SPE/IADC 92712

Experience Using the First Commercial Pad and Probe Style Formation Tester While
Drilling Service Has Led To Value Creation at the Valhall Flank Development
Ifor Roberts and Martin Kendall, BP; Mark Proett, Charley Siess, Frode Hveding and Tommy Solbakk, SPE, Halliburton

Copyright 2005, SPE/IADC Drilling Conference

Finally, conclusions are drawn regarding FTWD
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE/IADC Drilling Conference held in technology today and regarding its future direction for the
Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 23-25 February 2005.
Valhall Flank drilling campaign in particular.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE/IADC 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 Society of Petroleum Engineers or the Introduction
International Association of Drilling Contractors and are subject to correction by the author(s).
The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of the SPE, IADC, their The Valhall field is an over pressured, Upper Cretaceous chalk
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers or
oil reservoir located in the North Sea approx 290 km offshore
the International Association of Drilling Contractors is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in southern Norway in 69 m of water. The field is located in the
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 southwestern most corner of the Norwegian continental shelf.
presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A.,
fax 01-972-952-9435.
See Fig. 1.

Abstract
GeoTap®, a new formation testing while drilling (FTWD)
service, was introduced to the Valhall Flank Drilling campaign
in May 2003. Introduction of this service was anticipated to be
the most cost effective solution for gathering pressure data on NORWAY
these long horizontal wells. After the first well, the equipment
STAVANGER
was modified; and the rate of success increased from 20% to
90 %. As of November 2004, the service has been run in
seven wells. In this paper, we review the value the service has
added to the drilling campaign and also review the experience VALHALL
gained with the service during its first year. DENMARK
The drilling environment is dynamic with hydrostatic HOD

pressure constantly changing. The new tool offers the

capability to perform pressure tests in this environment with
the mud pumps on or off. As an essential part of FTWD job
planning, estimates are made concerning the impact of
hydrostatic pressure changes and supercharging prior to
GERMANY
logging a well. In most cases, these estimates show that UNITED
KINGDOM
pressure data gathered with this service compare favorably to
0 100 km
other pressure measurements, such as those gathered during
perforating and stimulating.
The field examples presented demonstrate the field Fig. 1 — Location of the Valhall field in the Norwegian sector of
the North Sea.
procedures used to gather pressure measurements and the
added value from acquiring this data during the drill phase.
Valhall was discovered in 1975. A three platform complex
Knowledge of the reservoir pressure distribution in these wells
with 24 slots was installed in 1981. The 24 slots were
was crucial to understanding flow dynamics across the field
extended to 30 around 1990. In 1996, a new 19-slot wellhead
and optimizing well decisions. These data have also impacted
platform was installed next to the existing complex for in field
perforation and stimulation procedures that would not have
drilling. Due to severe drilling problems of extended reach
been foreseen using conventional wireline tests. The data have
drilling (ERD), unmanned 16 slot wellhead platforms were
been used to optimize the drilling process by providing key
installed (namely the South Flank Platform in 2002 and North
information for the TD decision.
Flank Platform in 2003) to drill the flanks more effectively. A

®
GeoTap, GeoSpab, Geo-Pilot, and Insite are registered
trademarks of Halliburton Company
2 SPE/IADC 92712
new crestal platform to water flood the central part of the field
was installed in 2003.
Valhall was originally developed to recover 250 MMBO
but has produced twice this; and work is ongoing to recover in
excess of 1 billion BO from the field.
Fig. 2—GeoTap Tool Collar showing the packer/probe and
equalization valve. The packer/probe is protected in a recessed
portion of the collar. A stabilizer is attached to the collar to
centralize the tool.
The GeoTap Service1
The objective of the GeoTap tool is to provide a robust and
repeatable formation pressure measurement while drilling.
While several original approaches have been considered for
FTWD tools, the GeoTap tool resembles a conventional
wireline formation tester (WFT) adapted to a drill collar. The
GeoTap tool design is similar to many probe style wireline
tools, where a donut shaped rubber pad forms a seal around a
metal snorkel. When this probe configuration is pressed
against the wellbore, the snorkel penetrates the mudcake and
contacts the formation to make the pressure measurement. The
GeoTap tool collar has been integrated into the real-time
Sperry-Sun Measurement and Logging While Drilling
(M/LWD) system (see Fig. 2). The collar is nominally 6 ¾-in.
OD and 28 ft long with a small area enlarged to 7 ¾-in. OD to
accommodate the probe deployment section. In the probe
deployment section there are three recessed flats of ½-in.
depth. The single pad is mounted flush on one of the three
flats. Because of this arrangement, the GeoTap tool design
does not require a back-up ram. This feature simplifies the
design, and the probe extension is sufficient to set the 6 ¾-in.
tool in boreholes up to 9.875-in. diameter. The limiting hole
size is determined by the diameter of the stabilizer used. A
modification is available that enables the tool to be used in
holes up to 10.625 inches in diameter for the 6 ¾-in. tool; and,
17 ½-in. for the 8-in. tool.
Wherever possible, proven downhole M/LWD components
have been used. A field-proven quartz gauge with
accompanying electronics is used for the measurement. In this
case, the Sperry Pressure While Drilling (PWD®) gauge
section is used that has been in service since 1996. The use of
the PWD electronics provides a reliable memory and
communications (GeoSpan®) system to operate and control the
GeoTap tool downhole. Further considerations were made in
designing the tool to ensure that it was compatible with
ongoing drilling operations and yet simple enough to maintain
at the well site. The tool is capable of operating while the rig
pumps are active (i.e., pumps-on) with no apparent detrimental
effect on the data quality.1,2 Having the pumps on is a
preferred mode of operation because it reduces the potential of
differential sticking and keeps the wellbore and mud system
conditioned. If a mud motor is used, the preferred mode of
operation is “pumps-off” due to the relatively high vibration
motion from the mud motor stator/rotor interaction while
pumping.
Operation of the GeoTap tool
The GeoTap is run as an integrated part of the Sperry-Sun
M/LWD tool string. At Valhall Flank, it has been run with
mud motors in pumps-off mode on two occasions; but most of
the runs have been performed in pumps-on mode with Sperry-
Sun’s 3D rotary steerable system Geo-Pilot®. The Geo-Pilot
does not have a stator/rotor configuration, and the vibration is
level is therefore very low. At Valhall Flank, the GeoTap tool
has been run in combination with the following LWD sensors
in the tool string: At Bit Gamma, At Bit Inclination,
inclination, direction, Drillstring Dynamic Sensor, dual
gamma-ray, phase-four resistivity, compensated neutron
porosity, and Azimuthal Litho-Density.
The GeoTap tool operation is preprogrammed with a timed
sequence of events (see Fig. 3).1 The time to operate has been
kept to a minimum such that, at circa 7 minutes from start to
finish, it is equivalent to making a slow connection. The timed
events can be altered by sending a downlink signal to the tool
so that it can adapt to changing formation conditions. When an
initialization downlink command is sent to the tool to start the
sequence, the sequence will continue unless the tool detects a
system error. If an error is detected or system power is lost, the
probe is automatically retracted. As a fail-safe mechanism,
there is a hydraulic accumulator in the tool that maintains a
reserve of hydraulic fluid at system pressure to automatically
retract the probe in the event of a power loss. Furthermore, the
probe can be sheared with a 100,000 pound force if the
accumulator loses pressure.
P hydr2
P hydr1
P set
P bu(t’) P stop
Pressure (psi)
P dd
P dd (t)
T
∆t hydr1 ∆tset ∆tdd ∆t bu ∆thydr2
t dd tstart tdd t (n) tstop t final
Time (sec)
Fig. 3—GeoTap operating sequence. This figure shows down-
linked pressure test timing sequence where: tset is the time to set
the probe, tstart is the start of the pretest, tdd is the end of the flow
period, tstop is the end of the buildup, and tfinal is the end of the test
and the time when the probe is retracted.
SPE/IADC 92712 3

Real-time plotting of pressure data

Table 1—Selected Data for Real-Time Transmission
Data Resolution GeoTap Tool Event Description
Phyd1 6 psi Start of test sequence Initial hydrostatic
Probe setting
Pset 6 psi Initiating a drawdown
pressure
At least 10 seconds after Drawdown
Pdd 6 psi
tdd or at end of drawdown pressure
Pstop 1 psi Last buildup pressure Stop pressure
Phyd2 6 psi End of test sequence Final hydrostatic
∆tdd 1 sec Drawdown time period Drawdown time
Recorded plotting of pressure data
∆tbu 1 sec Buildup time period Buildup time
α 1 sec Buildup time constant 67% of buildup
Differential
β 22 psi Buildup magnitude
pressure (Pf –Pdd)
Pf 1 psi Formation pressure From curve fit
σ 0.5 psi Standard deviation Curve fit quality

With the tool positioned on depth (determined from the

real-time responses from the M/LWD tool string), the
downlink command is issued from the surface to initiate the
test. The downlink is achieved by using the GeoSpan
technology and the Insite® software package. This downlink
allows the operator at the surface to transmit through the mud
column down to the M/LWD tool. The pressure signal from
the surface is received and decoded by the PWD pressure
sensor (located within the GeoTap tool), and the arming
instruction is confirmed by sending a command back to the
surface. On receipt of the downhole confirmation, a second
pressure signal is sent by the surface GeoSpan to start the
execution of the pressure test in pumps-on mode. If it is
desired to perform the pressure test with pumps off (as when a
PDM motor is a part of the BHA), then the pressure test starts
as soon as circulation stops. Pressure data are actually
recorded from a pair of pressure transducers located within the
tool. The GeoTap tool’s primary pressure transducer is the
PWD quartz transducer. A strain gauge transducer is also
available with both gauges recording at a 5 Hz sampling rate.
Once the test sequence is completed, the probe is retracted;
additional data are transmitted; and drilling can continue.
Real-time data transmission can occur concurrently with
the pressure test sequence if the pumps are on while testing. If
the “pumps-off” mode is selected, the data transmission occurs
immediately after the sequence has ended. The selected data
for real-time mud pulse data transmission are shown in Fig. 3
and Table 1. The complete set of pressure data is stored in the
tool memory and is downloaded at the surface when the tool is
retrieved. It was recognized early in the tool development that
just transmitting pressures was not sufficient to evaluate the
pressure test data quality. For this reason, the additional
parameters were added to the data transmission so that the
drawdown and buildup data could be characterized as curves
that reflect the full data set recorded downhole.
The annular pressure data from the pressure sensor is also
transmitted real time to the surface during testing. This data
gives an accurate picture of the test stability and quality. Using
the proper parameters and the test timing sequence, a snapshot
graphic similar to the real-time plot in Fig. 4 is created by the
Insite software.
Fig. 4—Real-time versus recorded pressure data
These plots give the operator an immediate graphical
assessment of the pretest and an immediate evaluation of the
data quality. Notice that the Pstop and Pf pressures are
transmitted with 1 psi resolution. Comparing these two
pressures gives the operator an immediate indication of the
stability of the buildup. The other parameters are described in
further detail under the topic of real-time data transmission.
Theory of Operation
During the pretest, a small amount of fluid is withdrawn from
the formation through the snorkel and into the tool at a known
rate. Withdrawal causes the pressure pulse called a pretest
drawdown. The combination of flow rate and snorkel ID
determines an effective range of operation. The maximum
drawdown pressure pulse can be determined from the well-
known spherical flow equation where ∆Pdd is the final
drawdown pressure differential at time t = ∞.2
⎛q τ µ ⎞
∆Pdd = (14,696) ⎜ dd p ⎟ .................................. (1)
⎜ 2π r k ⎟
⎝ p f ⎠
With a 10 cc/sec drawdown flow rate and a 1.0 cm probe
employed, it is possible to test formations ranging from 1000
to 0.5 mD with pressure differentials ranging from 2 to 5000
psi.
The external elastomeric seal has been designed to
withstand a drawdown pressure of 5000 psi for up to 100
pressure cycles. This pad was also designed to be replaceable
and serviceable at the well site.
Real-Time Data Transmission and Plotting
Previously published works show the development of an exact
solution for the spherical flow equation that governs the
pressure transients for probe type tools.2 It has also been
4 SPE/IADC 92712

demonstrated that a subset of this exact solution can be used to S14A, S12 and S15T2, and two abandoned investigation wells
characterize WFT tools. This simpler solution consists of an 2/11-S11 and S14.
exponential decay function where the buildup and drawdown
curves can be expressed as follows:
−t
Pbu (t) = Pf − β e α .........................................................(2)

⎛ ⎞⎛ −t '
⎞
⎜P −P ⎟⎜ α ⎟
Pdd (t) = Pset − ⎜ set − ∆tdd ⎟⎟ ⎜ 1 − e ⎟ .........................(3)
⎜ dd
⎝ ⎠
⎝1− e α
⎠

where t’ is the drawdown time (T-tstart) and t is the buildup

time (T-tdd). From these equations it is possible to perform a
regression analysis using the processor imbedded in the
GeoTap tool to determine the projected formation pressure Pf,
the buildup magnitude β and the time constant α.
Fig. 5—Correlation from core data between permeability and
The Valhall Flank Chalk Reservoir porosity in Tor formation.
Virgin pore pressure was around 6500 psi. Reservoir pressure
has been reduced during primary depletion to 2500 psi in the
crestal areas, while the flank areas are less depleted. Table 2: Valhall Reservoir Stratigraphy, Tor and Hod Units.
The reservoir is at a depth of approximately 2400 m Group Reservoir Flow Units Comment
TVDSS. The main reservoir is the Tor formation, and the Shetland Ekofisk
secondary reservoir is the Hod4 unit within the Hod. However, TorD
for the flank development, the Hod4 is water wet and not Tor M1
relevant. Tor reservoir thickness generally varies from 10 to
Chalk Oil reservoir
60 m but locally is very thin. TorM2
The Tor is divided into five main sub zones: TorD, TorM1,
TorM2, Tor M3 and Tor M4/5. Thin Ekofisk is locally present Tor M3
on the flanks; and, locally, Campanian Tor and rare Santonian Tor M4/5
Tor are present in the north flank. The main controlling factor Campanian Tor(Magne Fm)
for variations of Tor unit presence is syndepositional faulting Santonian Tor(Hod0)
Hod Hardground Chalk –non pay
and shifts in local basin depocentres.
Hod1
Porosity in the upper Tor units (TorD, TorM1, TorM2) Hod2
ranges from 35 to 45% on the flanks (crestal area 40-50%). Hod3
Porosity in the lower Tor units M3, Campanian and Santonian Hod4 Chalk Oil reservoir
Tor ranges from 33 to 42%. There is a correlation of Sw to Hod 5/6 Chalk-non pay
depth, but the strongest correlation is to porosity. Tor has the Blødøks Clay
Hidra Chalk-non pay
following general parameters: 40% porosity; Sw in the range 2 Cromer Knoll Rødby Clay
to 20%; 35% porosity Tor has a Sw range of 15 to 40%. Tor
with a porosity lower than 30% has typically Sw greater than Phase 1 of north flank drilling began in August 2003, with
60%. the batch setting of eight 26-in. conductors, prior to the
Permeabilities in the Tor are low, ranging 0.1 to rare 10 drilling of waste injector well 2/8-N13, drilling and
milliDarcy. A correlation from core data between permeability completion of six horizontal production wells (2/8-N15,
and porosity in Tor formation is seen in Fig. 5. N10T2, N12AT3, N14, N7 and N5T4), and drilling of
abandoned investigation well 2/8-N12.
Stratigraphy. The lithologies above the Cretaceous chalk Phase 2 of south flank drilling began in August 2004, with
reservoir are dominantly clay stones of Tertiary age. Table 2 the rig move back to the South Platform for batch setting of
shows the stratigraphy for the Valhall reservoir. seven more 26-in. conductors, to be followed by further
drilling.
Valhall Flank Drilling Project and GeoTap History Halliburton Sperry-Sun has supplied drilling services in
Operations on the Valhall Flank Project have been a reservoir sections on all of the horizontal production wells in
continuous drilling program, with the Smedvig jack-up rig the flank drilling to date, with the exception of the first well.
West Epsilon positioned over the North and South Flank All production wells on the flanks have targeted the Tor
platforms. Phase 1 of south flank drilling began in November reservoir.
2002 with the batch setting of five 26-in. conductors, followed GeoTap was employed in one of the four horizontal wells
by the drilling of waste injector well 2/11-S13, drilling and in phase 1 of south flank drilling, and six wells in phase 1 of
completion of four horizontal production wells 2/11-S11A, the North flank drilling.
SPE/IADC 92712 5

GeoTap has been used dominantly with GeoPilot® rotary • Motor assembly tool vibration will cause seal failure -
steerable assembly in 8 ½-in. hole; although sometimes, with a tests should be made with pumps off.
9.2-in. NBR and occasionally with a motor assembly. The • If poor seal or doubt about readings, move 5 m and repeat.
majority of tests have been taken as drilling, although infill • Generally avoid taking pressures at connections, but plan
tests have been made on trips in or out of the hole. Most of the to take in middle of stand
tests have been made with pumps on, although motor BHA • Take pressures at suitable events, such as circulating for
tests have been made with pumps off. samples.
Mud type in all the flank drilling has been OBM • Get torque out of string prior to taking a test.
throughout. Mud additives are frequently used to enhance • Generally, the orientation of the tool is not significant.
breakdown. The bulk of the chalk goes into suspension in the
• If seal failures attributed to washed out hole, re-orient the
mud during drilling, and probably also helps to enhance tool and retry.
breakdown to some extent.
• Plan to take infill tests as close as possible to the original
point on trip out, to verify supercharging.
Applications to Valhall Flank Project
The GeoTap tool measures real time static mud weight
General Sampling Program. Following are the general
(pumps-off data) as well as annular (external) and bore
procedures, with comments associated with a sampling
(internal) pressure. In addition GeoTap reads formation
program.
pressure, by stopping drilling and extending a probe to seal
• Generally take two tests in main build to optimise mud
against the wellbore. Full circulation is possible during
weight.
formation pressure testing.
• Thereafter, take pressures approximately every 200 m
until reaching a critical interval; but more frequently if
Table 3: Summary list of FTWD runs on Valhall pressures diverge from an expected trend. In addition,
Flank horizontal production wells. when exiting the Tor, try to resample when back in Tor.
Well Approx Date of reservoir Comment # tests
section drilling • Upon reaching a critical interval, as ECD approaches
1st Phase Valhall Flank Drilling South breakdown, increase sampling to establish pressure trend.
2/11-S11A Schlumberger • Specify a trip to replace GeoTap if it fails before the
LWD critical interval.
2/11-S14A Ran RCI
2/11-S12 June 2003 GEOTAP 15
2/11-S15 - Reliability of GeoTap readings
T2 Verification of GeoTap as Drill Ahead.
1st Phase Valhall Flank Drilling North The following criteria were used to evaluate pressures and
2/8-N15 Oct 2003 GEOTAP 26 modify procedures.
2/8.N10 Dec 2003 GEOTAP 6
N10T2 • Repeat if required when quality indicators show a
2/8-N12A Feb 2004 GEOTAP 28 potential problem.
T2 + T3 • Dismiss if isolated reading off trend.
2/8-N14 March 2004 GEOTAP 16 • Test in high porosity regions to target high chalk matrix
2/8-N11 -
2/8-N7 June 2004 GEOTAP 12
permeability.
2/8-N5T2 July 2004 GEOTAP 8 • No-seal is generally obvious because the measured
+T3 + T4 pressure is the same as the equivalent circulating density
(ECD) pressure or hydrostatic with pumps-on.
General Procedure for Tests Taking GeoTap Pressure • Supercharging is the biggest challenge to evaluate due to
Measurements. Since the first well, 2/11-S12, where only 5 the relatively low permability.4
out of 15 pressure measurements attempts were successful, no • Supercharging is inherent to all the points, to some
tool failures of GeoTap have been experienced. However, on degree; and using a previously published analysis,
well 2/8-N10, GeoTap infill points were not obtained while supercharging is probably between 0-200 psi.4
pulling out due to a MWD pulser failure after reaching TD.
The tool has worked flawlessly on five of the wells and Due to FTWD’s diverse and important applications, it has
has, despite the problems on two wells in 2003, provided become a standard requirement to run LWD pore pressure
pressure measurements on all seven wells. See Table 3. tools in the reservoir section on flank wells.

General Procedure for Tests. Following are the general Applications of GeoTap to Valhall. The following is alist of
procedures, with comments, associated with tests. applications of GeoTap to the Valhall.

• Predefined 10 cc chamber size. 1) Replacement of drill pipe (DP) conveyed logging

• Drawdown rate 0.5 cc/sec. (option to switch, by 2) Optimise mud weight
downlink, to 1 cc/sec when tool downhole). 3) Swabbing identification
• Take all pore pressure tests with Geo-Pilot® assembly 4) Pack off identification
while circulating. 5) Gas data verification
6) Reservoir breakdown pressure
6 SPE/IADC 92712
7) Replacement of leak off testing (LOT)
8) Optimisation of breakdown-enhancing mud additives
9) Perforation point selection and stimulation design
10) Fault flow barriers detection
11) Stratigraphic flow barriers detection
12) Calibration of reservoir pressure model
13) Calibration of 4D seismic response
14) Waste injection pressure effect
15) Water injection pressure effect
Replacement of Drill Pipe Conveyed Logging. LWD pore
pressure measurement has replaced the rarely-run drill pipe-
conveyed WFT on horizontal flank wells because of rig time
saving. Furthermore, it has become a standard requirement to
run FTWD tools in the reservoir section.
In the future, if there is a data acquisition requirement to
log with a tool currently not available on LWD (for example
image log for fracture analysis), DP conveyed logging may be
considered and a wireline formation tester added to the run.
Then the GeoTap readings can be compared to the DP
conveyed readings.
Optimise Mud Weight. At the beginning of the reservoir
section, GeoTap pressure readings are taken to optimise mud
weight.
To avoid requirement for drilling 9 5/8-in. casing into the
top of the Tor in the overburden section, there is concern to
avoid pressure depletion of less than 1.20 s.g. at entry. With
the help of GeoTap, predrill reservoir entry estimates have
become increasingly accurate. And, with on-flank drilling so
far, no losses have been encountered upon tagging the Chalk.
Generally, the highest pressures in the reservoir are to be
seen at entry. Based on GeoTap readings at the beginning of
the section, mud weight is reduced to close to balance to
reduce ECD. ECD becomes increasingly significant when
drilling ahead into increasingly depleted zones with regard to
reducing risk of losses by exceeding breakdown pressure.
Lowering mud weight reduces the risk of differential
sticking; and despite high overbalance on flank wells (up to
1550 psi), differential sticking has been rare.
Minimising mud weights contributes to higher ROP.
However, generally, on Valhall lower mud weights to achieve
higher ROP is not an issue particularly in Tor due to its being
very soft.
Swabbing Identification. Swab pressures have been
determined from PWD data. Generally in 8 ½-in. hole in the
reservoir section, swab pressure is 0.04 s.g. at standard
tripping procedures. Swabbing resulting in influx has been
observed at trips on several flank wells, resulting in the
requirement to pump or back ream out. Such a requirement
can increase the rig time by several hours.
Ideally, mud weight should be adjusted to avoid swabbing.
GeoTap pore pressure readings have helped optimise mud
weight prior to trips. There is evidence from GeoTap data
from flank wells that the Tor fails to flow despite minor under
balance below the 0.04 s.g. swab pressure; or even slightly
under balanced to static mud weight (2/11-S12, 2/8-N12AT3
and 2/8-N7).
Packoff Identification. The Hod formation is tight and
consequently less depleted than the Tor. When drilling
underbalanced, the Hod begins to cave. Then, hole cleaning
can become an issue with resultant rises in ECD. Pack-offs
can occur. Pressure spikes due to pack-offs can be relatively
large, and there is a risk of losses by exceeding breakdown.
The cure for Hod pack-offs is to increase mud weight.
Flank wells have suffered frequent pack-offs due to
underbalanced conditions in the Hod, most commonly on trips
but also during drilling.
On well 2/8-N14, when back reaming out from TD, pack-
offs occurred when in Hod at 3386 m MD, resulting in losses
due to breakdown of the formation. Upon running the liner,
the well suffered total losses. The well was then circulated at
TD and cemented with no returns, requiring a top squeeze.
Later the cement bond log revealed good cement from TD to
3600 m MD; but poor, above 3400 m MD. Breakdown is
presumed to have occurred at the weakest point, namely 4495
m MD. Observations indicate breakdown with mud additives
as 2445 psi over the 3294 psi pore pressure (see Fig. 6).
On the N5 well, severe pack-offs were observed when
drilling underbalanced in the Hod in N5T2 and again in N5T3.
The latter was lost due to a stuck pipe.
Unfortunately the short time span of the pack-offs has
resulted in the bulk of them being missed on the real-time
PWD log, although recorded in memory. Following the stuck
pipe incident on N5, the plan was to include internal as well as
external PWD readings to the real time transmission and
increase the telemetry rate to observe pack-offs in real time
(i.e., during normal drilling operations). In addition, to
separate high intensity ECD telemetry, a downlink to the tool
was setup to increase PWD frequency for the drilling problem
zones.
Gas Data Verification. From pore pressure measurements,
including GeoTap, it is clear that gas data is a very unreliable
indicator of pore pressure.
Although, in places, drilling gas trends do appear to follow
pore pressure trends, in many places it does not and often
contradicts. Gas values are shown in Figs. 6, 7 and 8 for wells
2/8-N14, 2/8-N7, and 2/8-N15. Drilling gas values appear
more related to hydrocarbon saturation and reservoir quality,
which is dominantly gas released from the drilled cuttings and
not related to changes in pore pressure.
A good example is well 2/11-S12 shown in Fig. 9. where,
despite a pronounced fall in pore pressure toward TD, drilling
gas values remained high. Likewise connection gases also
where recorded at the most depleted interval but presumably
came from under balanced Tor further back in the well. If gas
data alone were used for pressure interpretation, a completely
false impression of pressure would be derived.
Likewise connection gas data has proven to be unreliable.
Although connection gases have been recorded when close to
balance, in many places they are not. Connection gases often
appear to occur related to high pressure areas further back in
the reservoir section (often from Hod sections), which can
confuse pressure interpretation from connection gas. In
addition, the increase in gas values over the drilling gas
background is frequently very small and so can be difficult to
determine if the gas peak is related to the connection or not.
SPE/IADC 92712
Drilling gas peaks can help identify fractures; and values
fall substantially when in tight formation, particularly in Hod.
Reservoir Breakdown Pressure.
Reservoir Breakdown Pressure and Flank Drilling. For
wells drilled from the crest (generally drilling from low to
high pressure), the weakest breakdown in the reservoir section
is at Tor entry. These wells require a LOT at start of drilling
the reservoir section, and the limit to how far drilling can
proceed is determined by when ECD exceeds breakdown at
the shoe. Then, drilling is stopped when mud weight is at a
safe margin (0.05 ppg) less than the LOT.
For wells drilled from the flanks (generally passing from
high to low pressures), the weakest breakdown in the reservoir
section is at the toe, toward the depleted crest of the field. In
this case, the limit to how far the reservoir section can be
drilled is determined by when ECD exceeds breakdown
pressure.
These observations are particularly significant for
cementing the reservoir liner, as on flank wells the thief zone
is most likely at the toe of the well as opposed to being on the
heel on the crest. The risk of exceeding breakdown when
drilling is considered a lesser risk than exceeding breakdown
when cementing the production liner. Although losses can be
reduced by flow rate or healed with LCM, it is difficult to
ensure a good cement job once the formation has been broken
down. (See example in Fig. 6 for well N14).
Reservoir Closure Pressure. From pressure measurements
on flank wells, closure pressure has proven to be almost
irrelevant to losses and to how far the wells can be drilled and
production liner cemented.
An equation has previously been derived for closure
pressure from extensive perforation data on Valhall.
Closure Pressure psi = (0.91 x Pore Pressure psi) + 1555 psi
Although there is a straight line relationship between
closure and pore pressure, the difference between them at high
pressures is less than at low pressures, suggesting the chalk
retains some strength with depletion.
Initially, the limit to how far a well could be drilled before
losses would be induced was believed to be close to closure
pressure.
However on flank wells, ECD has exceeded closure
pressure for long sections of reservoir without losses. Closure
pressure has proven to be irrelevant to losses and to how far
the wells can be drilled and production liner cemented. See
Figs 6, 7, 8 for wells 2/8-N14, 2/8-N7, and 2/8-N15. The
irrelevancy of closure pressure is true despite crossing faults.
On the rare occasions where losses have occurred with
ECD greater than closure pressure, losses have been minor and
have coincided with a fracture, assumed to be open. On 2/8-
N11, for example, a fracture was indicated by a 35% gas peak,
with a 1.5 m3 loss, followed by 10 m3 slow losses over next
300 m.
Determination of Reservoir Breakdown Pressure. By
combining pore pressure and ECD measurements, it has been
7
possible to derive the relationship of pore pressure to break
down in the reservoir. A significant application for GeoTap is
in providing pore pressure and drilling ECD, together with
accurate swab and surge pressure peaks.
Breakdown pressure is at least the maximum ECD
observed at a measured pore pressure, and the minimum
breakdown has been extracted in each well drilled (see Figs 6,
7, 8, and 9 for 2/8-N14, 2/8-N7, 2/8-N15, and 2/11-S12).
As each flank well is drilled, further breakdown data points
are provided. Initial models had breakdown pressure with mud
additives at least 6458 psi at pore pressure of 4077 psi in well
2/11-S12; and 7154 psi at pore pressure of 5041 psi without
mud additives from well 2/11-S12 LOT. Where losses were
induced by exceeding breakdown pressure, the loss is assumed
to occur at the lowest pore pressure. Well 2/11-S14A provided
breakdown pressure without mud additives of 6996 psi at pore
pressure of 5133 psi,. For 2/8-N14, breakdown pressure with
mud additives was 5739 psi at pore pressure of 3294 psi.
By plotting pore pressure against maximum observed ECD
and pressures required to cause losses, formulas for
breakdown with and without mud additives have been devised.
They are based on the previously derived relationship between
pore pressure and closure pressure.
Tor breakdown pressure, no addition of mud additives =
(0.91 x pore pressure psi) + 2478 psi.
This formula approximates to pore pressure plus 2024 psi
Tor breakdown pressure with the use of mud additives =
(0.91 x pore pressure psi) + 2738 psi.
This formula approximates to pore pressure plus 2445 psi
In addition, a measure of the effectiveness of the mud
additives in enhancing breakdown can be made. Mud additives
enhances breakdown by approximately 260 psi.
Application of Breakdown Pressure to the Drilling of
Flank Wells. A breakdown estimate is incorporated into the
planning of each flank well, including TD criteria and the
requirement to set a liner. When GeoTap is run, these
decisions can be made while drilling based on real-time pore
pressure and ECD.
To define pressure profile, GeoTap pressures are taken at
regular intervals, approximately every 200 m. However, an
increased number of pressure tests (samples) is recommended
if observed pressures change from the expected pressure
trends. In critical intervals, such as crossing highly depleted
zones or approaching TD, the sampling interval is reduced as
required to 150 m or 90 m. Breakdown is calculated via the
formula for each valid GeoTap reading and ECD plotted
against breakdown. In wells where modelled ECD approaches
breakdown, mud additive is added to enhance breakdown
generally when ECD exceeds closure pressure.
On flank wells, decisions have been made — from GeoTap
during drilling — to cross severely depleted zones, extend TD
by defining pressure sumps, and to maximise Tor exposure. In
addition, the ability to model reservoir breakdown pressure is
of great importance for well planning, target box location, and
8 SPE/IADC 92712
reserves accessibility from the flanks, affecting the entire well
planning for the field.
The breakdown model will be of increased application for
future wells drilled from the flank, as these well target zones
closer to the crest or else are required to cross severely
depleted zones.
Replacement of LOT. GeoTap combined with ECD has
removed the requirement for LOT on flank wells. Although
there are historical LOT data from Valhall crestal wells, they
are of little assistance to derive the relationship of breakdown
to pore pressure. Note the following.
1) “LOT” were often really FITs, that is they were not taken
to breakdown.
2) When taken to breakdown, there is an absence of accurate
pore pressure measurements.
a) LOT at the beginning of the reservoir are frequently
taken after the main build is complete (after about
100 to 200 m) and include the most depleted Tor; and
there is uncertainty as to the point of leak off.
b) In the infrequent cases where pore pressure has been
measured by wireline testers, these pore pressure
measurements did not coincide with the assumed
point of leak off; or there has been uncertainty as to
pressure readings due to baffles.
c) There is a doubt about the reliability of perforation
pore pressure measurements due to a leaking sand
plug. See flank wells shown in Figs. 6, 7 and 8. There
was reluctance to perforate close to the shoe.
Where a reliable estimate of pore pressure is available,
LOT data has been incorporated into the relationship of
breakdown to pore pressure.
Currently, flank wells have ceased to do LOT in the
reservoir section, to save rig time, in favour of extracting
breakdown information from ECD and GeoTap. Whereas LOT
only gave breakdown information under the shoe, ECD is
measured over the entire wellbore and easily read at the point
of a GeoTap reading.
If flank wells revert to LOT, extended LOT is preferred,
ensuring measurement of breakdown and closure pressure.
GeoTap pressures should be made prior to the LOT depth,
with the leak off point assumed to be at the point of the lowest
pore pressure.
LOT will most likely be required on future crestal wells.
Consideration, therefore, should be made to do extended LOT,
possibly before and after addition of mud additives, and
particularly if an LWD formation tester is run.
Optimisation of Breakdown Enhancing Mud Additives.
Mud type in all the flank drilling has been OBM throughout.
The OBM include mud additives to enhance breakdown.
During drilling, the bulk of the chalk goes into suspension in
the mud and probably helps to enhance breakdown to some
extent.
The application of GeoTap and ECD measurement has
made it possible to model breakdown before and after the
addition of additives. Current models suggest that the additive
has enhanced breakdown by 260 psi.
It was suspected that mud additives could enhance
breakdown pressure. However, from drilling on other BP
operated fields, it was not known if enhancement was possible
in Chalk fields; nor by how much. By quantifying the effects
of the additives on breakdown, it is possible to refine their
type and concentration. Cooperation between the mud supplier
and BP is ongoing to improve the effects of the additives.
Perforation Point Selection and Stimulation Design.
GeoTap readings are of prime importance as input to post drill
pressure estimation, for perforation point selection, and for
stimulation design. GeoTap has defined the pore pressure
differential along the wellbore in several flank wells,
particularly by the calibration of predicted pressure sumps.
The limitation to stimulation in a single stage has been
approximately 1000 psi pore pressure differential along the
wellbore. Pore pressure in excess of 1000 psi can risk flow
between perforations from high pressure to low pressure.
Generally, the solution has been to design a two stage
stimulation, by draining the high pressure area prior to
opening the entire well. This solution has involved setting a
bridge plug, a practice that has proven to be problematic.
Careful perforation point selection based on actual
reservoir pressures can avoid a two stage design, or confirm its
requirement, and plans can be made to optimise production..
Fault Flow Barriers Detection. An important application of
pore pressure measurements is the identification of fault
barriers to reservoir flow. Generally, flank wells are targeted
to drill reservoir within Tor depocentres, sometimes defined
by major regional faults. Each flank well has drilled through
several minor reservoir faults, with less than 10 m throw and
mostly much less. The limit of throw identifiable from seismic
is about 5 m. Faults are frequently confirmed during drilling
from logs or biostratigraphy.
Considering that small throw is unlikely to displace the
reservoir significantly, it is not surprising that there is no
evidence from pressure measurements of the faults causing a
pressure barrier. Nevertheless, confirmation of this is
significant to the reservoir engineering of the field.
In the 2/8-N10 well, GeoTap was used to measure
pressures in thin Tor within three discernable fault blocks.
One of the objectives of the 2/8-N5 well was to use
GeoTap to measure the pressure across a major regional fault,
in a previously un-drilled horst block. If the horst block was
not drained, it could prove the target of future drilling.
Unfortunately the horst target was not reached in the well.
Stratigraphic Flow Barriers Detection. In 2/8-N15 GeoTap
revealed a horizontal pressure barrier between the
stratigraphically lower Tor Campanian and the Tor
Maestrichtian above. GeoTap readings measured Campanian
Tor as 221 psi more than the Maestrichtian Tor above. Seismic
response has shown the lateral extent of the pressure baffle to
be extensive in the northeast Tor basin of Valhall. Based on
the pressures, the stimulation of the well was designed to
access the poorly drained Campanian reserves.
By taking of pressures in different reservoir flow units in a
series of wells, GeoTap has shown the absence of any other
discernable stratigraphic pressure baffles.
SPE/IADC 92712
Calibration of Reservoir Pressure Model. Reservoir
engineers model the pressure distribution of the field in time
and space. Actual formation measurements assisted in the
calibration of the reservoir model with implications for well
placement and reservoir management strategy.
Calibration of 4D Seismic Response. 4D seismic monitoring
on Valhall is used extensively as a reservoir management tool.
The concept is based on interpreting changes in seismic
response with time. Depletion effect can be seen on the 4D
response; and, with GeoTap pressure data, it has been possible
to quantify depletion and calibrate the 4D response.
Waste Injection Pressure Effect. GeoTap is planned to be
applied in upcoming well 2/11-S10 to quantify the effect of
waste injection well A25BT3. The 4D seismic response
suggests there may be some pressure increase from the
reservoir waste injector well A25BT3. These responses are not
conclusive, but GeoTap will help to quantify a seismic event
seen at 200-300 m within the reservoir section. In addition,
there is a small risk of the waste having migrated along faults.
However, extra GeoTap pressures will be taken if abnormal
log responses are seen, particularly an increase in water
saturation or if there is an abnormal increase in water in the
mud.
Water Injection Pressure Effect. In the future, LWD
formation testers will be of great help to measure the effects of
the planned water injection program, including quantification
of pressure support, directions of water movement, and the
influence of fault patterns on pressure support.
Quality Control Process for Reservoir Pressure
Measurements
A quality control process for reservoir pressure measurements
has been developed to provide a “best” pressure data set to be
used by all. This control process involves qualification of all
pressure data measurements into three reliability categories:
good, fair or poor. The operations geologist is responsible for
pressure while drilling and pipe conveyed / wireline data. The
stimulation engineer is responsible for perforation pressure
data. A best common pressure data set including reliability
qualifiers as assessed by a multidisciplinary team including
operations geologist, stimulation engineer, geologist, and
reservoir engineer is established. The quality control process is
based on an analysis of formation evaluation data and pressure
test data, which combined will indicate reliability. Finally the
data set is sent to the project data manager who stores the data
in relevant databases with the appropriate naming convention,
i.e. “best” data.
Acquiring representative reservoir pressures in new wells
is critical for well planning and for reservoir modeling
purposes.
Pore pressure data can be acquired in different ways and at
different times during a well’s life. The introduction of
GeoTap pressure while drilling measurement for flank wells
has given new insight in reservoir pressure uncertainties.
9
Well Examples
Examples of applications are included from well 2/8-N15, 2/8-
N14 and 2/8-N7 (See Figs. 8, 6, and 7).
Well 2/8-N15. A pressure sump of 800 psi was projected at
3950 m MD; but pressures were uncertain and the decline
could approach 1550 psi. A pore pressure differential greater
than 1000 psi along the wellbore would require a two stage
stimulation design (see Fig. 8). Mud additives were used from
4821 m MD. Real-time GeoTap readings revealed pore
pressure approaching the low case pressure estimate in the
sump. However, ECD was below the calculated breakdown
pressure, and drilling could continue to the planned TD at
5550 m MD. GeoTap also revealed a horizontal pressure
barrier between the Tor Campanian and the Tor Maestrichtian
above. GeoTap pressures confirmed a 1,100 psi pressure
differential along the entire well. Based on the pressures, one
stage stimulation was executed including accessing undrained
Campanian reserves.
After TD’ing the well, it was possible to pull out with 1.36
s.g. mud weight. Both the GeoTap and perforation pore
pressure readings were within the predrill pore pressure
prediction.
All GeoTap pressure readings after 3900 m MD were
below perforation pore data and indicated either an error in
perforation data due to leaking proppant sand seals or non-
stabilized tests. The GeoTap pressures prior to 3900 m MD are
supported by perforation data. GeoTap pressures at 3389 m
MD taken in Tor unit M3 is lower than 3411 m and 3568 m
MD taken within Campanian Tor formation. This was an
indication of a pressure baffle between Maestrichtian Tor and
deeper Campanian Tor. Four GeoTap pressures at 4650-4675
m MD were supercharged, as proved by infill GeoTap
pressure at 4668 m MD (see Fig. 8).
Well 2/8-N14. A major pressure decline of 1750 psi was
projected from entry point to 4700 m MD, thereafter flattening
off. However local pressure deviations were possible due to
the effects of three nearby producers. Modelled ECD indicated
the well could not be drilled to TD without enhancing
breakdown with mud additives. Predrill calculations indicated
ECD would exceed breakdown pressure from 4300 m MD
without mud additives; and high flow rates would exceed
breakdown even after enhancement with mud additives at
4600 m MD.
Real-time GeoTap enabled the well to define the lowest
point in the pressure sump and enabled the well to be drilled to
5306 m MD. At 4495 m MD, GeoTap pore pressure indicated
ECD was 110 psi from the minimum breakdown, and the well
would have been forced to TD if pore pressures had declined
further. Further short spaced GeoTap pressures revealed a
steady increase in pore pressure that enabled the well to drill a
further 811m, in which an extra 4 perforations were placed.
(See Fig. 6).
Unfortunately, upon back ream out from TD, pack off in
Hod resulted in losses due to breakdown of the formation.
Breakdown is presumed to have occurred at the weakest point,
4495 m MD, indicating breakdown with mud additives with
5739 psi over the 3294 psi pore pressure. The well suffered
total losses when circulating the liner at TD. The liner was
10
cemented with no returns, requiring a top squeeze. Later the
casing bond log (CBL) revealed good cement below 3600 m
MD but poor cement above 3400 m MD enabling cement
integrity for 8 of the 9 perforations.
Shallow of 4400 m MD, GeoTap readings were taken in
formation of relatively high Sw at deep TVD depths. The
readings revealed pressures greater than perforation pressures
and are probably supercharged. GeoTap at 3549 and 3706 m
MD are possibly supercharged as nearby perforation pressures
are poor quality. The perforation pressure at 3970 m MD is
good and stable.
Deeper than 4400 m MD, GeoTap readings are taken in
better formation, read less than perforation pore pressures, and
are believed to be accurate (see Fig. 6).
The very consistent drill gas readings are again poorly
indicative of pore pressure. Very low values correspond to
Hod at entry, which is also most likely the source of the
sporadic connection gases (see Fig. 6).
Well 2/8-N7. The plan for N7 was to drill until slightly before
the A21A producer, at 4236 m MD. A pressure decline of
1875 psi was prognosed (but with considerable uncertainty),
and the intention was to shorten the well if the pressures sump
was significant.
Upon drilling the well, mud additives were added from
3700 m MD to enhance breakdown in anticipation of the
pressure sump. ECD exceeded closure pressure from 3500 m
MD. Real time GeoTap readings revealed the pressure sump to
be not as severe as expected, and a maximum 696 psi below
breakdown was measured. It was possible to continue drilling
a further 296 m in Tor to maximise pay. One extra perforation
was added as result. The pressure trend was later confirmed by
perforation pressures. N7 could have crossed the A21A well
in Tor. Perforation pressures, although of poor to fair quality,
read constantly below GeoTap and suggested supercharging of
by 50 to 250 psi. However, perforation pressures have proven
to be unreliable and could be incorrect.
Upon trip out, the flow check at TD with 1.27 s.g. was ok;
but swabbing, as pulled out, required back reaming. Mud
weight was raised to 1.30 s.g . at the shoe, but further
swabbing required a new run in hole and further pump out.
This information suggests that the two GeoTap readings close
to the casing shoe are probably correct despite perforation data
to the contrary.
The gas readings are poorly indicative of the pore pressure.
No connection gases were seen although they would be
expected at entry. Gas readings fall to near zero when in Hod
formation at TD.
Comparison to Perforation Data. Valhall wells are typically
proppant fractured with fracture spacing in the range of 170 m.
Pore pressure data is recorded at each zone separately by the
permanent downhole gauge installed in the production tubing.
The quality of the perforation data is related to how good the
zonal isolation is, to the level of overbalance, and to the
stabilisation time.
Predominantly, GeoTap data has proven more accurate
than perforation data; and, in most cases, GeoTap pressures
are lower than perforation pressures. The inherent problem is
that perforation data pressure measurement is affected by
SPE/IADC 92712
leakage in the proppant fracture seals between zones. GeoTap
data shows that we cannot rely on perforation pressure data
alone and that the most reliable perforation data pressure point
is the first (see Figs 6, 7 and 8). In wells N7 and N12AT3,
comparison between the first perforation pressure and nearby
GeoTap readings, the differences between the pressures were
56 and 25 psi.
In rare cases, perforation pressure data was seen to be less
than GeoTap data. Throughout well 2/8-N7, all perforation
data points were below GeoTap pressures (see Fig. 7).
Supercharging. Supercharging is the biggest problem to
verification of GeoTap pore pressure readings. It was found
that supercharging was a big challenge, particularly on well
2/8-N12A well. This challenge meant that we had to define a
criterion to minimise the supercharging effect and to perform
analyses of the data to see when supercharging occurs.
Supercharging is basically related to low permeability, low
porosity, and high Sw. High Sw is related to formation type4.
We derived a guideline porosity of 36%. This guideline thus
enabled us to minimise effects of supercharging and reduce
wasting rig time, the confusion of inaccurate points, and the
input of invalid data into drilling decisions.
Looking Forward
Well 2/11-S10 is the first well planned for the second phase of
South Flank drilling and is expected to drill out of 26-in.
conductor in November 2004.
The breakdown model is of increased application for future
wells drilled from the flank as they target zones closer to the
crest or are required to cross depleted zones.
S10 will drill closer to Valhall than previous flank wells.
With the definition of breakdown, it is now possible to
introduce a safety margin to how far this well can be drilled.
Predicted 2/11-S10 Tor reservoir pressures are derived
from the reservoir model and 4D seismic response associated
with production from A-3D-T2, F-17, S-11 and S-15. Pressure
declines slowly from entry point but declines sharply after
1800 m reservoir section, with a base case pore pressure
differential of 1525 psi along the wellbore. Local deviations
are possible, with uncertainty of pressures toward the toe of
the well. Drilling hydraulics indicate ECD will exceed low
case Tor breakdown from 2000 m reservoir section, even
when enhanced by mud additives.
The GeoTap program is to take pressure readings in the
main build to optimize mud weight. The program will also
take two extra pressures in the interval 200-300 m for potential
pressure support from A25BT3. Thereafter GeoTap readings
are planned every 200 m in Tor until 1800 m, when sampling
is to be increased to 150 m or more frequently to confirm pore
pressure. It will be necessary to trip to replace GeoTap if it
fails from 1800 m reservoir section.
The intention is to set intermediate liner and drill slim hole
if we are unable to drill to the 1700 m reservoir section. The
risk of Hod pack-offs is low as anticipated mud weights
exceed projected Hod pressures.
Real time GeoTap pressures and calculated breakdown
will be plotted with actual ECD. The plan is to TD the well
when ECD is 2245 psi over pore pressure. This pressure
represents a 200 psi safety margin less than predicted
SPE/IADC 92712
breakdown and allows for possible supercharging.
Consideration will be made to extend TD by reducing ECD by
flow rate; or to reduce the safety margin slightly if there is
sufficient confidence of GeoTap readings.
GeoTap will be used in S10 to calibrate 4D seismic
response related to nearby reservoir waste injector A25BT3.
Summary and Discussion of Results
The main challenge is to quantify how representative are the
measurements of the pore pressure. Porosity as calculated by
the azimuthal density tool is the best indicator when assessing
the reliability of GeoTap to measure actual, in situ pore
pressures. The advantage is that this measurement is done in
real-time, and the optimal test station can be found. There is a
strong link between porosity and permeability, suggesting that
permeability and supercharging related effects are important
features when acquiring and validating pressure measurements
(see Fig. 10).
Comparison of porosity to GeoTap readings in VFD wells
indicates a guideline minimum 36% porosity (density 1.99
g/cc) to avoid supercharging; and the higher the porosity the
better. There are no other indications of supercharging in real-
time other than slow build up curves. To validate
supercharging, we have established a routine of how to take
infill tests on trip out close to the original point. The
guidelines of how to optimize infill pressure points is
established in an attempt to minimize the disruption of the
filter cake and limit recharging of the near wellbore. The
preferable method is to pull out; less preferable is pump out;
and least preferable is to back ream out the BHA over the
selected point. In the main build, where the highest side loads
and the maximum disturbance to the filter cake will have been
on the high side of the hole, consider orienting left or right
between 90 and 135 deg as there could be a build up of fines /
cuttings on the low side.
Fig. 11 shows porosity vs. formation exposure time along
with the reliability indicators. Most of the reliability data are
recorded in the high porosity chalk and there seems to be no
strong relationship, in terms of varying quality, with exposure
time. Presumably, the increased exposure time tends to
mitigate the effects of supercharging but this effect is ruined
by recharging the wellbore area when gathering late time
pressure data due to damaging of the mud cake when running
in and out of the hole.
A strong link between porosity and water saturation exist
in the Tor formation. High porosity is associated with low
water saturation while low porosity is associated with high
water saturation. The most reliable pressure data is acquired in
the high porosity / low water saturation chalk (see Fig. 12).
The success rate in getting seals for pressure measurements is
not affected by tool face orientation; a contributing factor is
believed to be that the GeoPilot with a long gauge bit is
drilling a very smooth hole with a low degree of spiraling (see
Fig. 13).
Fig. 14 shows porosity vs. hole size with the reliability
indicators. The most reliability data are recorded in the high
porosity chalk; and, as expected, the best data is gathered
where the hole size is equivalent to the bit size (8 ½-in.).
An increasing number of “no seals” is recorded when hole
condition deteriorates (wash outs / large hole sizes). Some of
11
the calculated, biggest hole sizes are probably not real but
rather are affected by the uncertainty of hole sizes derived
from density. There is an indication of increased mobility
(permeability) with higher porosity, which is in line with the
lab measurements data showing a clear trend between porosity
and permeability (see Fig. 15, 16 and 5).
Fig. 16 shows the relationship between permeability
derived from GeoTap build-up data (mobility data converted
to permeability using a fixed viscosity of 0.3 cP) and
permeability from the laboratory porosity vs. permeability
trends. The relative large scatter observed in data is probably
related the general uncertainty in the porosity vs. permeability
relationship and the invaded fluid effects has on the pressure
build-up. Fig. 5 shows that, from core measurement, 36 %
porosity is equivalent to a permeability of around 1 mD. A
further conclusion is that 1 mD is the permeability limit where
we would say that supercharging is affecting the pore pressure
for GeoTap measurements.
Conclusions
Acquiring good reliable pressure data is of paramount
importance to understand and to predict reservoir
performance. The measured pressure data is one of the most
significant pieces of information when building and history
matching Valhall simulation model(s). The current full field
simulation is used as a supporting tool for well planning, well
interventions, interpretation of Life of Field Seismic (LOFS),
and for long-term production predictions.
GeoTap has become standard equipment on horizontal
reservoir sections of Valhall flank wells. Because of its diverse
real-time and extensive applications with rig time savings;
GeoTap has replaced drillpipe-conveyed wireline formation
testers.
From GeoTap and ECD readings, breakdown formula have
been established, enabling decisions to be made in real-time
regarding several important decisions: how far the well can be
drilled, the requirement for intermediate liner, extending TD,
drilling through depleted zones, increasing production,
increasing pay sections, optimising perforation picking and
improving stimulation design. Breakdown models have been
incorporated into planning well targets, reserves accessibility
and drilling strategy. GeoTap has helped make it possible to
measure the effects of breakdown enhancing mud additives
and improve their effects by refinement of type and
concentration.
GeoTap and ECD readings are used to optimise mud
weight, determine swab pressures, and reduce pack off
problems. They have also replaced LOT on flank wells.
GeoTap can help determine the presence or absence of
fault and stratigraphic pressure barrier, and can help calibrate
reservoir pressure models. GeoTap has applications to
calibrate seismic response due to depletion, the effects of
waste injection, the effects of water injection, and the
influence of faults on drainage and injection.
GeoTap readings are used together with drilling data and
perforation pressures to derive a final pressure estimate for the
wells. GeoTap has shown gas data to be highly unreliable as a
pore pressure indicator. GeoTap pressures have proven to be
more reliable than perforation pressure measurements.
12 SPE/IADC 92712

The tool has proven to be very reliable. The biggest Nomenclature

problem to accurate GeoTap readings is supercharging.
Analysis of over one hundred GeoTap pressures has helped Cfl fluid compressibility (1/psi)
optimise point selection and procedures to minimise kf formation spherical permeability(mD)
supercharged points. mD milliDarcy
GeoTap has not only made pressure measurements cost- Pbu buildup pressure (psi)
effective, the use of GeoTap has increased the NPV of the Pbu buildup pressure (psi)
Valhall Flank reserves. Pdd drawdown pressure (psi)
Since the introduction of the technology in May 2003, the ∆Pdd drawdown pressure differential (psi)
reliability of the service has been improved from a 20% Pf formation pressure (psi)
success rate to around 90 % success in getting seal and a Phyd hydrostatic pressure (psi)
measurement of chalk face pressure. We have not seen any Phydr1 initial hydrostatic pressure (psi)
problems with plugging of the probe from loose chalk, and we Phydr2 final hydrostatic pressure (psi)
believe that the internal self-cleaning scrape system has most Pset probe setting pressure (psi)
likely been the reason for this success. qdd drawdown flow rate (cc/sec)
Comparison of porosity to GeoTap readings in VFD wells rp probe radius (cm)
indicates a guideline minimum 36% porosity (density 1.99 Sw initial water saturation
g/cc) to avoid supercharging. From core measurements we can t buildup time (sec)
see that 36% porosity is equivalent to a permeability range of t’ drawdown time (sec)
between 0.4—4 mD. The conclusion is that this range of ∆tbu buildup time period (sec)
permeabilities is the permeability limit where we would say ∆tdd drawdown time period (sec)
that supercharging is affecting the pore pressure for GeoTap
∆thydr1 initial hydrostatic time period (sec)
measurements.
Formation pressure measurements have been very valuable ∆thydr2 final hydrostatic time period (sec)
in the Valhall Flank development program and will — ∆tset probe setting time period (sec)
combined with an efficient downlink and 3D rotary steerable Vfl flowline volume(cc)
system — continue to be important in the future reservoir β buildup magnitude(psi)
drilling. σ standard deviation(psi)
α time constant (sec)
Acknowledgments µ viscosity (cp)
We would like to thank BP and its partners for using our φmc mudcake porosity
technology and helping us in writing this paper. µ viscosity (cp)
τp probe geometric shape factor
References

1. Proett, M. A., Walker, M., Welshans, D., and Gray, C.:

“Formation Testing While Drilling, a New Era in Formation
Testing.”, SPE Paper 84087, SPE Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition held in Denver, Colorado, USA, October 5-8,
2003.
2. Proett, M. A., and Chin, W. C.: “New Exact Spherical Flow
Solution with Storage for Early-Time Test Interpretation with
Applications to Early-Evaluation Drillstem and Wireline
Formation Testing,” SPE Paper 39768, Permian Basin Oil and
Gas Recovery Conference held in Midland, Texas, March 25–
27, 1998.
3. Kristiansen, T. G.: “Drilling Wellbore Stability in the
Compacting and Subsiding Valhall Field”, IADC/SPE Paper
87221, IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, Dallas, Texas, U.S.A.,
March 2–4, 2004.
4. Proett, M. A., Fogal, J., Welshans, D., and Gray, C.:
“Formation Pressure Testing In the Dynamic Drilling
Environment,” IADC/SPE Paper 87090, IADC/SPE Drilling
Conference, Dallas, Texas, U.S.A., March 2–4, 2004.
5. Main Drilling Program Valhall Flank South Drilling, internal
BP document, Nov 2002, various authors
SPE/IADC 92712 13

N14 MW+GEOTAP+PERF PRESSURES+GAS

6000 100
Pre Drill Pore Low Estimate Pre Drill Pore Base Estimate
Pre Drill Pore High Estimate Perf Pore
Mud weight Geotap Good
5500 Geotap poss S/charged Geotap no seal
Final Pore Pressure
80
Drill Gas Connection gas

5000

GAS (percent)
60
Pressure PSI

4500

4000
40

3500

20

3000

2500 0
3200 3400 3600 3800 4000 4200 4400 4600 4800 5000 5200 5400

Meters md
Fig. 6— Well 2/8-N14 GeoTap pressures and ECD plotted against perforations pressure and pre drill pressure model.

2,5 N-7 MW+ECD+GEOTAP+PERF+GAS 50

Pre Drill Pore Base Estimate Pre Drill Closure Base Estimate
2,4 Pre Drill Bdown with additives Base Geotap s/charged+prob s/charged
2,3 Mud Weight ECD
Geotap poss s/charged Perforation Pore
2,2 PORE ESTIMATE CLOSURE ESTIMATE
2,1 BDOWN with additives ESTIMATE BDOWN no additives ESTIMATE 40
Drill gas
2,0
A21A well
1,9
1,8
Pressure (g/cc)

Drill Gas (perc)

30
1,7
1,6

1,5
1,4
20
1,3
1,2 ECD 1749psi>pore pressure of
3793psi, with additives, no losses.
1,1
1,0 10
0,9
0,8

0,7
0,6 0
3200 3300 3400 3500 3600 3700 3800 3900 4000 4100 4200 4300
Meters md

Fig. 7—Well 2/8-N7 GeoTap pressures and ECD plotted against perforations pressure and pre drill pressure model.
14 SPE/IADC 92712

N15 MW +ECD+GEOTAP+PERF PORE PRESSURES IN PSI

Pre Drill Pore Low Pre Drill Pore Base
6000 Pre Drill Pore High Mud Weight 6000
Perforation pore pressure Geotap No seal
Geotap Supercharged Geotap Good
Geotap poss supercharged Pore Pressure

5500 5500
Pressure (psi)

Pressure (psi)
5000 5000

4500 4500

4000 4000

3500 3500
3300 3500 3700 3900 4100 4300 4500 4700 4900 5100 5300 5500
Meters md

Fig. 8— Well 2/8-N15 GeoTap pressures and ECD plotted against perforations pressure and pre drill pressure model.

S-12 GEOTAP+ MW + ECD + GAS+PERF+TRIP DATA - G/CC

2,0 100
Geotap Good ECD Mud Weight PERF PORE

1,9 Pre Drill Base Pore Pre Drill Low Pore Pre Drill High Pore Geotap No seal 90
GAS CONN GAS
1,8
80

1,7
70
1,6
Pressure (g/cc)

60

Gas percent
1,5
50
TRIP 4 at 5400m.
1,4
Inc 1.5 MW to 1.52
PULL OUT 40
1,3
TRIP 1 at TRIP 3 at 4248m. 30
1,2 3291m. PULL TRIP 2 at
MW 1.48, swab 0.2cum,
OUT MW 1.47 3361m. PULL
MW 1.49 PULL OUT 20
1,1 OUT MW 1.44
9 5/8 at
1,0 3200m 10

0,9 0
3100 3300 3500 3700 3900 4100 4300 4500 4700 4900 5100 5300 5500
Meters md

Fig. 9—Well 2/8-S12 First well where GeoTap was used. GeoTap pressures and ECD plotted against gas, perforations
pressure, and pre drill pressure model.
SPE/IADC 92712 15

50 50
good

45 45
fair
good
Porosity

40 40

Porosity
poor fair

35 poor
35
super
charged Super
30 Charged
no seal 30
no seal

25
0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0 25
-180 -120 -60 0 60 120 180
Mobility (k/my) Tool Face
Fig. 10—Reliability of pressure measurements plotted as a Fig. 13—Reliability of pressure measurements plotted as a
function of porosity and formation mobility. function of porosity and tool face orientation.

50
50
good

45 45
good fair
Porosity

40 40
Porosity
fair
poor
poor
35 35
Super
super
Charged
charged
30 30
no seal
no seal

25 25
1 10 100 1000 8 10 12 14 16
Formation Exposure (hr) Hole Size
Fig. 14—Reliability of pressure measurements plotted as a
Fig. 11—Reliability of pressure measurements plotted as a function of porosity and hole size.
function of porosity and formation exposure time.

50
good

45
fair
Porosity

40
poor

35
Super
Charged
30
no seal

25
0 20 40 60 80
Water Saturation (Sw)

Fig. 12—Reliability of pressure measurements plotted as a

function of porosity and water saturation.
16 SPE/IADC 92712

50
good

45
fair
Porosity

40
poor

35
super
charged
30
no seal

25
0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0
Mobility (k/my)
Fig. 15—Reliability of pressure measurements plotted as a
function of porosity and formation mobility.

5
Permeability from Por vs Perm Trend

4,5
4
3,5
3
2,5
2
1,5
1
0,5
0
0 1 2 3 4 5
Permeability from GeoTap

Fig. 16—Comparison between permeabilities measured in cores

and permeabilities from GeoTap pressure build up data.