lessons learned
described in this section are not presented in the order of importance.
16 SPE-180010-MS

Good pre-job planning and well-considered tool configuration are key components in meeting the
objectives. The tools were sent out pre-assembled, thus minimizing the risk when picking up and handling
the tools offshore. This is especially important on floating installations in the winter time where movement
can be an issue. The pre-assembled tools were fine to handle on the rig, and there were no problems when
making up the BHAs. When shipping and handling a 15 m long assembly, pre-planning is vital. The use
of a downhole WOB and torque tool helped to determine BHA stability and verified no movement
downhole before sampling began. Any movement could result in a bad test, and possibly a damaged tool.
This job was a field test of the new tool, and focus was high on downhole conditions for being able to
fulfill the operational requirements from the operator and for preserving the tool.
An anti-stall tool will help reduce stick/slip vibration. Although some stick/slip was observed during
the drilling of the shoe, the anti-stall tool is believed to have helped mitigate damaging vibrations.
Taking samples with short exposure time reduces the required pump-out time to acquire sufficiently
low contamination of the samples. This was proven by the sample with the shortest exposure time having
the lowest contamination. The fluid sampling tool can be used to check or verify fluids without taking an
actual sample.
After taking the samples, drilling was resumed, with no effect whatsoever to the samples. This proves
the concept of drilling with fluid samples onboard the tool.
By using compressibility and bubblepoint measurements in combination with fluid density measure-
ments, it is possible to identify the fluids in the formation flowing through the tool.

Summary and Results

This was field test of the LWD fluid sample tool, and was determined to be the only possible solution for
the operator.
The contamination levels were high when calculated as weight percentage at stock tank conditions, as
shown in the second column of Table 10 and Table 11. The fluid was condensate, and thus, in volume
percentage, the contamination levels were relatively low.

Table 10 —Well 34/8-17 S pump-out data with contamination results; lowest exposure time result.
Mud Filtrate Calculated
Contamination Clean Fluid Mud Filtrate Formation Volume
(calculated with from EOS Contamination (calculated Exposure Times before Pumped before
gas MW) Density* with GOR) Sampling Fluid Test Sampling Sample

Wt% in Sample g/cc Wt% in Sample hours Number Liters Number

19.1 0.253 9.0 78 28 59.2 2
21.7 0.252 10.4 78 28 63.8 3
10.3 0.251 4.3 6.8 4 17.9 1
35.4 0.257 20.4 98 33 112.2 4
33.0 0.254 18.2 98 33 114.1 5

*SRK Peneloux
SPE-180010-MS 17

Table 11—34/8-C1-H S pump-out data with contamination results.

Mud Filtrate Calculated
Contamination Clean Fluid Mud Filtrate Formation Volume
(calculated with from EOS Contamination (calculated Exposure Times before Pumped before
gas MW) Density* with GOR) Sampling Fluid Test Sampling Sample

Wt% in Sample g/cc Wt% in Sample hours Number Liters Number

20.3 0.292 23.4 10.3 5 93.8 1
21.3 0.292 24.4 10.4 5 98.1 2
NA 0.768 26.3 22.1 7 21.8 3
NA 0.768 26.6 22.3 7 22.3 4

*SRK Peneloux

The LWD sampling operation provided fluid samples that may not have otherwise been acquired. It
acquired the samples in a much shorter timeframe than would have been possible with a wireline
operation. This time-saving was partly the result of less invasion (and thus shorter pumpout times) and
partly the result of reduced rig time spent on rigging up equipment for running wireline in deviated
wellbores.
The challenge of identifying the fluids in the Jurassic and Triassic reservoir rocks were met by the use
of the formation sampling while drilling tool on two wells in which wireline was ruled out because of the
extra time required on a dedicated drillpipe assisted (DPA) logging run. The goal of reducing the
operational times associated with obtaining fluid samples in high angle and horizontal well sections were
met. Nine out of nine attempted fluid samples were obtained, and the potential of the reservoir was proven
while drilling. A conservative assessment, not taking potential problems from deteriorated hole conditions
into consideration, estimates the time saving to four days of rig time, as compared to a DPA solution.
Conclusion
Well 34/8-17 S
As shown in Fig. 6, it was difficult, if not impossible, to distinguish whether the triple combo log
responses were attributable to change in lithology or formation fluid. Because the formation was
laminated and of rather poor quality with possible supercharging, no pressure gradients could be derived
with confidence. The PVT analyses of the samples showed that the fluid density was the same at all
depths, i.e., 0.23 g/cc. Consequently, no fluids contacts were proven in the well. Gas exists to the bottom
of the prospect.
The identification of fluids would not have been possible with standard triple combo LWD measure-
ments alone.
Well 34/8-C-1 H
The Cook reservoir was quite thin and partly cemented. The reason for the thinness of the Cook sand is
uncertain; it could be depositional, erosional, or structural. No Cook sand reflector could be picked from
seismic, which corresponds well with the thickness of the layer. The fluid interpretation from the
resistivity log was somewhat uncertain as a result of the thin layers and the potential shoulder effect of
a calcite spike; however, fluid samples proved Cook to be oil-filled.
The fluid while drilling sampling tool met the objectives: the identification of reservoir fluids. The
identification of fluids would not have been possible with standard triple combo LWD measurements
alone.
18 SPE-180010-MS

Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank Statoil for their help and cooperation in the analysis of the data. We would also
like to thank Halliburton Sperry Drilling for support in preparing and presenting the results with this new
LWD fluid analysis and sampling technology.

References
Prasad, T., Castillo, H.C., and Elshahawi, H. 2012. Effective Mitigation of Tool Sticking Risk in Formation Testing and
Fluid Sampling Operations. Presented at SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas,
USA, 8-10 October. SPE-159246-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/159246-MS.
Proett, M.A., Eyuboglu, S., Wilson, J.R. and Solbakk, T.H.N. 2011. New Sampling and Testing-While-Drilling Tech-
nology-A Safe, Cost-Effective Alternative. Presented at the SPE/IADC Drilling Conference and Exhibition, Amster-
dam, The Netherlands, 1-3 March. SPE-140337-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/140337-MS.
Proett, M., Welshans, D., Sherrill, K., Wilson, J., et al. 2010. Formation Testing Goes Back to the Future. Presented at the
SPWLA 51st Annual Logging Symposium, Perth Australia, 19-23 June. SPWLA-2010-95856.