The Impact of Dynamic Filtration on Formation Testing in Low Mobility Carbonate Formations. Case Study: Lower Cretaceous Carbonate Reservoir in the UAE

M. Kuliyev, S. Molua, K. Cig, S. Sepehri
{"title":"The Impact of Dynamic Filtration on Formation Testing in Low Mobility Carbonate Formations. Case Study: Lower Cretaceous Carbonate Reservoir in the UAE","authors":"M. Kuliyev, S. Molua, K. Cig, S. Sepehri","doi":"10.2118/197221-ms","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Formation pressure and sampling measurements in low mobility formations under dynamic filtration can lead to measurements influenced by continuous mud circulation. Generally, active mud circulation inhibits mud cake growth, promoting filtration and invasion of mud filtrate into the reservoir. The resulting invasion adds its own pressure to the actual formation pressure. This is more pronounced in low mobility formations where pressure or sampling measurements made with mud circulation show higher than expected reservoir pressures and/or extended clean up times as a result of dynamic filtration and invasion.\n We focus on formation pressure acquisition and present data sets where pressure acquisition was done with active mud circulation. The data is then compared with measurements acquired in a pseudo-static and static mud column.\n The measured near wellbore formation pressures acquired with active mud filtration are significantly higher (in some cases, > 400psi) compared to those obtained with a static mud column (assumed to be reading closer to the true formation pressure). The additional pressure is often referred to as supercharging, i.e., the excess pressure superimposed on the original formation pressure by the viscous flow of mud filtrate. The difference depends amongst other factors primarily on the formation mobility and surface pump flow rate during the pressure acquisition. For higher mobilities, there is generally little appreciable difference between active mud circulation and zero mud circulation. Secondary factors like pipe movement, pipe diameter, mud composition and reservoir wettability also influence the degree of the extra pressure measured.\n Best practices for formation testing while drilling in low mobility carbonates are discussed. Lessons are drawn from experience where ignoring such best practices result in questionable data.","PeriodicalId":11061,"journal":{"name":"Day 1 Mon, November 11, 2019","volume":"275 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-11-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Day 1 Mon, November 11, 2019","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2118/197221-ms","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Formation pressure and sampling measurements in low mobility formations under dynamic filtration can lead to measurements influenced by continuous mud circulation. Generally, active mud circulation inhibits mud cake growth, promoting filtration and invasion of mud filtrate into the reservoir. The resulting invasion adds its own pressure to the actual formation pressure. This is more pronounced in low mobility formations where pressure or sampling measurements made with mud circulation show higher than expected reservoir pressures and/or extended clean up times as a result of dynamic filtration and invasion. We focus on formation pressure acquisition and present data sets where pressure acquisition was done with active mud circulation. The data is then compared with measurements acquired in a pseudo-static and static mud column. The measured near wellbore formation pressures acquired with active mud filtration are significantly higher (in some cases, > 400psi) compared to those obtained with a static mud column (assumed to be reading closer to the true formation pressure). The additional pressure is often referred to as supercharging, i.e., the excess pressure superimposed on the original formation pressure by the viscous flow of mud filtrate. The difference depends amongst other factors primarily on the formation mobility and surface pump flow rate during the pressure acquisition. For higher mobilities, there is generally little appreciable difference between active mud circulation and zero mud circulation. Secondary factors like pipe movement, pipe diameter, mud composition and reservoir wettability also influence the degree of the extra pressure measured. Best practices for formation testing while drilling in low mobility carbonates are discussed. Lessons are drawn from experience where ignoring such best practices result in questionable data.
低流度碳酸盐地层动态过滤对地层测试的影响案例研究:阿联酋下白垩统碳酸盐岩储层
在动态过滤条件下,低流动性地层的地层压力和取样测量可能会受到连续泥浆循环的影响。一般来说,活跃的泥浆循环抑制了泥饼的生长,促进了过滤和泥浆滤液侵入储层。由此产生的侵入会给实际地层压力增加压力。这在低流动性地层中更为明显,在这种地层中,通过泥浆循环进行的压力或采样测量表明,由于动态过滤和入侵,储层压力高于预期,并且/或者清理时间延长。我们专注于地层压力采集,并提供了采用主动泥浆循环进行压力采集的数据集。然后将数据与在拟静态和静态泥浆柱中获得的测量结果进行比较。与静态泥浆柱(假设读数更接近真实地层压力)相比,主动泥浆过滤获得的近井地层压力测量值明显更高(在某些情况下,> 400psi)。附加压力通常被称为增压,即泥浆滤液的粘性流动在原始地层压力上叠加的超额压力。这种差异主要取决于地层流动性和地面泵在压力采集过程中的流量。对于流动性较高的地层,活跃泥浆循环和零泥浆循环之间通常没有明显的差异。管道运动、管径、泥浆成分和储层润湿性等次要因素也会影响测量到的额外压力程度。讨论了低流动性碳酸盐岩钻井时地层测试的最佳实践。从忽视此类最佳做法导致数据可疑的经验中得出的教训。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信