IADC/SPE 59123

Real-Time Formation Integrity Tests Using Downhole Data

Iain M. Rezmer-Cooper, Schlumberger, Frederick H.K.Rambow, Mike Arasteh, Shell EP Technology Applications and
Research, Mohamed N. Hashem, Shell Deepwater Development Inc., Bruce Swanson, BP Amoco Exploration,
Kais Gzara, Schlumberger

Copyright 2000, IADC/SPE Drilling Conference

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2000 IADC/SPE Drilling Conference held in
New Orleans, Louisiana, 2325 February 2000.
This paper was selected for presentation by an IADC/SPE Program Committee following
review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the
paper, as presented, have not been reviewed by the International Association of Drilling
Contractors or the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the
author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of the IADC or
SPE, their officers, or members. Papers presented at the IADC/SPE meetings are subject to
publication review by Editorial Committees of the IADC and SPE. Electronic reproduction,
distribution, or storage of any part of this paper 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 acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was
presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax
01-972-952-9435.

Abstract
Because of shallow water flow concerns in deepwater wells
with narrow stability margins, pressure differences of a few
tenths of a lbm/gal can make the difference between
straightforward drilling and the need for an extra string of
casing to protect shallow intervals. Accurate leak off tests
(LOTs) / formation integrity tests (FITs) are essential to
enable efficient management of the equivalent circulating
density (ECD) within the safe pressure window.
The rate of downhole pressure build-up is traditionally
estimated from the standpipe pressure, but can now be
monitored directly with a downhole annular pressure
measurement. We discuss two methods that can be applied to
give a real-time LOT/FIT profile.
The first method is a real-time FIT from a deepwater well
in the Gulf of Mexico. The low flowrates used during an
FIT/LOT preclude the use of traditional MWD systems to
transmit data to the surface. However, with the use of a
wireline coupling, downhole pressure was transmitted to
surface in real-time, allowing the operator to simultaneously
view the surface and downhole pressure build-up, and evaluate
both the formation integrity and mud compressibility.
The second method uses both surface and downhole data
from a North Sea well. We describe an algorithm and
procedure whereby two downhole pressure points are used to
calibrate the hydrostatic and compressibility offsets between
surface and downhole. A complete LOT profile is then created

at surface as soon as conventional pumping resumes.

Advantages of the real-time annular pressure
measurements are:
Instantaneous data to correctly stop the test, thus
avoiding unnecessary overpressuring of the formation.
Removing the uncertainties in the compressibility of
the drilling fluid; this is particularly true of synthetic
muds.
Avoiding the need for additional circulation(s) to
condition the mud.
Increasing the accuracy of the LOT/FIT, allowing
more precise casing point determination.
Introduction
In March 1998 Shell Exploration and Production Company
announced plans to develop three oil and gas discoveries that
will add over 300 million barrels of oil equivalent to the Gulf
of Mexico deepwater inventory. These three projects, Angus,
Europa and Macaroni will increase the number of Shell
working interest deepwater developments to fourteen, the
most in the industry. Each project will be developed utilizing
subsea systems tied back to existing platforms. The Macaroni
development will consist of three subsea wells located in 3700
ft of water. Macaroni is tied back to Shells Auger tension leg
platform (TLP) for production processing. Peak production
rates are anticipated to be 35,000 barrels of oil per day and 65
million cubic feet of gas by late 1999.
These deepwater high production rates do not come
without some serious risks, and oil companies face
tremendous challenges to economically drill and complete
deepwater wells. As the industry moves into ever deeper
water, the technological and logistical challenges become
inevitably greater. For example, well construction problems
led to the loss of the first Ursa batch set; a result of significant
shallow water flow (SWF) from overpressured sands near the
mudline, [1,2]. According to a recent United States Minerals
Management Services (MMS) survey covering the last
fourteen years, shallow water flow occurrences have been
reported in about sixty Gulf of Mexico lease blocks involving
forty-five oil and gas fields or prospects [3]. This paper briefly
reviews the problems associated with shallow water flows, and

REZMER-COOPER ET AL

IADC/SPE 59123

highlights the need for an accurate determination of formation

fracture gradients in all deepwater operations.

We describe the worlds first real-time FIT as a potential

method for improved fracture gradient determination. In
addition, an alternative method is described that combines
surface and limited downhole data to reconstitute the
downhole pressure test profile as soon as normal circulation is
resumed.

The successful drilling of Titan #1 Exploration well in 4640 ft

of water in the Gulf of Mexico also highlighted the unique
strategies that must be adopted to control SWFs on a well by
well basis [6]. Of the four methods described for drilling
through shallow water flows, all require close monitoring with
annular pressure while drilling (APWD) measurements, and
conventional logging while drilling (LWD) services
(directional, gamma ray and resistivity) to provide early
detection of a flowing / pressured sand.

Shallow Water Flows

Problem water flow sands are typically found at depths from
950 to 2000 ft below the mudline, but some have been found
as deep as 3500 ft below the seafloor. Frequently problems are
due to overpressurized and unconsolidated sands at shallow
depths below the seafloor. They can lead to formation cave-in
when uncontrolled water production occurs. If an influx is
severe enough, wells can be lost due to continuous water flow.
Extensive washouts can undermine the large casing that is the
major support structure for the entire well.
In many deepwater wells, the first casing or conductor pipe is
usually 30 or 36 inches in diameter. It, and the next hole
section, typically 24 or 26 inches, are often drilled without a
riser. In such top hole sections, spent drilling fluid and
cuttings are returned to the sea floor around the wellhead
instead of being returned to the surface. Since the drilling fluid
is not recovered under these conditions, sea-water, or
inexpensive water-base mud is typically used. Standard
operating practices in deepwater wells use a remote operated
vehicle (ROV) with a camera at the mudline to monitor flow
coming out of the wellhead. At a connection, the driller will
hold the drillpipe stationary, and turn off the pumps for a few
minutes, to allow fluid U-tubing oscillations to stabilize, and
to observe whether there is flow at the wellhead. Such ROVs
have shown the tremendous power that can be unleashed by
shallow water flows. Types of SWFs include fractures,
induced storage, geopressured sands, and the transmission of
geopressured sands through cement channels. The flows are
widely scattered in the Gulf of Mexico [4]. Eaton highlights
that each location must be evaluated on its own merits, with
techniques that are successful on single exploratory wells, not
being appropriate on a multi-well TLP or subsea template, as
shown by the loss of the Ursa template described earlier [1].
Problems due to SWFs can also occur after sweeps to remove
cuttings reduce hydrostatic pressures and allow the zone to
flow. In these cases, kill mud is necessary to control the flow;
a similar reduction in hydrostatic pressures can also occur
after running the conductor string and cementing.
Consequences of uncontrolled SWF are listed in the IADC
Deepwater Well Control guidelines as follows [5]:
Mounds, craters or subsidence at the sea-floor
Loss of well support and buckled casing
Loss of well integrity and subsequent well control
problems

Well abandonment
Delays and incremental expenses.

The key to successfully drilling through SWF zones is

accurate determination of the pore pressures and fracture
gradients. The use of the correct mud weight will minimize
induced storage while allowing primary well control. The
IADC guidelines state that it is common to drill with at least
0.3 ppg margin between the mud weight and the fracture
gradient. It is highlighted in the guidelines that the
determination of fracture gradient by a leak-off test is
beneficial, but not without the risk of irreparable damage.
Deepwater Concerns
As the industry progresses towards deeper waters, operations
in these environments are such that kicks must be kept to an
absolute minimum, with any pressure changes and additional
fluid in the wellbore considered significant. Indeed, cases have
been observed where there was as little as 30 psi difference
between gain and loss, [7]. Clearly, controlled drilling within
these margins is difficult, and requires accurate estimates of
both lower and upper limits.
In general, fracture gradients decrease with increasing
water depth. Fracture gradients in deep water are dominated
by the overburden stresses of both the rock and seawater, with
the stress being less than for a comparable onshore location.
The increasing water depth also reduces the difference
between the mud weight required to balance the formation
pressure and that which will result in formation breakdown.
This narrowed margin also leads to a low kick tolerance, and
hence the use of an increased number of casing strings. In
floating drilling operations the top hole casing must be at a
minimum depth before the riser can be attached and mud
circulation initiated. This is necessary to prevent the formation
from fracturing due to the increased hydrostatic head of the
column of mud in the riser once it is installed [8].
Once the riser and subsea blowout preventer (BOP) have
been installed other factors now affect the pressure
distribution at the casing shoe, often assumed to be the
weakest zone in the wellbore. The external water temperature
will affect the density of the drilling fluid in the riser, and also
the rheological parameters when the fluid is pumped. Seafloor
temperatures can be as low as 38 oF, and when combined with
sea currents can depress the drilling fluid temperatures to

IADC/SPE 59123

REAL-TIME FORMATION INTEGRITY TESTS USING DOWNHOLE DATA

levels significantly below those at which API mud checks are

carried out. Long choke and kill lines and the thicker fluids
contribute to higher frictional pressure losses, which impact
circulating pressure should a well kill be necessary as a result
of a well control operation. Indeed, new well control
procedures are often necessary due to the high choke line
frictional losses, [9]. In summary, the narrow margins between
pore pressure (or the lower limit for wellbore stability) and
fracture gradient are such that all drilling operations are
constrained to fit within this margin. This includes
conventional drilling, the additional back-pressure that may be
imposed by a kick, and the additional pressure that may result
from circulating kill weight mud in the annulus and up the
choke line(s).
Leach and Schwartz, [10], emphasized that hydraulics
modeling and kick tolerance calculations should be as accurate
as possible for deep water well planning. This means that
models should include the compressibility of the mud system,
and the pressure and temperature variation of the mud
rheology. Indeed, the previous assumptions of incompressible
drilling fluids are no longer valid. A failure to allow for the
compressibility of the mud system can lead to confusion, and
can complicate well control events.
Accurate measurements of the static mud weight, termed
here the equivalent static density (ESD) and more importantly
the equivalent circulating density (ECD) are a key tool in
detecting and monitoring operations in deep water, and are
essential for drilling through SWF zones. However, direct
measurements of downhole pressure are now available with
annular pressure while drilling tools [11,12]. Accurate
determination of the strength of the formation is essential to
define the margin before drilling operations can subsequently
be controlled within the acceptable limits. Monitoring the
ECD helps the operator assess both the depth and severity of
the water flow, and to decide whether the flow is serious
enough to stop drilling. Most conventional hydraulics models
do not consider the effect of mud returns to the sea floor, and
thus cannot accurately predict the expected ECD in these
wells. A direct measurement of the mud pressure solves this
problem.
Annular Pressure While Drilling Measurements
Keeping the ECD within the pressure window is a constant
struggle in deepwater or HPHT operations. The downhole
annular pressure has two components. The first is the static
pressure due to the density gradients of the fluids in the
borehole annulus the weight of the fluid vertically above the
sensor. The density of the mud column including solids (such
as cuttings), the equivalent static density (ESD), and the fluid
densities are pressure and temperature dependent. The second
is a dynamic pressure related to pipe velocity (swab, surge and
drillpipe rotation), inertial pressures from string acceleration
when tripping, excess pressure to break mud gels, and the
cumulative pressure losses required to move drilling fluids up
the annulus. Flow past restrictions, such as cuttings beds or

swelling formations, changes in hole geometry, and influxes

or effluxes of liquids and solids to or from the annulus all
contribute to the dynamic pressure. The ECD is defined as the
effective mud weight at a given depth created by the total
hydrostatic (including the cuttings pressure) and dynamic
pressures. Understanding the different pressure responses
under varying drilling conditions requires an appreciation of
the drilling fluid rheological properties, including the
viscosity, yield and gel strength, and dynamic flow behavior.
Is the flow laminar, transitional or turbulent? The variation of
the rheological properties with flow regime, temperature and
pressure all affect the total pressure measured downhole. The
driller can control some of these downhole parameters, such as
the flowrate. Others, such as the temperature, cannot be
controlled.
Downhole pressure measurements are frequently the first
indication of the onset of SWFs, often before any indications
are seen by a remote operated vehicle (ROV), [13]. Early
detection using these measurements can prevent serious
damage from occurring. Typically, there is little flow at
surface when drilling riserless, although there can be
indications associated with an increase in surface torque or
standpipe pressure due to increased debris in the annulus
resulting from the SWF. The pressure signature is typically an
increase (as seen in the example described below) when the
well starts to flow. The pressure is then maintained, or falls
back to its original value. In the following example, we show
how an APWD tool can be used to detect the signature of
SWF. In a deep-water well in the Gulf of Mexico, a water
zone in sand A was encountered at X090ft (Figure 1). The
ECD suddenly increased in this zone as the sand was
penetrated, indicating water and possibly solids entry. A
caliper log (not shown) confirmed the absence of significant
washouts. The rise in annular pressure, decrease in annular
temperature, and an ensuing visual confirmation of mudline
flow confirmed water entry. The increase was assessed to be
manageable and drilling proceeded. The same trends:
increased ECD with corresponding annular temperature
decrease were seen in the lower section of the next sand, Zone
B, and in the sand in Zone D below. The influxes were not
severe, and were safely contained. Knowledge of the location
and severity of the contained water influxes, and the quick
response to the early warning provided by the annular pressure
measurement made it possible to continue drilling safely and
successfully to the planned depth for this hole section.
It is also worth noting that the log format presented here is
a depth-based format, where the importance of the drilled
features can be placed in context with the lithological
boundaries, as evidenced by the gamma-ray trace in the first
track. Usually, a time-based log-format is better suited for
detailed analysis during problematic drilling intervals, as data
would usually be compressed on a depth-scale due to the
slower rates of penetration that occur with drilling problems,
[12,13].

REZMER-COOPER ET AL

Accurate determination of fracture gradients in shallow

hole sections of these deepwater wells is essential for accurate
pressure management. The traditional method of fracture
gradient determination is a pressure integrity test.
Formation Integrity Tests
A formation pressure integrity test (FIT) is a measurement
of the strength of the formation, but is also sometimes used to
investigate the integrity of the cement seal at the casing shoe.
Interpretation of the test signature is also as important as the
accuracy of the absolute value that is obtained. Incorrect
interpretation of the FIT can lead to problems. Details of the
techniques involved in interpreting and analyzing pressure
tests are given in [14,15]. It is highlighted that irregularities in
the shape of the plot are not necessarily indicative of problems
with the cement job, but may be a natural consequence of the
formation characteristics.
In general, pressure integrity tests are conducted by closing
in the well at the surface or subsurface with the blowout
preventer (BOP) after drilling out the casing shoe, and slowly
pumping drilling fluid in to the wellbore at a constant rate
(typically 0.25-0.5 bbl/min). This causes the pressure in the
entire hydraulic system to increase (including the
compressibility of the fluid and the compliance of the
wellbore), until the standpipe pressure indicates that the
formation is beginning to yield. It is especially critical to
accurately estimate the shallow FIT to avoid the need for
squeeze jobs, minimize losses and enable the surface casing to
reach a sufficient depth so that TD can be reached with the
correct objective casing size.
A schematic of a typical leak-off test (LOT) or formation
integrity test is shown in (Figure 2) for a well that has a short
section of openhole exposed. There is a constant pressure
increment for each increment of drilling fluid pumped, so that
the early part of the test falls on a straight line. The straight
line continues until the point where the formation grains start
to move apart and the formation begins to take on mud. The
pressure at this point is traditionally called the leak-off
pressure, and is used to compute the formation fracture
gradient. Pumping is continued during a LOT long enough to
ensure that the fracture pressure has been reached. At the point
indicated, the pump is stopped, and the well left shut-in to
observe the rate of pressure decline. This rate of pressure
decline is indicative of the rate at which mud or mud filtrate is
being lost. Sometimes, the procedure is to stop increasing the
pressure before the actual leak-off pressure is reached. In such
cases, the planned hole section requires a lower maximum
mud weight than the expected fracture pressure, and the test
pressures only up to this value, with no evidence of fracture
initiation; this is a formation integrity test (FIT). If pumping
continues beyond the fracture initiation point, the formation
may rupture, pressure will fall, and the fracture will propagate.
Alberty [4] highlights that it is sometimes difficult to pick off
the leak-off pressure from the build-up curve, as there are
other factors which can mask the pressure variation, such as:

IADC/SPE 59123

Variations in the pump rate

Changes in the mud gel strength
Air trapped in lines
Inaccurate pressure gauges
Insufficient contrast between leak-off and the mud
weight used.

It was recommended by Alberty that two more easily

identifiable points are picked: the maximum pressure achieved
(or the point of massive breakdown), which represents the
maximum ECD to which the formation should be exposed.
Minor losses may occur below this limit, with more severe
losses at pressures exceeding this value. The second value
they suggest picking is immediately after the pumps have shut
down, the initial shut-in pressure, and represents the pressure
at which any initiated fracture will collapse. The ESD should
never exceed this value. Alberty describes the difficulties in
conducting quality FITs in the larger hole sections / shallow
casing shoes, and gives guidance on how best to perform the
test.
The Effect of Mud Compressibility
Before the well is pressure tested, in order to estimate
downhole pressures from surface measurements the drilling
fluid is often circulated bottoms-up to condition the mud.
This is to ensure that as near as possible a homogeneous mud
column of a known fluid density is between the surface and
the casing shoe. The density of the fluid is usually assumed to
be equivalent to that of the surface mud. However, the mud
density in the annulus can significantly vary in deepwater, due
to the pressure and temperature profile in the annulus. This is
compounded by the use of synthetic muds, which are highly
compressible.
When drilling in deepwater, the external temperature
profile along the well path decreases from surface to seafloor.
In deep, cold water, it can get lower than the normal freezing
point of water. Onshore, the external temperature typically
increases with depth according to the geothermal gradient. The
water temperature at the sea floor in a well drilled in 5000 ft of
water can easily be 100 oF less than the rock temperature at a
depth of 5000ft in an onshore well, [9]. The reduced external
temperature profile has a significant effect on the circulating
temperature for the whole well (Figure 3), and will affect both
the density and viscosity of the mud. The amount of cooling is
strongly affected by the ratio of the water depth to the well
depth; the deeper the well, the more chance the mud has to
warm before it encounters the cool riser.
The cooler mud in a deepwater well will be denser and
more viscous than the same mud in an onshore well. Figure 4
compares the annular mud density profile for a typical waterbase mud for both onshore and deepwater scenarios. Mud
density will increase with pressure and decrease with
temperature. In WBM, the pressure effect is small, and the
temperature dominates the behavior. Figure 4 shows that the

IADC/SPE 59123

REAL-TIME FORMATION INTEGRITY TESTS USING DOWNHOLE DATA

nominal mud weight in of 13.5 ppg varies between and 13.6

ppg and 13.3 ppg as the temperature changes along the flow
path for the deepwater case. The average mud weight is fairly
close to the mud weight in. However, the effective density
above the casing shoe is considerably higher than the nominal
mud weight in, due to the deepwater cooling. This would lead
to an incorrect estimate of the leak-off test pressure if a
uniform mud density equivalent to that of the inlet density
were assumed. On the land rig, the compressibility/expansivity
effect is actually more noticeable, but the effective pore
pressure/fracture gradient margin is likely to be considerably
larger.
Indeed, the choice of mud type has been identified as being a
crucial element in the accuracy of leak-off test interpretation.
Leak-off testing with oil-base mud (OBM) or synthetic-based
mud (SBM) is a more critical operation. If the formation is
broken down during the test with OBM, the formation may not
heal and regain the strength it had before the test. It is often
preferable to perform a LOT with water-base mud (WBM), if
possible, and then to displace with the OBM for subsequent
drilling [4]. Leak-off test pressures obtained with WBM have
been higher than those obtained with OBM (or SBM). The
IADC Deepwater guidelines report that this difference can be
as high as 0.5-0.7 ppg.
A Real-Time Formation Integrity Test
Because of the concerns of shallow water flow in deepwater
wells with narrow stability margins, differences of a few
tenths of a ppg can make the difference between one or two
extra strings of casing being needed to protect shallow
intervals. If pressure measurements are made using the
standpipe pressure, complex corrections must be made to
allow for the effects of pressure and temperature on the mud
density to calculate the fracture pressure at the casing shoe.
Downhole pressure can now be monitored directly with
annular pressure while drilling sensors (APWD). The
downhole annular pressure, measured at the casing shoe
provides a direct measurement of the formation leak-off
pressure, and therefore the mud conditioning circulation is not
required, saving the cost of additional rig-time for further
circulations.
Downhole pressure measurements also remove the
uncertainties caused by the anomalies in the mud gel strength,
or inhomogeneities in the mud column due to pressure and
temperature effects. This data needs to be available at the
surface in real-time to avoid fracturing the formation during
the test.
A real-time FIT was performed on the Shell Auger in the
Gulf of Mexico combining wireline and while drilling
services. During the test, an annular pressure while drilling
sensor was included in the bottomhole assembly (BHA) used
to drill out the casing shoe; annular temperature was also
monitored. In typical logging-while-drilling (LWD)
applications, sufficient mud is pumped to enable the BHA to

communicate with the surface via mud-pulse telemetry. This is

not the case with the slow pump rates used during a LOT or
FIT. Instead, in this test, downhole pressure was also
monitored in real-time through the use of a wireline-operated
LWD inductive coupling tool that sits inside the collar
containing the annular pressure sensor. This enabled the
downhole pressure data to be transmitted to the surface. This
tool is used to retrieve nuclear sources, or data from LWD
tools that are stuck, but had never been used for a pressure
integrity test.
The mud-pulse telemetry typically used to communicate
real-time data to the surface is relatively sparse compared to
the data recorded in each tool in the BHA (each of which may
have tens of Megabytes of memory). The LWD inductive
coupler allows the recorded data in the tools to be downloaded
without having to pull the tool to the surface. The coupler
assembly is pumped down on a wire so as to latch onto a
special bullnose on the top of the uppermost tool in the BHA.
Once secured it provides bi-directional communication: data
can be downloaded, tool recording parameters can be
reprogrammed, etc. For the deepwater drilling application,
new functionality was added: sending recorded-mode pressure
and temperature data in real-time as it is acquired.
With this arrangement, the operator can simultaneously
view the surface and downhole pressure build-up as the test
proceeded. In the absence of thermal, compressibility, and
compliance effects, the rate of pressure rise downhole would
be the same as that at the surface. The operator used the
APWD sensor to calibrate the formation integrity, while using
the differences between the surface and downhole pressure
build-up rates to monitor the compressibility of the drilling
fluid.
The unsteady nature of surface pressure data can lead to
errors in the LOT estimates of the fracture gradient. An
accurate estimate of the fracture gradient is required to
determine the ability of the formation and casing cement to
support the drilling fluid pressure during the next section of
drilling. The use of stable and accurate downhole annular
pressure measurements helps make drilling ahead a more
exact and safer process. In the following section we describe
the detailed procedure for the FIT.
Procedure for Real-time FIT
The Auger platform was an ideal candidate to test the
feasibility of the novel approach of a real-time FIT before
venturing into deeper water. The Auger TLP, in 2860 ft (872
m) of water, began production in April 1994. The well
configuration is shown in Figure 5. Note that there was a
larger amount of openhole below the casing shoe than would
normally be the case for a conventional LOT, which is usually
performed immediately after drilling out the casing shoe. The
detailed procedure for the FIT is described below:
1.

Make-up the lubricator and test electrical connections

REZMER-COOPER ET AL

2.

Pressure test the lubricator (to 1500 psi) and all other
pertinent equipment.
3. Bleed-off pressure and run-in hole.
4. Establish the link between downhole and surface. Link
made at 8025 ft measured depth.
5. Monitor the downhole pressure to ensure that the
annular pressure while drilling sensor is operational.
6. Reconcile mud weights between the surface and
downhole measurements based on the above
monitoring.
7. Break circulation and watch for returns.
8. Shut the well in on the annular and the wireline packoff.
9. Start pumping at bbl/min until either 4000 psi is
measured at surface or there is a deviation from a
straight-line trend.
10. Stop and compare both surface and downhole
pressures without bleeding off pressure (In practice, as
the test was proceeding smoothly, all parties agreed
not to stop at this stage).
11. If the data do not agree, attempt to reconcile and
repeat test.
12. If the data agree, resume pumping at bbl min until
the LOT point is first reached (deviation from the
straight line).
Figure 6 shows the results from the start of the test. The
pressure offset at the beginning of the test is the pressure due
to the height of the lubricator riser, and accounts for
approximately 73 psi of hydrostatic pressure. Before the test,
the well was drilled from 8040 ft to 8210 ft (the shoe was at
8050 ft). The well was circulated and backreamed from 8210
to 8050 ft, and the mud conditioned for two hours at 8031 ft,
as this was a test of the inductive coupling FIT method, and a
detailed comparison between the conventional and real-time
method was the goal of the procedure. To establish its viability
on the next field in deeper water, an attempt was made to
ensure a homogeneous mud density in the annulus. It took
approximately 2.5 hours of rig time to rig-up the wireline
equipment, to pressure-test the lubricator, and then run in hole
and connect with the pressure sensor. Another two hours were
spent circulating the mud to condition it prior to the test.
The FIT was performed with the Dowell surface unit, and
monitored with the Anadrill and Wireline combination. A total
of 14.75 bbls of 11 ppg mud (surface mud weight-in) was
pumped. The downhole static mud density (as determined with
the annular pressure while drilling sensor) was 11.2 ppg.
Figure 7 shows the maximum surface pressure recorded
during the test was 787 psi. However, the 73 psi offset must be
removed to give a total of 714 psi. This equates to a mud
weight of 1.7 ppg plus hydrostatic. If we were to assume that
the hydrostatic pressure is equal to a column of mud at the
original surface mud density of 11 ppg, the surface
measurement would imply a maximum pressure of 12.7 ppg.
In reality, the hydrostatic pressure as measured by the APWD

IADC/SPE 59123

sensor was an equivalent mud weight of 11.2 ppg, and thus

implies a maximum pressure at the shoe of 12.9 ppg.
The maximum pressure recorded downhole was 5400 psi. This
equates to a maximum pressure at the sensor of 12.89 ppg
EMW. Therefore, to base the FIT pressure on the surface
measurements (even after the mud was circulated and
conditioned) could have led to an underprediction of the actual
FIT pressure by approximately 0.2 ppg, an error that may be
unacceptable in a deepwater well. Note also that the surface
pressure trace is noisier, with the downhole pressure giving a
clearer signal of the first onset of formation yield (Figure 7).
A Reconstituted FIT Profile
The feasibility of an FIT/LOT using a wireline inductive
coupling to deliver real-time downhole pressure has been
proven. However, there is not always the option to run a
wireline. With current conventional mud-pulse MWD systems
the whole LOT profile cannot be quickly transmitted back to
surface straight after the test for comparison with the surface
data in a practical timeframe. Furthermore, it is not always
desirable to pull the tool out of the hole and download the
detailed memory data. In the following we describe a
technique whereby the surface pressure and two pressure
points measured downhole can be used to reconstitute the
complete downhole FIT profile at surface when the pumps
come back on again after the test.
Analysis shows that the downhole annular pressure during the
FIT/LOT is related to the standpipe pressure by a simple linear
relationship:

Pann = a + bPspp ....(1)

where Pann is the downhole annular pressure recorded during
the LOT, Pspp is the standpipe pressure at the same time, and a
and b are parameters (offset and gain) to be determined from
the fit. The parameter a accounts for the hydrostatic offset
between the two readings, and term b accounts for the mud
compressibility/expansivity, and borehole/casing compliance.
The borehole compliance term should be small during a leakoff test as only a small amount of formation is typically
exposed. In general, the casing is an order of magnitude less
compliant than the formation [16].
Figure 8 shows a plot of the downhole annular pressure
plotted against the standpipe pressure for a FIT undertaken in
Marnock field in the Central North Sea, 150 km due east of
Aberdeen. The minimum and maximum downhole and surface
pressures are determined and recorded. Eq. 1 is then used to
determine the coefficients a and b. It is important to use the
minimum and maximum values of pressure, as a smaller
spread could result in a significant error in determining the
slope and intercept of the linear fit. This would lead to an
inaccurate estimate of the hydrostatic offset and
compressibility/expansivity effects. Figure 8 also shows the

IADC/SPE 59123

REAL-TIME FORMATION INTEGRITY TESTS USING DOWNHOLE DATA

linear fit through the data from which the gain and offset
parameters were calculated. Finally we match the time of the
peaks, and plot in Figure 9 the full recorded-mode data from
downhole, and the reconstituted downhole data based on the
surface standpipe pressure. This highlights that the model
agreement is very good, and an excellent reproduction of the
downhole profile can be obtained from the surface data and
limited downhole data sent to surface straight after the test.
Figure 9 again highlights that the surface pressure
measurement is noisier than the downhole pressure, as in the
real-time LOT, and highlights the need for accurate surface
instrumentation.
Summary and Conclusions
Innovative techniques combining wireline, logging-whiledrilling and surface monitoring technologies have been used to
address key issues related to deepwater leak off tests. The
viability of a real-time formation integrity test for future
deepwater wells was illustrated by a test in 2800 ft of water.
By using the downhole pressure in real-time, the formation
integrity could be quickly and precisely monitored without the
risk of fracturing the tophole.

References
1.
2.

3.

4.

5.
6.

7.

8.

An alternative method for delivering near real-time LOT/FIT

profiles from downhole data is described. The method uses
two downhole pressure points to calibrate the hydrostatic and
compressibility offsets between surface and downhole. A
complete LOT profile is then created at surface as soon as
conventional pumping resumes.
Real-time annular pressure measurements offer the following
advantages during LOT/FITs:
An instantaneous signal to stop the test once the slope
of the pressure build-up curve changes, indicating the
onset of formation failure, thus avoiding unnecessary
overpressuring of the formation.
Remove the uncertainties in the compressibility and
expansivity of the drilling fluid; this is particularly
true for synthetic muds.
Avoids the need for additional circulation to condition
the mud.
Increases the accuracy of the LOT/FIT, allowing
casing points to be more precisely determined,
improving drilling safety, and potentially reducing the
number of casing strings. This is particularly
important in potential shallow water flow regions.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Rich Ostermeier, John
Pelletier, Jim Nicholson, Jean-Michel Hache, John Lovell,
Tony Collins and Mark Hutchinson for their input into the
real-time leak-off test process, and PERFORM engineer
Ricardo Carossino, for obtaining the data. Brian Johnson,
Chad Brown and Jim Aivalis were responsible for the success
and performance of the Auger test. The authors would also
like to thanks Shell and BP Amoco for providing the examples
in this paper.

9.

10.
11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

Eaton, L.F.: Drilling Through Deepwater Shallow Water Flow

Zones at Ursa, paper SPE/IADC 52780 presented at the 1999
SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, Amsterdam.
Pelletier, J.R., Ostermeier, R.M., Winkler, C.D., Nicholson,
J.W., and Rambow, F.H.: Shallow Water Flow Sands in the
Deepwater Gulf of Mexico: Some Recent Shell Experience,
paper presented at the 1999 International Forum on Shallow
Water Flows, League City, Texas, October 6-8, 1999.
Hauser, B.: Opening Remarks: Shallow Water Flow Forum,
presented at the Shallow Water Flow Forum, the Woodlands,
Texas, June 24-25, 1998.
Alberty, M.W., Hafle, M.E., Mingle, J.C., and Byrd, T.M.:
Mechanisms of Shallow Waterflows and Drilling Practices for
Intervention, SPE Drill. & Completion, 14 (2), June 1999.
IADC Deepwater Well Control Guidelines, First edition, IADC
Publications, October 1998.
Schuberth, P.C., and Walker, M.W.: Shallow Water Flow
Planning and Operations: Titan #1 Exploration, Deepwater Gulf
of Mexico, paper SPE/IADC 52781 presented at the 1999
SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, Amsterdam.
Weddle, C.E., Kelly, O. A.: Is it Normal? Trend Monitoring
in Pore Pressure and Kick Detection, paper presented at the
1999 IADC Well Control Conference of the Americas.
Silcox, B.: Floating Drilling: The First 30 Years. Part 2,
Journal of Petroleum Technology, February 1983, pp 271-275.
James, J.P., Rezmer-Cooper, I.M., and Srskr, S.Kr.:
MABOPP New Diagnostics and Procedures for Deep Water
Well Control, paper SPE/IADC 52765 presented at the 1999
SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, Amsterdam, Holland, 9-11
March, 1999.
Leach, C., and Schwartz, D.: Deep Water Well design Are
Exotic Riser Systems Really Necessary, paper presented at the
1999 IADC Well Control Conference of the Americas.
Ward, C.: Pressure While Drilling: Shallow Water Flow
Identification presented at the Shallow Water Flow Forum, The
Woodlands, Texas, June 24-25, 1998
Hutchinson, M., and Rezmer-Cooper, I.M.: Using Downhole
Pressure Measurements to anticipate Drilling Problems, paper
SPE 49114, accepted for presentation at the 1998 SPE Annual
Technical Conference, New Orleans, Louisiana.
Ward, C., and Beique, M.: PWD Applications for Drilling
SWF Zones, paper presented at the 1999 International Forum
on Shallow Water Flows, League City, Texas, October 6-8,
1999.
Postler, D.P.: Pressure Integrity Test Interpretation, paper
SPE/IADC 37589 presented at the 1997 Drilling Conference,
Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 4-6 March 1997.
Altun, G., Langlinais, and Bourgoyne, A.T.: Application of a
New Model to Analyze Leakoff Tests, paper SPE 56761
presented at the 1999 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Houston, Texas, 3-6 October 1999.
Johnson, A.B., and Tarvin, J.A.: Field Calculations
Underestimate Gas Migration Velocities, Oil and Gas Journal,
November 15 1993, pp 55-60.

REZMER-COOPER ET AL

Gamma
Ray

IADC/SPE 59123

ECD

Annular
Pressure
ROP
Annular
Temperature

Fig. 1 - Shallow Water Flow in a Deep Water well. Sand zones at A, B, C, and D are indicated by decreasing gamma-ray, shown in track 1,
and resistivity responses shown in track 2. Increasing annular pressure and ECD, shown in track four, indicate that a water influx
occurred in three of these sands.

IADC/SPE 59123

REAL-TIME FORMATION INTEGRITY TESTS USING DOWNHOLE DATA

600
PUMP STOPPED

500
LEAK-OFF PRESSURE

400

300

10 MINUTES

200

100

0
0

BBL PUMPED

Fig. 2 Schematic of a Typical Leak-Off Test

350

Deepwater
Temperature (degF)

300

Land Rig

250
200
150
100
Casing Shoe

Subsea BOP
50
0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

Measured Depth (ft)

Fig. 3 Comparison between drilling fluid temperature profiles at the beginning of circulation for deepwater
(5000 ft water depth), and land rigs.

REZMER-COOPER ET AL

Mud Weight (lb/gal)

10

IADC/SPE 59123

13.6

Deepwater

13.5

Land Rig

13.4
13.3
13.2
13.1
13.0
Subsea BOP
12.9

Casing Shoe
0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

Measured Depth (ft)

Fig. 4 Density of drilling fluid corresponding to the temperature profiles given in Fig3. Nominal mud weight = 13.5 ppg.

Water Depth 2862 ft

SAND
ShoeDepth
8050 ft

Sensor Depth 8025 ft

Bit Depth 8036 ft

Fig. 5 Schematic of Auger TLP Well Configuration

REAL-TIME FORMATION INTEGRITY TESTS USING DOWNHOLE DATA

Downhole Pressure (psi)

4950

11

300

Downhole Pressure
Surface Pressure

4900

250

4850

200

4800

150

4750

100
50

4700
73 psi Offset
4650
00:00:00

00:02:30

00:05:00

00:07:30

00:10:00

00:12:30

Surface Pressure (psi)

IADC/SPE 59123

00:15:00

Time (mins)
Fig. 6 Start of FIT. Note the pressure offset due to the height of the lubricator head.

900

5500
Downhole Pressure
Surface Pressure

800

5300

700

5200

600

5100

500

5000

400

4900

300

4800

200

4700

100

4600
00:00:00 00:15:00 00:30:00 00:45:00 01:00:00 01:15:00 01:30:00

Surface Pressure (psi)

Downhole Pressure (psi)

5400

Time
Fig. 7 Time development of Auger FIT, indicating the maximum pressure for both downhole and surface sensors.
The downhole annular pressure measurement is less noisy.

REZMER-COOPER ET AL

Downhole Annular Pressure (psi)

12

IADC/SPE 59123

10000

FIT Data
9500

9000

8500

8000

7500

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Standpipe Pressure (psi)

Fig. 8 Crossplot of downhole annular pressure and standpipe pressure, and linear fit.

Downhole Recorded
10500

Reconstituted From Surface

Pressure (psi)

10000

9500

9000

8500

8000

7500

20:38

20:45

20:52

21:00

21:07

21:14

Time
Fig. 9 Comparison between the downhole recorded annular pressure and the downhole pressure
reconstituted from the surface data and a two-point calibration.