Gas Analysis Hanbook

TM
Hydrocarbon Evaluation
and Interpretation
Version 2.0
Written by the Training Department of DATALOG
David P. Hawker
 1999 Datalog
This manual is for the sole use of participants in the Datalog Hydrocarbon Evaluation and
Interpretation training course.
Datalog, 3030 9th St SE, Calgary, Alberta, Canada T2G 3B9

Tel (403) 243-2220; Facsimile (403) 243-2872; Web-site http://www.datalog.ab.ca
 DATALOG 1999 Hydrocarbon Evaluation and Interpretation
CONTENTS
SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION 5
SECTION 2 HYDROCARBON COMPOSITION AND CLASSIFICATION 9
2.1 Petroleum Composition and Classification...........................................................................9
2.2 Saturated Hydrocarbons or Alkanes....................................................................................10

2.2.1 Paraffin.............................................................................................................................10
2.2.2 Naphthenes.......................................................................................................................12
2.3 Unsaturated Hydrocarbons or Aromatics...........................................................................14
2.4 API Gravity Classification....................................................................................................16
SECTION 3 SAMPLING, DETECTION AND MEASUREMENT 17
3.1 Extracting Gas from the Drilling Fluid...............................................................................17

3.1.1 Agitator Type Gas Traps..................................................................................................17
3.1.2 The GasWizard TM – Quantitative Gas in Mud Measurement..........................................24
3.2 Gas Detection and Recording................................................................................................29

3.2.1 The Catalytic Combustion or Hot Wire Detector...........................................................29
3.2.2 Thermal Conductivity Detector.......................................................................................32
3.2.3 Flame Ionization Detector (FID).....................................................................................34
3.2.4 Infrared Detector..............................................................................................................36
3.2.5 Total Gas Detector Summary...........................................................................................38
3.2.6 Un-manned Total Gas Detection Systems.......................................................................40
3.3 Gas Chromatography.............................................................................................................42

3.3.1 Chromatographic Operation.............................................................................................42
3.3.2 The High Speed Thermal Conductivity Chromatograph................................................43
3.3.3 TCD Versus FID Chromatograph?..................................................................................44
3.4 Units of Measurement............................................................................................................47
SECTION 4 SURFACE GAS EVALUATION 49
4.1 Sources of Gas at Surface......................................................................................................50
4.2 Changes in Phase....................................................................................................................53

4.2.1 Temperature Considerations............................................................................................53
4.2.2. Critical Points...................................................................................................................56
4.2.3 Phase Changes in Complex Petroleum Mixtures............................................................60
4.3 Related Terminology..............................................................................................................63
SECTION 5 ORIGINS OF GAS 65
 DATALOG 1999 Hydrocarbon Evaluation and Interpretation 1

5.1 Classification of Gas Sources................................................................................................65
5.2 Liberated Gas.........................................................................................................................66
5.3 Produced Gas..........................................................................................................................69

5.3.1 ‘Permanent’ Conditions of Underbalance.......................................................................69
5.3.2 Temporary Conditions of Underbalance.........................................................................70
5.3.3 Produced Gas from Impermeable Formations.................................................................70
5.3.4 Similar Mechanisms.........................................................................................................72
5.4 Recycled Gas...........................................................................................................................73
5.5 Contamination Gas.................................................................................................................78

5.5.1 The Addition of Petroleum Products...............................................................................79
5.5.2 Oil Based Mud Systems...................................................................................................80
SECTION 6 QUANTITY AND COMPOSITION OF RECORDED GAS 85
6.1 Formation Considerations.....................................................................................................85

6.1.1 Porosity and Gas Saturation.............................................................................................85
6.1.2 Effective Porosity and Permeability................................................................................86
6.2 Hole Depth...............................................................................................................................90
6.3 Drilling Considerations..........................................................................................................91

6.3.1 Rate Of Penetration and Hole Diameter..........................................................................91
6.3.2 Bit Type and Resulting Drilled Cuttings.........................................................................96
6.3.3 Coring...............................................................................................................................97
6.3.4 Flowrate............................................................................................................................98
6.3.5 Differential Pressure.......................................................................................................101
6.4 Fluid Invasion and Flushing................................................................................................103

6.4.1 Invasion and Filtration...................................................................................................103
6.4.2 Flushing..........................................................................................................................106
6.4.3 Fluid Influxes.................................................................................................................111
6.5 Mud Type and Rheology......................................................................................................115

6.5.1 Mud Type.......................................................................................................................115
6.5.2 Mud Density...................................................................................................................116
6.5.3 Mud Temperature...........................................................................................................117
6.5.4 Viscosity and Gel Strength............................................................................................118
6.6 Surface Considerations........................................................................................................119

6.6.1 Design, Efficiency and Location of the Gas Trap.........................................................119
6.6.2 The Gas Sample Line.....................................................................................................122
6.6.3 Losses of Gas to the Atmosphere...................................................................................123
SECTION 7 EVALUATION OF LIBERATED AND PRODUCED GAS 129
7.1 Basic Definitions...................................................................................................................129

7.2 Background Gas...................................................................................................................129

7.2.1 Stationary and Circulating Backgrounds.......................................................................130
7.2.2 Formation Background...................................................................................................135
7.3 Interpretation of Background Gas.....................................................................................137
7.4 Show Evaluation...................................................................................................................140
7.5 Gas Normalization................................................................................................................147
7.6 Evaluation of Produced Gas................................................................................................156

7.6.1 ‘Sealed’, Overpressured, Permeable Formations..........................................................157
7.6.2 Undercompacted shales with a transitional pressure increase......................................159
7.7 Connection Gas.....................................................................................................................161

7.7.1 Causes of Connection Gas.............................................................................................161
7.7.2 Zone of increasing formation pressure due to undercompaction..................................166
7.7.3 Underbalanced permeable zones...................................................................................167
7.7.4 Shape, duration and timing of connection gas peak......................................................168
7.7.5 Reporting of Connection Gases.....................................................................................171
7.8 Trip Gas.................................................................................................................................175

7.8.1 The occurrence of Trip Gas...........................................................................................175
7.8.2 Interpretation of Trip Gas..............................................................................................180
7.9 Kelly Gas...............................................................................................................................186
SECTION 8 CHROMATOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS 193
8.1 Gas Ratio Analysis................................................................................................................193
8.2 Gas Ratio Plot using chromatographic values of methane through pentane................194
8.2.1 Use of the Ratio Plot......................................................................................................195
8.2.2 Evaluation of Oil Bearing Zones...................................................................................199
8.2.3 Evaluation of Gas Bearing Zones..................................................................................200
8.2.4 Prediction of Condensate Bearing Zones......................................................................201
8.2.5 Comparison with Drilled Cuttings.................................................................................203
8.3 Wetness, Balance and Character Ratio Analysis..............................................................205

8.3.1 Wetness Ratio (Wh).......................................................................................................205
8.3.2 Balance Ratio.................................................................................................................207
8.3.3 Using Bh with Wh..........................................................................................................208
8.3.4 Character Ratio...............................................................................................................211
8.4 Oil Indicator..........................................................................................................................214
8.5 Limitations to Gas Ratio Effectiveness..............................................................................216
SECTION 9 FLUORESCENCE ANALYSIS 225
9.1 Conventional fluorescence as a wellsite evaluation process............................................226

9.1.1 Sample Preparation........................................................................................................226

9.1.2 Fluorescence Colour and Brightness.............................................................................228
9.1.3 Fluorescence Distribution..............................................................................................229
9.1.4 Solvent Cut.....................................................................................................................230
9.1.5 Residue...........................................................................................................................231
9.1.6 Sampling the mud..........................................................................................................231
9.2 Quantitative Fluorescence Technique TM............................................................................232
SECTION 10 CASE STUDIES AND APPLICATIONS 239
10.1 Geosteering Horizontal Wells Using Gas Ratio Signatures.............................................241

Case 1 Geosteering using gas ratios........................................................................................243
10.2 Case 5 Establishing Production Potential from Mud Logging Data............................248
10.3 Case 6 Determination of Gas/Oil/Water Contacts........................................................254
10.4 Case 7 Reservoir and Fluid Identification from Gas Ratio Analysis..........................257
10.5 Using Gas Ratios to Identify Miscible Floods...................................................................260

Case 8 Identification of a miscible flood................................................................................261
Case 9 Identification of a miscible flood................................................................................262
10.6 Prediction of Gas Zone Productivity with subsequent DST results................................264

Case 10 Productive Gas Zone....................................................................................................264
Case 11 Non-productive gas zone.............................................................................................267
10.7 Fracture Identification.........................................................................................................269
10.8 Case 12 Prediction of a Tight, Unproductive Gas Zone................................................273
10.9 Case 13 Evidence and Effect of Flushing on gas responses and ratios..........................275
10.10 Case 14 The Effect of Heavier Oils on Gas Ratio Analysis.............................................278
10.11 Case 15 The Effect of Mud Viscosity on Gas Measurements..........................................281
10.12 Case 16 Determination of Changing Oil Gravity through a Reservoir........................284
10.13 Case 17 Prediction of the Approach to Depleted Reservoir...........................................286
APPENDIX REFERENCES 287

HYDROCARBON EVALUATION AND INTERPRETATION
Section 1 INTRODUCTION
The basis of mud logging is the detection, measurement and evaluation of hydrocarbon fluids
and other gases, that are contained within the drilling fluid (mud) and drilled cuttings
returning from the wellbore and relating this to a specific depth and lithology that has been
penetrated through drilling.
This basic principle enables an experienced mud logger to rapidly determine a range of
invaluable information as the well is being drilled: -
 Recognition of hydrocarbon bearing zones.

 Determination of reservoir fluid type, gravity and contacts.
 Evaluation of reservoir production potential.
 Prediction and evaluation of formation pressure.
 An essential component to well safety in the detection of kicks and the
avoidance of blowouts.
The analysis of hydrocarbon fluids and resulting data, together with other mud logging
techniques such as drilling data evaluation and cuttings analysis, greatly assists well
evaluation in many different applications: -
 Identification of hydrocarbon bearing zones that should be further

tested.
 Identification of zones that may otherwise go undetected by wireline
or other measurements.
 Well planning in terms of mud weight, kick tolerance and casing
points.
 Alternative to LWD in the geosteering of wells.
 Identification of miscible floods.
 Identification of thin beds and fracture porosity.

However, in order for formation and hydrocarbon bearing zone evaluation to be of any
benefit, several considerations have to be made: -
 By what mechanisms can gas enter the drilling fluid?
 How much of the ‘in situ’ hydrocarbon fluid, released from the
formation, is detectable at surface?
 How representative is the hydrocarbon composition at surface to the

composition, at depth, in the potential reservoir?
 How do different conditions and factors influence the amount of gas

detected and the resulting measurement?
 Does the gas interpretation correlate with other indicators?
With all these possible factors and variations taken into consideration, the analysis of
hydrocarbons detected at surface is recognized as being an important method in providing
rapid and invaluable information in terms of real-time well evaluation.
For meaningful interpretations of gas detected at surface to be made, the mud logger or
wellsite geologist must first be able to determine the source of the gas and, secondly, assess
the influences that could affect the magnitude or composition of gas seen.
This information must be presented in such a way that it can be readily understood and
evaluated, not only while the well is being drilled but also at any time in the future when
wells are being re-evaluated or correlated.
In the preparation of a hydrocarbon log, or mud log, the mud logger must first be aware of the
different mechanisms by which gas can originate from the formation and enter the drilling
fluid. These different origins should be clearly identifiable from the log, thus providing
concise information as to formation porosity, permeability and pressure. Gas originating from
the formation must also be separated from gas that originates from other sources.
Data, or information, should be provided that clearly informs the user about conditions, or
changes in conditions, that influence the amount of gas detected in order for considered
evaluations to be drawn from the log.

The aim of this course and manual is to: -
 Identify the various mechanisms and influences by which

hydrocarbons can enter the drilling fluid.
 Identify and discuss all of the various conditions that play a part in
determining the final gas recording in the logging unit.
 Illustrate the operation and measurement of total gas detector types

and the comparison to chromatographic measurement.
 Investigate recent advances in technology and evaluation techniques.
 Illustrate how real-time and depth-based gas trends and information

can be interpreted and evaluated.
 Show how gas ratio data is calculated and illustrate how this data
can, when used correctly, gain an accurate profile of potential
reservoirs.
 Illustrate, with the help of case studies and examples, how

hydrocarbon interpretation and evaluation can be used in many
different applications.


Section 2 HYDROCARBON COMPOSITION AND CLASSIFICATION
2.1 Petroleum Composition and Classification
Petroleum is the term that is applied to any hydrocarbon, whether gas, liquid, or solid, that
occurs naturally in the earth’s crust. As well as hydrocarbons, petroleum may also contain
variable but minor amounts of impurities, such as carbon dioxide, sulphur and nitrogen.
In liquid form, petroleum is typically referred to as crude oil, which may be composed of a
complex mixture of hydrocarbons varying in molecular size and weight. When recovered to
surface, the hydrocarbon compounds can be separated through refining and distillation to
yield a variety of petroleum products.
By definition, hydrocarbon compounds are those that consist of hydrogen and carbon atoms.
These compounds, the simplest of which are the hydrocarbon gases, can be classified into 2
types, depending on the molecular bonding of the carbon atoms.
1. Saturated Hydrocarbons compounds that possess one single covalent bond

between the carbon atoms
2. Unsaturated Hydrocarbons compounds possessing double bonds between the

carbon atoms
NB A covalent bond results from the simultaneous attraction of two nuclei for a shared
pair of bonding electrons. A double covalent bond occurs when two pairs of electrons
are shared by two atoms.

2.2 Saturated Hydrocarbons or Alkanes
These compounds consist of short chains of carbon atoms saturated with hydrocarbon atoms
that occupy all available carbon bond positions.
The carbon atom chains may be straight, branched or cyclic, giving rise to 3 series of alkanes.
The straight and branched series are known as Paraffins and the cyclic series as Naphthenes.
2.2.1 Paraffin
Paraffin is the most common form of hydrocarbon, whether found in liquid crude oil or in a
gaseous state. The group includes two of the alkane series, the straight and branched-chained
carbon atoms.
The straight chained, or normal, alkanes are given by the following general formula and are
illustrated in Figure 2.1
Cn H2n + 2
Where n ranges from 1 to 10, the paraffin members are methane (C1), ethane (C2), propane
(C3), butane (C4), pentane (C5), hexane (C6), heptane (C7), octane (C8), nonane (C9) and
decane (C10).
Chromatographic gas analysis at wellsite usually extends from methane through pentane,
since heavier members of the series will, typically, remain in a liquid state at surface pressure
and therefore be undetectable as a gas. Minor amounts of hexane can sometimes be detected
but requires a longer analysis time. This obviously restricts the depth resolution of acquired
data which is necessarily required for effective reservoir evaluation.
Certainly, at normal surface temperature and pressure, methane through butane will exist as
gases and are easily detected. At ambient pressure, pentane condenses into a liquid state at a
boiling point of 36 C (Table 4.2), so depending on the temperature of the circulating mud, is
normally extracted as a gas. Ambient temperature will control whether part, or all of the
pentane re-condenses back to liquid form and goes undetected.
Structure Name Abbreviation

Formula

Methane C1 CH4
Ethane C2 C2H6
Propane C3 C3H8
Normal Butane nC4 C4H10
Normal Pentane nC5 C5H12
Figure 2.1 The normal alkanes of the paraffin group
The branched, or iso, chain series of alkanes within the paraffin group are given by the same
general formula as the straight chained series and are illustrated in Figure 2.2
Cn H2n + 2
The branched alkanes contain four or more carbon atoms, therefore ‘commence’ from iso-
butane through to the heavier hydrocarbons. Chromatographic detection at wellsite is
typically restricted to the iso-butane and iso-pentane members.
Structure Iso Butane Abbreviation

Name iC4 CFormula
4H10

Iso Pentane iC5 C5H12
Figure 2.2 The branched or iso- alkanes of the paraffin group
A further isomer of Pentane is called Neo Pentane. Molecularly, 4 carbon atoms each occupy
one of the available bonds on the 5 th carbon atom in the group. As with the other alkanes,
each available bond on the outer 4 carbon atoms is occupied by hydrogen. This isomer is
illustrated below in Figure 2.3
Neo Pentane NC5 C5H12
Figure 2.3 Neo Pentane isomer
2.2.2 Naphthenes
Naphthene is the name given to the third group of the alkane series (Figure 2.4). Carbon
atoms in this group are closed chained and again saturated with hydrogen atoms occupying
every available bond position.
The names already given to the paraffin series are prefixed with ‘cyclo’ to distinguish the
naphthene series i.e. cyclopropane, cyclobutane, and have the general formula: -
Cn H2n

Structure Name Formula
Cyclopropane C3H6
Cyclobutane C4H8
Cyclopentane C5H10
Figure 2.4 The naphthene group of alkanes
Since there are 2 less hydrogen atoms than with the normal or branched alkanes, molecularly,
the naphthenes are slightly lighter than the paraffins.
Typically associated with higher density crude oils, only cyclopropane and cyclobutane
normally remain in the gaseous state at surface pressure and temperature. Unfortunately,
since the molecular weight is so similar, they are analyzed by chromatographs as if they were
propane or butane from the paraffin series. Slow separation at low pressures is required to
distinguish between naphthene and paraffin. This time constraint is obviously impractical at
wellsite.

2.3 Unsaturated Hydrocarbons or Aromatics
Similar to cyclo-alkanes or naphthenes, the aromatic series comprises closed chained carbon
atoms. Unlike the alkanes however, the aromatics are not hydrogen saturated, i.e. hydrogen
atoms do not occupy every available bond. The series is usually only a minor component to
crude oils, but the most common aromatic, benzene (Figure 2.5), is nevertheless present in
most petroleum compounds.
The series has the general formula Cn H2n - 6, with Benzene being C6H6
Structure Name Formula
Benzene C6H6
Toluene C6H5CH3
Figure 2.5 The aromatic group
Benzene is the simplest aromatic compound, a closed chain, or ring, of six carbon atoms.
Alternating single and double covalent bonds links the carbon atoms. This ‘benzene ring’
forms the basis of further compounds in the aromatic series. Since the carbon atoms are
unsaturated, bonds unoccupied by hydrogen atoms are free to be taken up by further carbon
atoms. Thus, outside of the closed ring, as shown in Figure 2.5, further aromatics such as
toluene (one benzene ring + one CH3) comprise one or more benzene ring together with one or
more CH3 ‘elements’ occupying the free bonds.
Note that CH3 also forms the final link in the straight-chained alkanes.

Benzene is extremely soluble, in fact this group is often referred to as the soluble hydrocarbon
group. It has been identified that this can provide a very useful evaluation parameter, in that it
is more subject to fluid movements and can therefore be an indication as to the proximity to a
hydrocarbon source.
Unfortunately, the same characteristic, benzene’s high solubility, also makes it extremely
difficult to extract from the drilling fluid, so that it has never become a component to normal
wellsite analysis.

2.4 API Gravity Classification
A classification of crude oil, based on the density or specific gravity (gm/cc) of the oil, is
defined by the American Petroleum Institute (API) and widely used.
High API gravity oils have a high content of the gasoline hydrocarbons (C 4 to C10).
The API gravity is defined, at 16 C and atmospheric pressure, by the following formula: -
API = 141.5 - 131.5

SG
The larger the API rating then the lighter the oil. The API rating can be visually
approximated by the colour of the oil or by the colour of the fluorescence under ultra-violet
light: -
Gravity Type Colour Fluorescence
Low API heavy oil dark brown to black red brown to orange
Medium API medium oil medium to green brown yellow, gold, green
High API light oil colourless, light blue (pale blue is

often interpreted as
white under UV
light.
Condensate violet or ultra-violet

(non-visible)
Note, that at that the low API end, the intensity of the fluorescence may be so low that it may
not be visible. At the high API end, particularly when dealing with condensate fluids, the
fluorescence may be in the ultra-violet range of the spectrum, again not visible with the naked
eye. These limitations will be discussed in more detail in Section 9.

Section 3 SAMPLING, DETECTION AND MEASUREMENT
3.1 Extracting Gas from the Drilling Fluid
The main requirement in providing effective wellsite gas analysis is that of a continuous,
uninterrupted extraction and measurement of the gas entrained within the drilling fluid. From
the point of view of well safety, this enables changes to be rapidly identified and the
appropriate action taken. From an evaluation point of view, it again enables changes in
formation or gas volume and/or composition to be accurately identified and related to the
exact depth of its liberation. This is important in applications such as the identification of
reservoir gas/oil/water contacts, the determination of specific zones to be tested or fractured,
and the geosteering of horizontal wells on the basis of gas ratio analysis providing a cheaper
option to downhole LWD tools.
Whatever form of gas extraction is used, the important considerations are: -
 How efficient is the gas extraction?
 How quantitative is the gas measurement?
 If the sample is diluted in air, how does the ‘gas-in-air’ measurement relate to the total
volume of gas held in the mud?
 Does a surface gas measurement bear any relation to the volume of gas in the formation?
3.1.1 Agitator Type Gas Traps
The trap, or degasser, is positioned in the returning mud stream, typically in the shaker box
(header box or possum belly), in order to have a continual flow of ‘newly’ returning mud
from which to extract a consistent as possible gas sample.
Agitator type traps have been historically, and are still, used widely in the industry,
principally because they are relatively cheap, mechanically and operationally simple, although
requiring a certain amount of maintenance.

The trap operates by drawing in mud, typically from an orifice at the base of the trap cylinder.
The mud is then subjected to extreme agitation from a rotating blade, or agitator, to break out
and extract the dissolved gas together with the free gas bubbles entrained in the mud. Once
free from the mud, the gas is lifted to the top of the trap by a constant flow of air circulated
through the trap from the logging unit. The gas/air mixture is then carried on to the detectors
in the mud logging unit. This type of suction is necessary since methane is the only
hydrocarbon gas that is lighter than air. Heavier hydrocarbons will not rise on their own
accord, so require lifting by the air flowing up through the trap.
Variations have been used, whereby the mud is first drawn off from the shaker box, then
passed to a vessel where agitation is applied to break gas out of solution.
Although widely used, this conventional trap does have certain limitations that leads to
concern over the accuracy and reliability of subsequent gas measurements and, ultimately,
that potential productive zones may be bypassed: -
 Variability in gas measurement with operating conditions such as mud flow rate, wind
speed and direction.
Changes in flowrate lead to a change in mud level (in the shaker box) and
therefore the volume of mud being sampled. While this leads to the possibility
of more gas being extracted from a larger volume of mud, the increase in mud
volume also exerts more load against the agitator, decreasing its efficiency.
Although a significant factor, immediate or significant changes in mud level
should never present an operational problem, since, whenever a change in
flowrate occurs, the first priority of the mudlogger should be to reset the height
of the gas trap. However, the shaker box is quite a turbulent environment so that
there are continual minor fluctuations in the mud level, leading to inconsistent
operation of the trap and therefore of the amount of gas extracted. Additional
effects, as a result of flowrate changes, will be discussed in section 6.3.4
Wind, on entering the air intake, will increase the dilution of the gas/air sample
leading to a reduction in the gas measurement. In fact, research by Texaco and
the Gas Research Institute (SWPLA, June 1993) has shown that a wind speed as
low as 8 mph, directly into the port, can lead to a 50% drop in the gas value.
Again, while this is quite an alarming statement, wind is not such an operational
hazard. On most modern day rigs, certainly offshore vessels, the flowline and
shakers are enclosed or protected. Even where open, the mud level is usually
sufficiently below the top of the shaker box to provide protection to the air
intake. However, should the trap be exposed to wind, then variations in speed
and direction can be a major effect on gas dilution that cannot be overlooked so
that every effort should be made to provide some protection.

 The effect of trap loading, where gas is actually extracted from the mud at a greater rate
than it is being evacuated from the trap. This leads to a build up, or concentration, of gas
within the trap that will take a longer time to be completely evacuated. This can result in
erroneously high gas measurements extended over a longer period of time, possibly
masking changes in gas volume over the same period. This problem has become more
pronounced over recent years with the improved efficiency of gas traps. Although
extraction of low volumes of gas has improved, the higher volumes leading to trap
loading does create a problem, especially for engineers who are concerned about mud
condition and well control.
 The potential of losing gas as a result of the agitation process. As the gas is broken out of
solution, a proportion of the free gas bubbles may be carried straight out of the trap by the
expelled mud. The significance of this will vary with the rotational speed of the agitator,
trap immersion depth and mud properties, all of which determine the pattern of the mud
flow through the trap.
 The efficiency of gas extraction is determined, to a large degree, by the rotational speed of
the agitator. This, naturally, leads to concern from operators when different speeds (not
to mention overall trap design and types of detectors being used) lead to variable gas
measurements from different service companies, making well correlation difficult.
 The other problem with rotational speed is that, even for a given rpm, the extraction
efficiency is relative to individual hydrocarbon components. Heavier hydrocarbons are
more soluble and therefore more difficult to break out of solution. With lighter
hydrocarbons, not only is a significantly smaller volume held in solution, but they are
also easier to break out. Therefore, for any given composition, the extraction of light
hydrocarbons is likely to be more complete than that of the heavier components.
 Mud type and rheology also plays an important role in the efficiency of the trap. The
heavier or more viscous the mud, the slower the rotation of the agitator and the less
efficient the gas extraction. This, again, amplifies the effects due to the relative solubility
of different gas components. Oil based systems will hold a much greater quantity of gas,
especially the heavier components, in solution.
Several of these limitations are eliminated or reduced by the gas trap used in the Texaco/Gas
Research Institute patented QGM TM (Quantitative Gas Measurement)
electric motor system. The sensitivity
to changes in flowrate and mud level are minimized by the interior design of the trap and
rotational speed. The trap exhaust being beneath the mud surface eliminates variations in air
air/gas sample
dilution and gas loss. to analysis
agitator extracting
entrained gas
Direction of mud ambient air

flow, entering
shaker box from mud exit port
the 1999
 DATALOG flowline Hydrocarbon Evaluation and Interpretation 19
Figure 3.1 Typical gas trap assembly
Datalog’s agitator trap (Figures 3.1 and 3.2) comprises a cylindrical trap with mud intake
from the bottom and a combined port for mud exhaust and air intake, halve way up. The gas
sample is drawn to the mud logging unit, from the top of the trap, by air being pumped at a
constant rate of 4 scfh (standard cubic feet per hour).
The agitator has a ‘tripod’ configuration, which, in comparison to a single or crossed blade, is
more efficient at low immersion levels and less susceptible to fluctuations in the mud level. It
is powered by an electric or air motor that, delivering 1725 rpm, provides very efficient
agitation and gas extraction.
The location and positioning of the trap is obviously very important and the following points
should always be observed (Figure 3.2): -
 The trap should be sited directly where the mud enters the shaker box,
not off to the side where the mud may have been ‘standing’ for a period,
all the time losing gas to the atmosphere, and not representative of the
lagged depth.
 There must be a sufficient depth of mud in order that the trap can be set
at the correct depth for maximum efficiency.
 The trap should not be obstructed by cuttings build up in the shaker box.
 The exit port should be positioned downstream so that mud (agitated

and liberated of any gas) is not recycled back into the trap.

 If the shakers are not enclosed, every effort should be made to ensure
that the air intake is not exposed to changes in ambient wind.
Figure 3.2 Typical trap assembly
Given that a resulting gas measurement represents the gas-in-air volume, the question remains
as to how this compares to the gas-in-mud volume. Depending on the efficiencies and
limitations discussed above, it is clear that a proportion of the entrained gas will remain in the
mud and be recycled.
Of the gas that is extracted from the mud, subsequent processes can, also, occasionally lead to
erroneous (absolute) measurements.
 The length of the gas sample line, between trap and detector, leads to a delay in gas
responses, sometimes as long as several minutes.
 Typical polyflow tubing is now known to absorb the heavier hydrocarbons until a
saturation point is reached. When gas levels in the sample reduce, the absorbed
hydrocarbons can then be desorbed and released back into the sample line.

 Hydrocarbons may arrive at surface, in the hot mud, as a gas. Once extracted and
subjected to the colder ambient temperature in the gas sample line, the heavier
components may condense into liquid form and therefore not be detected.
 The volume of air in the trap, sample line and drying vessels leads to a large dilution of
the extracted gas. Such dilution can cause extended and dampened gas responses with
poorer show definition. Accuracy can therefore be lost in the identification of thin beds
and fractures for example.
 Variations in gas response due to fluctuations in sample pump rate can be caused by
fluids condensing in the gas line, freezing of the gas line etc, so that the system requires a
high degree of maintenance in order for consistent operation.
As a result of all the problems associated with agitator type traps, as described above, it is
clearly recognized by mud loggers and wellsite geologists that the resulting gas measurement
is extremely qualitative, so that evaluation has to be based on relative changes in gas
response.
Various methods have been used to attempt to quantify the gas-in-air measurement, to
improve the quality of gas data.
Probably the most acceptable is by calibrating, or applying a correction factor, to the gas-in-
air value from an actual gas-in-mud volume. This can be obtained by taking a mud sample
from the flowline, then removing all hydrocarbons with a steam still, or as with the
Texaco/GRI QGM system, a microwave still, and measuring the gas volume.
The theory is that having obtained a quantitative measurement of the gas volume in the mud,
it can be directly equated to the volume of gas in place in the reservoir, thereby obtaining a
measurement of apparent gas porosity. This can be achieved by determining the ratio of
cuttings to the mud volume (the rate of penetration and hole diameter determines the volume
of rock that gas is liberated from, and the flowrate determines the volume of mud that the gas
is liberated into), together with expansion/compressibility factors of the different gas
components.
Whilst this is good theory and the desired ‘end goal’, there are problems associated with the
process of obtaining an accurate quantitative conversion: -
 If the mud sample is taken from anywhere other than the bell nipple when the mud
first returns to surface, the gas-in-mud measurement will not be accurate since losses
to atmosphere will have occurred (especially the light end components).
 A good quality sample is difficult to obtain, with a true gas-mud ratio, if the mud is
gas cut and bubbling.

 How often should the mud sample be taken? A new conversion factor will be
required, as minimum, whenever there is change in gas volume, gas composition,
mud rheology and/or temperature, flowrate etc. In other words, whenever there is a
change in actual gas measurement or in any parameters that affect the gas
measurement, a new correction factor should be applied. In reality this means, for
effective quantification of gas measurements, corrections have to be applied on a
real-time basis. This is obviously impractical at wellsite.
Even given ideal circumstances, with the mud sample taken from bell and a frequent
calibration factor determined, the measurement will still not account for changes in gas
saturation of the mud (i.e. not directly equating to the gas liberated from a given volume of
rock) due to: -
 Flushing of formations that leads to the displacement of formation fluids away from
the formation subsequently to be drilled. The liberated gas volume recorded at
surface will therefore be less than the true gas volume of the formation.
 The influence of borehole influxes, so that produced fluid flowing from the
formation adds to the liberated gas volume for a unit volume of rock.
 Hole washouts in the borehole can lead to a decrease in the gas saturation of the
mud, since, as mud circulation is disturbed through the washed out area, the gas is
dispersed in a larger volume of mud.
Although these situations can be readily identified at wellsite, when they occur they cannot be
accounted for quantitatively. In such situations, it remains very difficult, in practice, to relate
surface measurements to the gas volume in place in the formation, so that, relative changes in
volume and fluid type is still a very important component of wellsite evaluation.
3.1.2 The GasWizardTM – Quantitative Gas in Mud Measurement
Rather than trying to apply corrections to the inconsistent and qualitative gas measurement
provided by the agitator trap and sample line systems, Datalog have introduced an extraction
system that eliminates both of these major sources of error.

The sensor works on the principle of gas (whether free or in solution) passing through a gas
permeable membrane positioned in the returning mud stream. Knowing the exchange capacity
of the membrane, and by measuring the volume of gas that has passed through the membrane,
the volume of gas in the mud can be mathematically determined.
The GasWizardTM (Figure 3.3) provides continual, quantitative gas measurement direct from
the returning mud stream for the first time in the history of mud logging and wellsite gas
analysis. The system provides actual gas percentage by volume so that the specific values of
recorded gas are now very significant and meaningful.
signal
explosion proof unit
cable housing detector,
pump and analysis
equipment
Sensor with flexible hose carrying

gas gas sample to detector
permeable
membrane
Figure 3.3 The GasWizardTM
 The sensor is insensitive to changes in the mud level, providing continually accurate
gas measurements, regardless of flowrate variations, and allowing more effective well
correlation.
 The GasWizard system provides a quantitative measurement of the gas entrained in

the drilling fluid. Accurately knowing the gas percentage, by volume, in the mud
leads to further applications in quantitative gas evaluation such as the determination
of apparent gas porosity and the determination of the degree of gas cut mud.

 Since the detector is located at the point of installation, there are minimal transit
delays between gas extraction and gas measurement. This rapid response time leads to
much better depth resolution and more accurate determination of formation tops and
contact points for example.
 Greater sensitivity results from the sampling mechanism. Only very small quantities
of gas and air are required by the system, so that there is no over-dilution of the gas
sample in large air volumes resulting in ‘dampened’, poorly defined responses. This
degree of sensitivity provides more effective formation evaluation in situations such
as the identification of thin beds or fractures and in the determination of minor
changes in porosity or permeability.
 Because there is no gas trap, there are no erroneously high gas measurements
associated with trap loading. Although geologists are very aware of the qualitative
aspects of gas measurements, engineers are very frustrated with gas reports of 80 or
90 percent, for example. If that was the true value, there would be no mud column in
the annulus and the well would have blown out! Now, engineers will be provided
with the exact volume of gas in the mud, a valuable component to well control.
 The GasWizard sensor is not effected by changes in mud density or viscosity.
 The sensor can be positioned directly in the flowline to minimize the error of lighter
gases being lost to the atmosphere. Similarly, it can be mounted in the pump suction
line so that the volume of gas being recycled in the system can be accurately
determined.
 The carrier air is dried at the point of intake, before it reaches the sensor. There are
therefore no problems with hydrocarbons being absorbed by dryers and filters and not
being recorded.
 The gas sample is heated during its transit to the gas detector, so that the heavier
gases will not condense to liquid form and go undetected.
 The GasWizard is not effected by whether gas is free or dissolved, and is therefore
accurate in oil based systems where gas is predominantly in solution.
Evaluation Considerations
The GasWizard system does not differentiate as to whether the gas in the mud is present as
free gas bubbles or as dissolved gas. It is not subject to the irregularities of agitator traps
when breaking gas out of solution, caused by varying hydrocarbon composition, varying
bubble size, mud temperature and viscosity.
This principle does contribute, however, to differences in gas measurements (than would have
previously been experienced with agitator traps) that need to be understood.

General Differences (Figure 3.4)
 One thing that every wellsite operator is familiar with, from agitator traps, is the gas
reading falling to zero when connections are made. This is simply due to the fact that the
mud level drops in the shaker box so that the trap is no longer in the mud. This is not seen
with the GasWizard (see 3.4A). Although the gas level falls, it does not go to zero since
there is still ambient gas in the flowline surrounding the sensor, which will pass through
the membrane. It is also possible that the mud does not completely vacate the flowline
over the duration of the connection, so that gas is still measured.
 Gas responses are quicker as a result of the faster transit time from sensor to detector
(3.4B).
 Sharper and better defined changes are seen in the gas response (3.4C). This results from
the smaller volume of air in the system. With agitator traps, the gas is diluted in a large
volume of air so that responses become ‘smeared’ or ‘dampened’ over an extended time
interval.
 Large gas values, of 70% or 80% for example, are common with agitator traps but not
recorded by the GasWizard. These large values result from trap loading, where gas is
extracted from the mud at a quicker rate than it is being vacated from the trap. The
concentration therefore builds up in the trap, leading to erroneously high values that take
a longer period of time to be completely vacated from the trap. Values recorded by the
GasWizard are a true measurement of gas volume in mud.

A GasWizardTM Agitator Trap
1 minute
intervals
Figure 3.4. Typical differences in gas response of the GasWizard.
Water-Based Mud Systems
 Gas values are typically lower than those recorded by the agitator trap as a result of the
trap loading described above. This is particularly true for larger gas values, in excess of
10%.
 For lower gas concentrations, when dealing with principally methane, gas values are
likely to be very similar. If the GasWizard is installed in the flowline at the bell nipple,
however, readings will be higher since gas that would otherwise escape to the atmosphere,
before the mud reaches the shaker box, is being detected.
 Gas composition may also cause a difference in response. If heavier oil is being sampled
with a greater proportion of heavier end gases (propane through pentane) present, the

response will be higher with GasWizard. This is because a greater proportion of these
components is in solution and not efficiently extracted by agitator traps. This will make
no difference to the GasWizard, since it does not matter whether gas is in solution or
present as free gas.
Oil Based Mud Systems
 GasWizard readings are typically higher than those recorded by conventional agitator
traps. This is simply a result of gas phase. Oil has a much higher bubble point than water
so that gas does not break out of solution until a higher saturation is reached. Oil based
mud arriving at surface therefore has a far greater proportion of dissolved gas. This, as we
have seen, does not influence the GasWizard measurement since dissolved and free gas
are extracted alike, but it can lead to inefficient extraction and lower measurements with
agitator traps.

3.2 Gas Detection and Recording
Once the gas sample has been passed through various arrangements of filters and drying
agents in order to remove moisture and contaminants, it is routed to the gas detectors.
Typically, these will include an instrument for measuring the total gas and/or total
combustible gas and a chromatograph to provide a precise breakdown of the gas.
Total Gas Measurement
Firstly, it should be recognized that no given detector type has overall superiority over the
others. Each has their own particular benefits and each has their limitations. Detector
response and measurement varies according to the particular gas property that is being
analyzed, be it combustibility, thermal conductivity or ionization energy.
In order for effective evaluation of Total Gas measurements, the user should be aware of the
capabilities and limitations of individual detectors and the varying response that can be
expected when there are changes in gas concentration or composition.
3.2.1 The Catalytic Combustion (CC) or Hot Wire Detector
Platinum
This is the earliest and simplest gas detector
Wire
used in the mud logging industry. It is still a
widely used detector for total gas measurement.
The sensor contains a very fine platinum
filament embedded in a bead of alumina to
which, a catalytic mixture is applied (Figure
3.5). A current is passed through the detector
coil, raising its temperature to a value at which
hydrocarbons will be oxidized. The gas sample
is passed, at a constant rate, through the
combustion chamber and the tiny fraction of gas
coming into contact with the filament is burnt
off, releasing heat that then further heats the
filament and, in doing so, increases it’s
electrical resistance. The filament forms one Alumina
side of an electrical Wheatstone bridge circuit so Bead and
that the change in resistance produces a potential Catalyst
difference across the circuit. This can be
measured and calibrated in terms of the
combustible gas concentration. Figure 3.5 Catalytic
Combustion
Detector

The CC detector is calibrated in terms of % EMA (Equivalent Methane in Air). Typically, a

concentration of between 1 and 2% methane is used for calibration. The detector proves to be
very accurate for low concentrations of methane.
As the molecular weight increases, however, heavier hydrocarbons produce a varying

response (than that produced by methane) from the detector, proportional to their calorific
energy. The heavier the hydrocarbon, the greater the response given by the detector. The
variable responses are detailed in Table 3.1 and as can be seen, the response by butane, for
example, would be almost double that produced by the same volume of methane.
The response of the detector is also effected by variations in gas concentration (Figure 3.6).
Methane responds linearly to 5% (its lower explosive limit) but, at higher concentrations, there
is insufficient oxygen in order for complete combustion to take place, so that a gradually
reduced response results as the methane concentration increases.
At a concentration of 100% methane, the response would be zero since there is no oxygen to
allow combustion. This problem is amplified if the proportion of heavier hydrocarbons is
greater, since the heavier the molecule the more oxygen is required for complete combustion.
Gas Response (relative to C1)

Methane 1.000
Ethane 1.478
Propane 1.812
i-Butane 1.938
n-Butane 1.710
Hydrogen Sulphide 2.456
Table 3.1 Relative Catalytic Combustion responses
Modifications can be made in terms of increased dilution with a known quantity of air in
order to measure higher gas volumes. This ensures that the gas/air mixture is kept below the
L.E.L in order to maintain as linear response as possible and allows concentrations of up to
100% EMA to be measured.
Detector
Response
A further modification can be made, by reducing the temperature of the filament, so that
C3 C2 C1
methane is not combusted. This provides a recorder for heavier gases only and can therefore
be used as a wet gas or gas richness indicator. Again, however, the molecular weight and
different responses from the heavier gases leads to inaccuracy.
5 10 15
Concentration in Air
Figure 3.6 Hydrocarbon combustion with the Catalytic Combustion detector
CC Advantages
 Linear response at low concentrations.

 Very reliable, robust and cheap.
 Familiarity and ease of use.
CC Disadvantages
 The resistance of the filament changes over time due to constant burning and
wear.
 The filament can be poisoned and made less sensitive, to hydrocarbons, by
corrosive gases.
 The sensor requires regular re-zeroing and calibration.
 Measurements are subject to non-linearity as gas composition changes due to
different reaction rates, heat generated and resulting filament temperature
changes. This will affect subsequent combustion rates and instrument
response.

3.2.2 Thermal Conductivity Detector (TCD)
Similar to the CC detector, the Thermal Conductivity Detector operates by way of a filament
forming one side of a Wheatstone bridge circuit with changes in resistance representing
changes in the concentration of gas.
Unlike the CC detector, however, which measures the temperature increase due to
combustion, the TCD works by measuring the cooling effect on an element due to the thermal
conductivity of the gas. The detector has two sensing elements. One is enclosed in air
providing the ‘control’ against which, the response due to the gas sample on the second
element is compared (Figure 3.7).
The thermal conductivity of a gas is dependent on its molecular kinetic energy. Different
gases therefore have a varying cooling effect, producing different responses from the detector.
Methane has a positive response (1.25x the response given by air, at 0C) and is typically
used as the calibration medium with the measurement being expressed in terms of % EMA
(as with the CC detector). A methane/air mixture will have a linear response all the way to
100% methane, making it an ideal detector for measurement of large methane concentrations
associated with hydrocarbon gas zones.
sample
Reference Active
Figure 3.7 Schematic of the Thermal Conductivity detector elements
However, linearity and accuracy of the TCD is lost when other gases are introduced to the
mixture. All other hydrocarbon gases, except methane, have a lower thermal conductivity
relative to air, producing a ‘reduced’ response from the detector (Table 3.2). The degree of
error is obviously dependent on the proportion of the heavier hydrocarbons to the methane
concentration.

Ethane, for example, at 0C, results in ¾ the response of air ( 3/5 of that of methane) and will
cause a lower sensor output for the equivalent concentration. A drop in the total gas value, or
rather, in the rate of increase, can therefore have two possible causes; either a drop in methane
concentration, or, an increase in the proportion of heavier hydrocarbons.
GAS Thermal Conductivity (relative to

Air)
0C 100C
Air 1.00 1.00

Methane 1.25 1.45
Ethane 0.75 0.90
Propane 0.58 0.70
Butane 0.55 0.66
Pentane 0.52 0.58
Nitrogen 0.99 0.99
Carbon Dioxide 0.60 0.70
Acetylene 0.77 0.85
Hydrogen 7.0 6.8
Helium 5.9 5.5
Table 3.2 Thermal conductivity of gases relative to air
Similarly, non-combustible gases also produce a variable response from the detector. For
example, carbon dioxide and hydrogen sulphide both have a lower cooling effect than either
air or methane whereas gases such as hydrogen and helium produce a large positive response.
Although detrimental to hydrocarbon evaluation, the detection of these gases is equally

important in the drilling of a well: -
carbon dioxide / hydrogen sulphide well and personnel safety

helium fracture detection in geothermal applications
TCD Advantages
 Measurement to 100% methane concentration.

 Detection of non-combustible gases.
 Long life, cheap and reliable.

TCD Disadvantages
 Variability of response due to the presence of other gases.

 Poor sensitivity below concentrations of 0.1%.
 Poor ‘zero’ stability since the detector is sensitive to flow.
3.2.3 Flame Ionization Detector (FID)
The Flame Ionization Detector, similar to the CC, operates by way of gas combustion. Unlike
catalytic combustion, however, where only a fraction of the gas is burnt off, the FID relies on
complete combustion of the gas sample. Passing the sample through a proportionally larger
hydrogen flame, which has the advantage that any heat generated through gas combustion is
negligible when compared to the heat generated by the hydrogen flame, ensures this. This
provides a constant temperature and combustion rate and ensures a uniform response at all
concentrations.
The FID responds to the ionization process that occurs when the high flame temperature
breaks down the carbon-hydrogen bonds.
CH4 CH3- + H+
methane
CH3- CH3 + e-
electron
The methyl anion (CH3-) produced during the initial combustion is attracted to an anode that
surrounds the flame. In doing so, it discharges an electron, becoming neutral, and completes
combustion.
earth
The hydrogen cation is attracted to a cathode, where it gains an electron to become neutral
and combusts further (Figure 3.8).
A
+
Combustion Chamber (cathode) Ionization Cell (anode)
Air Sample
Hydrogen
Figure 3.8 Schematic of a Flame Ionization Detector
This ionic transfer across the combustion chamber, representing the number of molecules
burning, completes an electrical circuit. The resulting current flow, proportional to the
concentration of organic vapour, can be measured and calibrated in terms of hydrocarbon
concentration.
As with the other detectors, methane is typically the calibration medium with the result being
expressed in terms of % EMA. Unlike the other detectors, however, the response is due to
the number of carbon-hydrogen bonds being broken and is therefore proportional to the
carbon content.
I.e. ethane and propane will produce twice and three times, respectively, the response that
methane produces.
The FID therefore produces a quantitative measurement of gas richness and EMA but, as with
the other total gas detectors, is unable to determine whether a change in measurement is as a
result of changing volume or changing composition.
FID Advantages
 Uniform and linear measurement of gas richness.

 Excellent sensitivity and range from a few parts per million to 100%.
FID Disadvantages
 The hydrogen requirement makes the sensor unnecessarily dangerous.

 Expensive
 No response to non-hydrocarbons.
 Electronically complex.
 Baseline drift with the presence of impurities, requiring re-zeroing.
3.2.4 Infrared Detector (IFR)
A further total gas detector, not commonly used, is the infrared detector. Hydrocarbons (as
well as other gases) have a well-defined absorption spectrum signature in the infrared region
of the electromagnetic spectrum. The detector (Figure 3.9) contains an infrared source and a
pyro-electric sensor. The infrared stream passes, independently, through two cells, one
containing the sample gas and the other containing a reference gas.
Gas Sample
Cell
Filter
Infrared
Source Detector
Reference Cell
Figure 3.9 Infrared Detector schematic
Alternately, the infrared energy from the two cells pass through a filter, selected to remove all
but the specific spectrum frequency that hydrocarbons adsorb, to the infrared detector. By
comparing the energy levels emitted from the two cells, the detector can determine the energy
absorption from the sample gas, which can be calibrated in terms of hydrocarbon
concentration.
The IFR detector cell length determines sensitivity and range, with a range of 0 to 100%
methane possible. However, the energy emitted is a function of molecular bonding, so that
the output increases in response to heavier hydrocarbons. This error can be minimized by the
filter selection
Intensity but each hydrocarbon has a slightly different absorption spectrum, so that a
filter with a ‘best fitting’ frequency range has to be chosen (Figure 3.10).
Range of filter
C1
C2+
Frequency
Figure 3.10 Idealized schematic of hydrocarbon and filter frequency range
IFR Advantages
 A range of 0 to 100% is possible.

 There is no wear or degradation due to poisonous gases.
IFR Disadvantages
 The detector gives a non-linear output.

 Interference from other gases.
 The differences in carbon-carbon and carbon-hydrogen bonding gives continuous bands of
overlapping wavelengths, preventing precise concentration measurement.
 Expensive
3.2.5 Total Gas Detector Summary
Effective formation evaluation with total gas detectors does require a good knowledge of the
different responses that can be expected with the different detector types. On the basis of

combustion, CC and FID detectors will always give proportionally higher responses as the
content of heavier hydrocarbons increases. With 4 or 5 times the response of methane given
by butane and pentane content, FIDs will give larger responses than the CC when heavier
components are present. In certain situations, these responses may appear to be erroneously
large due to the heavier composition, as illustrated in Table 3.3.
Purely on the basis of hydrocarbon evaluation, the FID is the most effective total gas detector
since it does provides a linear, quantitative measurement of hydrocarbon content, in terms of
equivalent methane. However, like ALL total gas detectors, the FID cannot distinguish
between specific hydrocarbons and fluid type. This, together with the disadvantages of the
instrument complexity and the requirement of hydrogen do not make it the automatic choice
for total gas detection. Each detector type has it’s own particular merits and limitations.
TC detectors are extremely effective for gas zone detection due to the linear response of
methane up to 100%. With the addition of heavier components, the response is lower than
those responses given by CC and FID detectors, but will obviously remain positive in most
situations. With certain fluid types, however, overall response may be very small depending
on the relative changes of methane and heavier components. In the case of heavier oil for
example, the methane content and response may decrease but the increase in response given
by the heavier components may not be sufficient to give an overall significant response.
Actual Composition % TCD response CC response FID response
Methane 85 85.0 85.0 85.0

Ethane 6 3.6 8.9 12.0
Propane 3 1.4 5.4 9.0
Butane 1 0.4 1.8 4.0
TOTAL 95 90.4 101.1 110.0
Table 3.3 Comparison of EMA responses of total gas detectors
Essentially, total gas analysis provides a very useful, continuous, recording of bulk gas
volume with a qualitative analysis of gas richness and of relative changes in gas volume
between different formations and/or reservoirs. It also provides an invaluable safety
monitoring system.
However, accurate quantitative analysis and evaluation of changing fluid type is not possible
since it cannot provide an absolute breakdown of the actual composition of the gas mixture,
whether hydrocarbons, combustible or non combustible. For this we have to look to gas
chromatography.

Any total gas measurement is dependent on the particular sensor type and relative response to
different concentrations and compositions.
Benefits
 Total gas detection is effective when zones are well documented or when only one fluid
type is expected (i.e. chromatographic analysis is not required to determine contacts).
Therefore, it is ideal for gas wells and development wells.
 It can assist the wellsite geologist or mud logger in picking core points and formation
tops.
 Total gas detection can be utilized in a ‘stand-alone’ wellsite monitoring system (see
below) when a full logging unit is not required.
 It provides an essential component to well safety.
 It provides a backup to chromatographic analysis.
Limitations
 Can not distinguish hydrocarbon compounds or identify fluid type.
 Personnel not understanding the differences in operation and resulting measurement.
When using a gas chromatograph, as a back up Datalog use a total gas system that
incorporates both a Catalytic Combustion detector and a Thermal Conductivity detector.
For it’s accurate and linear response at low levels of gas, the CC detector is used for
concentrations of below 4.0% EMA. If the gas exceeds this level, the system automatically
switches to the use of the TC detector both for it’s capability of measurements of up to 100%
EMA and because it provides better safety monitoring in the detection of non-hydrocarbon
gases. While the TC detector is providing the measurements, the CC detector is automatically
switched off to minimize wear on the filament, so prolonging it’s life and accuracy.
3.2.6 Un-manned Total Gas Detection Systems
As mentioned above, when a full logging system is not required or warranted (gas wells,
development wells), total gas detection can be incorporated in a ‘stand-alone’, easy to operate
wellsite monitoring system. This gives the operator a cheaper alternative to a manned mud
logging unit and, in situations where the budget does not provide mud logging, enables the
operator to maintain an effective safety and evaluation tool.

This unit, which can be operated by a wellsite geologist, provides the following benefits: -
 Assist in picking core points and formation tops.

 Can be automated with lagged gas data and ROP’s.
 Provides continual printout and data storage.
 Cost effective determination of porosity and formation pressure changes.
 Invaluable aid to well safety.
 Provides insurance against wireline tools not being able to be run or against E-
log data being effected by subsequent formation invasion.
Figure 3.11 The Geologger, Datalog’s stand alone gas detector
Minimal training can reduce the one drawback, in that, when total gas systems are the
responsibility of the wellsite geologist, experience in unit operation and interpretation of
resulting measurements may not be wholly sufficient.
Datalog’s total gas monitoring system, the Geologger (Figure 3.11) incorporates a catalytic
combustion detector, with automated dilution to keep the gas sample below the lower
explosive limit, providing total gas measurement from 0 to 100% EMA.
The system is complete with a real-time display and hard copy printout (Figure 3.12). Data is
stored and available in LAS format making it compatible with geological strip log software.

Figure 3.12 Real-time printout from The Geologger

3.3 Gas Chromatography
3.3.1 Chromatographic Operation
Gas chromatographs can operate on the basis of any of the detector types already described
but have the capability of physically separating individual components of a gas mixture.
Typically, today, either the FID or TCD detector type is used.
Being able to determine the exact concentration of individual hydrocarbons, as well as other
gases, allows for: -
 Determination of reservoir fluid type.

 Identification of gas, oil and water contacts.
 Identification of changes in oil gravity or gas density.
This makes the chromatograph an invaluable tool when drilling exploratory wells where little
is known about the regional geology or reservoir characteristics.
Upon sample injection, separation of individual compounds and gases occurs as the sample is
passed through columns containing a medium that has different retention rates for compounds
of different chemical/physical properties. Individual components are then passed through the
detector where they are analyzed and measured. The individual gas peaks are integrated to
determine the area beneath the resulting curve. This value is then expressed as an absolute
concentration by comparison with a calibrated value (i.e. a given area corresponds to a given
gas volume).
The particular gases that are analyzed by the chromatograph depend on several factors: -
 The separating medium used in the columns.

 The carrier gas carrying the gas sample through the columns.
 The pressure and temperature of the columns.
 The length of columns and separation time allowed i.e. in the case of
alkanes, the longer the time allowed for each sample to pass through
the columns, the heavier the alkanes that can be separated.

With all chromatographs, samples have to be separated and analyzed before a further sample
can be taken. Although this may allow more hydrocarbons to be measured, the disadvantage
of a longer separation time is that sampling is less frequent. This is a very significant
drawback in given situations: -
 When drilling rates are fast.

 In the detection and analysis of fracture gas.
 Precise identification of formation tops or reservoir contacts.
 Identification of thin formation stringers.
3.3.2 The High Speed Thermal Conductivity Chromatograph
Column Detector
Figure 3.13 The portable, micro-, high speed gas chromatograph
Datalog uses a state of the art, portable, high speed, micro-chromatograph (Figure 3.13) that
analyses C1 to C5 in less than 30 seconds. This speed of elution is invaluable for accurate
detection of reservoir contacts, formation tops, thin stringers, coal seams and fractures, and is

facilitated by the small size of detector so that only a small sample volume needs to be
injected (Figure 3.13).
The chromatograph works on the thermal conductivity principle so that the standard columns
also accurately monitor non-combustible gases such as nitrogen and carbon dioxide, without
interfering with hydrocarbon evaluation. This is a big advantage over combustion based
chromatographs (CC or FID), especially in underbalanced drilling (using nitrogen) or
geothermal applications.
The columns, typically 4 to 5 ½m of micro-tubing, and the type of carrier gas are selected
depending on the requirements of the particular operation. Normally, helium is the carrier gas
used in hydrocarbon detection, providing a much safer alternative to hydrogen. But, for
example, argon carrier gas and specific columns can be used to detect helium and other inert
gases in geothermal applications.
The chromatograph used in standard applications contains two independent columns that
analyze methane, ethane, nitrogen, oxygen and carbon dioxide, and propane through pentane
(Figure 3.14).
Some of the distinctive features of the chromatograph include: -
 The low injection time (typically 30 – 50 milliseconds) provides a small

sample that can be analyzed through to pentane in under 30 seconds.
 Constant column temperature is software controlled.
 Calibration is performed for each individual compound being detected;
therefore calculated concentrations are absolute.
 Operates from a few parts per million through to 100%.
 Zeroing of the baseline is done automatically when each sample is injected.
3.3.3 TCD Versus FID Chromatograph?
It is a commonly held, but mistaken, belief that Thermal Conductivity chromatography is

inferior to Flame Ionization. However, the micro-chromatograph does not have the limitations
associated with a TC total gas detector.
 The variation in response with air flow is not a factor since the gas sample is carried
through the columns by helium at a constant pressure, or rate. Each time a sample is
injected, the response due to the carrier gas is automatically measured, providing a ‘zero’
against which, the gas responses can be measured. Therefore, any variations in the ‘base’
reading are cancelled.

 Variable response due to different gases is not a factor, since gases are separated and
analyzed individually.
 The micro-detectors provide a linearity that is comparable to FID chromatographs. The

importance, here, is the size of the detectors – the smaller they are, the faster the response
and the more linear the measurement.
composite Column A
O2+N2 Column B
C1
C3
iC4
nC4 iC5 C2
nC5
CO2
10
10 20
20 30
30
elution time (seconds)
Figure 3.14 Chromatographic column analysis
One problem that ALL types of chromatograph have is non-linearity and possible column
overloading resulting from gas viscosity and sample size.
Gas viscosity has an obvious effect on the rate at which given gases will flow into the
injector. For a given injection time, a doubling in gas volume may not result in twice the
recorded measurement since not all of the gas may have had sufficient time to flow into the
injector. This non-linearity can be minimized, or reduced to zero, by lengthening the
injection time and allowing more time for the gas to flow.
However, this presents another possible problem, in that, by increasing the time and allowing
more gas to enter the column, the risk of overloading the column or reaching the full-scale
limit of the amplifier is increased.

Column overloading occurs when there is a larger volume of gas than the column can retain,
so that the response is not directionally proportional to the gas concentration.
With the TCD micro-chromatograph, the operator easily recognizes this condition since
sample chromatograms can be viewed. Amplifier sensitivity and/or injection time can be
adjusted accordingly so that full range measurement is maintained. In this way, the
chromatograph can measure up to 100% gas, whereas FID’s tend to have a maximum
saturation threshold, above which they are no longer able to measure the gas.
With linearity comparable, the only significant difference between an FID and TCD micro-
chromatograph is that an FID can detect gas levels to the parts per billion (ppb) and maintain
linearity, whereas the TCD has a lower detectable limit of between 1 and 10 parts per million
(ppm). This level of accuracy is more than sufficient for wellsite gas chromatography.
A further operational consideration is the carrier air employed. The TCD chromatograph uses
helium which is inert and which can be supplied at a constant pressure. The FID requires air
as a carrier gas and also a hydrogen supply to maintain a constant flame. Air is typically
supplied by the rig and requires filtering and drying to provide pure, dry air. Hydrogen is
typically supplied by generators, rather than by compressed cylinders which create a safety
concern. Hydrogen generators require a high degree of maintenance to ensure that they are
operating safely and producing a constant supply rate. Any slight variation in the rate and
pressure at which the hydrogen is being supplied will result in an inconsistent flame size.
This will alter the combustion rate of the detector and mean that the calibration is inaccurate.
Hydrogen generators are also a large safety concern, since, in the event of a leakage, highly
combustible gas is leaking into an enclosed work area. With a naked hydrogen flame already
present in the chromatograph, or with the possibly of a cigarette being lit, explosions are a
real danger and they have happened.

3.4 Units of Measurement
Table 3.4 shows the conversion between the various units typically used in the oilfield to
report gas quantity.
Parts per Million (ppm) Percentage (%) Gas Units Gas Units
(Canada) (U.S.A)*
1 0.0001
10 0.001 0.1 0.2
50 0.005 0.5 1
100 0.01 1 2
1000 0.1 10 20
10,000 1.0 100 200
100,000 10.0 1000 2000
1,000,000 100.0 10,000 20,000
Table 3.4 Gas unit conversion chart
* NB many companies adopt their own gas unit conversion.


Section 4 SURFACE GAS EVALUATION
Obviously, the main objective at wellsite is to extract and measure any hydrocarbons that are
carried from the wellbore by the drilling fluid and to record actual values for total gas present
and also the breakdown into individual hydrocarbon compounds.
Before we can go ahead with considering these ‘absolute’ values and making any useful
evaluation in terms of hydrocarbon quantity, fluid type, or productivity of any potential
reservoir, several important factors have to be taken into consideration.
 Are the hydrocarbon gases recorded at surface representative of the

petroleum fluid present in the reservoir (Section 4)?
 Is the gas recorded at surface solely released from the newly drilled
formation, or are there other gas sources (Section 5)?
 What factors affect the quantity and composition of the recorded gas
(Section 6)?
 Has all of the formation gas been detected; how much has escaped;
remained in solution; been retained by cuttings etc (Sections 4–6)?
 Can the gas readings be used to yield information about porosity,

permeability, fluid mobility and potential productivity (Sections 5–8)?

4.1 Sources of Gas at Surface
Typically, although dependent on pressure and temperature, much of the gas in the reservoir
is dissolved and held in solution. Only when the formation fluid, oil and/or water, is gas
saturated will a free gas phase be present.
As the dissolved gas is carried to surface in the drilling fluid, some will come out of solution
at the bubble point, as both temperature and pressure decrease, to be present as free gas. This
is analogous to carbon dioxide coming out of solution when the top is taken off of a coke
bottle returning the fluid to atmospheric pressure. The degree of this transition will be
dependent on factors such as: -
 Pressure and temperature conditions.
 Original hydrocarbon composition.
 Drilling fluid type and mutual solubility. Oil, for example, obviously
has a high solubility potential for all hydrocarbons whereas water has a
much lower capacity.
The maximum volume of gas that can be dissolved in water is detailed in Table 4.1. This
illustrates that only a small percentage of alkanes can be held in solution, for example 3.3%
methane at STP. Diesels and oils are obviously variable in composition, but for a typical
diesel, this percentage increases to 10.
GAS Gas Solubility in Water (ml gas / 100ml water)

0C (32F) 20C (68F) 40C (104F) 60C (140F)
Methane 5.5 3.3 2.3 1.9

Ethane 9.8 4.7 2.9 2.1
Propane 6.5
Butane 15.0
Carbon Dioxide 171.3 87.8 53.0 35.0
Hydrogen Sulphide 467.0 258.0 166.0 119.0
Table 4.1 Gas solubility in water
Table 4.1 illustrates that, for a typical mud temperature of around 50C, a maximum of
around 2% methane can be held in solution. This maximum will decrease further as the mud

temperature increases. In excess of this concentration, methane will be present as discreet

bubbles (termed free gas).
With salt water muds, this capacity decreases further since the solubility of hydrocarbon gases
decreases with increasing salinity. The correction factor, in comparison to solubility in fresh
water, is approximated by the graph shown in Figure 4.1
Sol’ in brine
Sol’ in water
1.0
0.9
250F
100F 150F
0.8
0 10 20 30 40 Solids ppm x10-3
Figure 4.1 Comparison of hydrocarbon solubility in brine and water
Solubility of hydrocarbon gases in water is insignificant in comparison to the solubility in oil

or diesel. For example, at 2000psi, the maximum dissolved gas in water is close to 12
scf/barrel, (standard cubic feet per barrel) whereas in a typical crude oil, is nearer 900
scf/barrel!
Hydrocarbon gas arriving at surface may therefore be present two gaseous ‘states’, free gas or
gas in solution.
1. Free Gas a) bubbles entrained within the drilling fluid
Some of this gas will escape to the atmosphere; gas held

within the mud will be extracted by the gas trap.
b) bubbles trapped within the pore space of cuttings

This gas, typically minor in amount when compared to free

gas entrained in the mud, can be extracted and sampled by
cuttings gas analysis where the cuttings are crushed in a
blender thereby releasing any contained fluids.
2. Dissolved Gas a) within the drilling fluid
The agitation of the impeller will encourage the breakout of

gas from solution (analogous to shaking the previously
mentioned coke bottle, creating more gas bubbles) with the
extracted gas then sampled by the trap. Some gas, however,
will remain in solution (dependent on gas composition, mud
type and mutual solubility, trap efficiency and mud viscosity)
and go undetected.
b) within formation oil suspended as droplets within the drilling

fluid
Extraction is subject to same conditions as detailed above.
c) within formation fluid trapped within the cuttings
Again, cuttings gas analysis can be used to extract this gas

but some may remain in solution and go undetected.
For the amount of gas that is actually extracted, sampled and sent to the detector or
chromatograph, we have to consider that: -
 A proportion of the free gas entrained in the mud may be lost to the
atmosphere when the mud is passing through the surface system before
actually reaching the gas trap.
 The gas trap location, positioning and efficiency will have an effect on the
amount of gas that is actually extracted for analysis.

4.2 Changes in Phase
We also have to consider that, with the different pressure and temperature conditions at
surface compared to that downhole, hydrocarbons may be subject to a change of state or phase
during their transit from reservoir to surface.
In other words, hydrocarbons present as liquid in the formation, may, on reaching surface, be
subject to evaporation and be present as a gas. Conversely, hydrocarbons present in a gaseous
state in the formation, may, on reaching surface, condense to a liquid form. Similarly, a given
compound may well be present in both liquid and gas form.
This is a complex process considering that ‘in situ’ petroleum contains many different
hydrocarbon compounds, all having different physical properties and being present in
different phases at the same time.
4.2.1 Temperature Considerations
If we first consider the role of temperature and it’s effect on fluid phases: -
 critical temperature The temperature that, above which, the fluid is

present
entirely in a gaseous state, regardless of changes in
pressure.
 boiling point The temperature that, below which, the fluid is

present
entirely in a liquid state. Boiling point, however, does
vary as pressure changes.
If the temperature is above the boiling point but below the critical temperature, then the fluid
can co-exist in both liquid and gas phases at the same time. These temperatures are different
for each hydrocarbon compound, as is shown in Table 4.2

HYDROCARBON Critical Temperature Boiling Point (C/F)

(C/F) (at atmospheric pressure)
Methane (C1) -82.5 -161.5

Ethane (C2) 32.3 (90F) -88.6
Propane (C3) 96.8 (206F) -42.1
Iso Butane (iC4) 135.0 -11.7 (11F)
Normal Butane (nC4) 152.0 -0.5 (32F)
Iso Pentane (iC5) 187.2 27.8 (82F)
Normal Pentane (nC5) 196.4 36.1 (100F)
Table 4.2 Critical temperatures and boiling points for the paraffin group
of hydrocarbons
These temperature conditions for each hydrocarbon are illustrated in Figure 4.2.
If we consider the drilling mud that is returning from the wellbore to be at 50 C (122F), we
can see the following situation: -
 Methane and ethane would be present entirely as a gas, whether free or dissolved.
 Propane through pentane could co-exist, in equilibrium, both as liquid and gas.
If we now consider a mud temperature of 30 C (86F), we can see that the situation will have
changed: -
 Methane would still be present as gas; in fact the temperature would have to fall
below minus 82.5 C in order for methane to co-exist as a liquid phase.
 Ethane will now be present in both liquid and gas phase.
 Propane through iso-pentane will still be present in both

86 122 (F) phases.
nC5
 Normal pentane would now only be present as a liquid and therefore not extracted.
iC5
LIQUID LIQUID + GAS
nC4
iC4
GAS
C3
Boiling point Critical temperature
C2
C1
-150 -100 -50 0 30 50 100 150 200
Temperature (C)
Figure 4.2 Temperature effects on hydrocarbon phase at atmospheric pressure
The examples illustrated for these two mud temperatures are only true at atmospheric pressure
and are therefore a viable determination of hydrocarbon phase when the mud returns from the
wellbore.
A further, important, operational consideration is the ambient temperature and the resulting
effect on the heavier hydrocarbon gases when they are in the sample line, en route to the
logging unit. The mud temperature is likely to be such that C4, for example, is present
wholly, or in part, in the gas phase. Once extracted at the trap and drawn off into the sample
line, it is exposed to the outside temperature, which doesn’t have to be much below freezing
point for it to begin to condense back into a liquid phase.
Whatever proportion condenses (depending on the actual temperature and the time that the gas
is in the sample line) will obviously go undetected as a gas, effecting the evaluation of the
initial gas response. Further, the liquid fraction will still be pumped along the sample line but
will be held up by filters and driers that are in place to prevent moisture from entering the
chromatographs.
With the warmer temperature inside the logging unit, or when filters reach a saturation point,
this fraction may subsequently evaporate, returning to a gas phase. It will then continue it’s
journey to the detector to be measured, resulting in a gradually increasing gas response
corresponding to a time/depth some time after it originally arrived at surface.
In this situation, because the time that the gas occurs does not correspond to the present
lagged depth, the response has to be treated as if it were contaminaton. Indeed, similar

contaminated gas responses can often be seen with oil based mud systems when new ‘base
liquid’ is added to the system.
A further complication is that the condensed gas is colourless, therefore looks like water. It is
often treated as such and the gas sample lines cleaned or changed. However, if it’s occurrence
is accompanied by the described gas response, then there is definitely the presence of
condensed gas, whether previously liberated formation gas or contamination gas. The fluid
can also be tested for fluorescence although often, such condensates fluoresce in the ultra-
violet region and will not be seen.
It then needs to be determined whether the gas is currently liberated gas, previously liberated
gas or mud contamination gas. A number of steps can be taken to help in this process.
Has there been any lithological change that may have accompanied a change in fluid type to
lead to the gas response?
Do the current drilled cuttings show any evidence of hydrocarbons?
Has there been any change in the mud system, or new additions, that may have lead to gas
contamination?
If the answer to these questions is no, then it is very possible that the gas has come from a
recently drilled interval but went undetected due to condensation. Lithologies over the
previously drilled interval should then be rechecked to see if a possible zone went undetected.
Lithological changes, gas responses and cuttings should all be re-evaluated.
4.2.2. Critical Points
Turning our attention to the likely conditions of hydrocarbons when they are in place in the
reservoir, the situation is much more complex.
 The Critical Temperatures shown in Table 4.2 will still hold true, since,
above this temperature, the fluid will exist solely as a gas phase, regardless of
changes in pressure.
 The Boiling Point, however, the point at which a liquid phase changes to a
liquid/gas phase, is also dependent on pressure. This lower phase boundary
will therefore change depending on depth and formation pressure.
Similar to temperature, there also exists a Critical Pressure. This is the pressure of a saturated
vapour that is at its critical temperature. This defines the Critical Point, above which, there
will be no phase change of the fluid regardless of changes in pressure or temperature. The

fluid will exist as a super heated liquid or a super saturated vapour. For a pure fluid, this
critical region can be shown in a simple phase diagram as shown in Figure 4.3
Pressure
Critical Point Critical
Region
Critical
Pressure
LIQUID
GAS
Temperature
Critical
Temperature
Figure 4.3 Simple phase diagram for a pure hydrocarbon
The following information can be determined from such a phase diagram: -
 In the critical region, the fluid will exist as a superheated liquid or a

supersaturated vapour.
 For fixed temperatures below the critical temperature, an increase in pressure

will lead to the liquefying of a gas whereas a decrease in pressure would lead
to the evaporation of a liquid.
 For fixed pressures below the critical pressure, an increase in temperature

would lead to the evaporation of liquids whereas a decrease in temperature
would lead to the liquefying of gases.
Such phase relationships can be determined for pure, light and heavy hydrocarbons and used
to determine phase changes that the hydrocarbons may undergo when being brought from the
reservoir to surface.

Figure 4.4 illustrates the phase curves for light and heavy hydrocarbons (pure) and the phase
changes that would occur for hydrocarbons brought from two reservoirs, R1 and R2, to
surface pressure and temperature conditions (S).
Critical
Region
Heavy H/C
Critical
Pcheavy
Region
R1 Light H/C
Pc light
LIQUID Critical
Points
R2
Light H/C
GAS
S
Heavy H/C
Tc light Tc heavy
Figure 4.4 Phase relationship for light and heavy hydrocarbons
Reservoir 1 (R1)
Both light and heavy hydrocarbons would be present as liquids in the

reservoir.
At surface, light hydrocarbons would be present as gas whereas heavy

hydrocarbons would remain in the liquid state.
Reservoir 2 (R2)
Both light and heavy hydrocarbons would be in a gaseous state in the

reservoir.

At surface, light hydrocarbons remain in the gaseous state whereas heavy

hydrocarbons would condense into the liquid state.
The question may be raised here as to the validity of surface hydrocarbon analysis if such
phase changes occur. i.e. if the hydrocarbons measured at surface are not the same as those
in place in the reservoir, then how effective is surface gas analysis?
In answer to this, there are two main points to consider.
 When the well is in production, the hydrocarbons will undergo the same phase change
when being brought to surface, so that surface conditions of pressure and temperature will
determine what type of economic fluid we have. This is what is being evaluated from gas
analysis.
 Hydrocarbon phase in the reservoir can be determined by extrapolation with the phase
curves. This will enable a reservoir engineer to determine important information about
the in place product in terms of composition and fluid viscosity. This, in addition to
information determined regarding the permeability and overall fluid mobility, will go on
to determine the production potential and production rates, etc.
Further to this, it will be demonstrated in section 8 and in various case studies how ratios
calculated from the chromatographic gas values can be used successfully to determine the
type of petroleum fluid present in a reservoir.

4.2.3 Phase Changes in Complex Petroleum Mixtures
What we have seen here serves well for modeling the phase change that occurs when
individual and pure hydrocarbons undergo changes in temperature and pressure. What has to
be remembered, however, is that most petroleum accumulations will be composed of a
complex mixture of hydrocarbons with varying composition. The phase relationship is
therefore not as straightforward as already illustrated.
If two hydrocarbons are considered on an individual basis, they will undergo a change in state
as defined by the phase curve for that particular hydrocarbon and resulting
pressure/temperature conditions. When the two hydrocarbons are mixed however, the phase
change will occur under different conditions to those described for the single, pure
hydrocarbon.
For example, at a given temperature, a single pure hydrocarbon would change phase from gas
to liquid when the pressure is increased to a specific value. If that hydrocarbon was now
present in a compound with other hydrocarbons, a greater or lesser pressure increase may be
required for the phase change to occur.
Two curves, meeting at the critical point, rather than a single-phase curve given for pure
hydrocarbons, defines the relationship. These curves, the Bubble Point curve and the Dew
Point curve are illustrated in Figure 4.5
Dew Point Curve Defines the temperature and pressure at which liquid
droplets will first appear in a gas phase.
I.e. the point at which a gas will start to condense
into a liquid phase.
Below the dew point, the fluid exists as a gas.

Above the dew point, the fluid can exist as both gas
and liquid.
Bubble Point Curve Defines the temperature and pressure at which gas
bubbles will first appear in a liquid phase.
I.e. the point at which a liquid will start to evaporate
into a gaseous phase.
Above the bubble point, the fluid exists as a liquid.

Below the bubble point, the fluid can exist as both
liquid and gas.

From these given definitions, it can be seen that at pressure and temperature conditions that
fall between the dew point and bubble point curves, the fluid can exist, in equilibrium, in both
gas and liquid phase (Figure 4.5)
Pressure CRITICAL
Critical Point REGION
LIQUID
REGION
2 PHASE
REGION
Bubble Point Curve
GAS REGION
Dew Point Curve
Temperature
Figure 4.5 Fluid phases as defined by the dew point and bubble point curves
The Bubble Point and Dew Point Curves help us to understand the changes in phase, due to
pressure and temperature reduction, that may occur when a petroleum compound is brought
from the reservoir to the surface.
A further factor that will have an important influence on surface gas detection is the mutual
solubility of hydrocarbons in different fluids. The following are therefore important
considerations: -
 The type of drilling fluid, since water and oil have a different solubility
capacity for hydrocarbon gases. Oil has a lower bubble point and high
solubility for all hydrocarbons, whereas water has a much lower capacity.
 The actual fluid in the reservoir. This not only refers to the gas saturation
but also to the proportional amounts of formation water and oil.

 Hydrocarbon composition, since different compounds will have varying

solubility characteristics. A smaller concentration of light hydrocarbons can
be held in solution (Table 4.1) but they are more readily broken out of
solution by surface equipment.
 Mud viscosity. The higher the viscosity, the more difficult it is to extract the
gas from the mud. This will have a bias to higher recorded light end gas
since it is more easily extracted by the gas trap. This has to be balanced,
however, against losses of gas to the atmosphere as the mud flows through
surface equipment. Here, again, the lighter gases will more readily ‘escape’
so that there is a proportional increase in heavier gases remaining in the mud
reaching the gas trap.
 Gas trap efficiency. Similar to viscosity, the efficiency of the trap has a
significant bearing on the amount and composition of gas that is liberated.
There is a preferential extraction of the lighter hydrocarbons.

4.3 Related Terminology
Light or Heavy Hydrocarbons
Heavy hydrocarbons, in terms of production and refining, generally refer to those with
12 or more carbon atoms (C12, C13...etc).
Wellsite chromatographic evaluation, however, is typically restricted to methane

through pentane (C1 to C5). In this case, the term heavy hydrocarbon is applied to
propane through pentane (C3 to C5) and light hydrocarbon to methane and ethane (C1
and C2).
Non-associated Gas
The term applied to the natural occurrence of gas, predominantly methane, without
any associated liquid petroleum. Known occurrences have been formed by bacteria
breakdown at shallow depths or by the deep thermal cracking of kerogen/petroleum at
high temperatures beyond the oil window.
Dry Gas
The term given to gas composed predominantly of methane and containing minor
amounts of condensable hydrocarbons. Given the solubility characteristics of oil and
water, the presence of dry gas is often indicative of water zones and also geopressured
zones. A further occurrence is that of coal gas.
Wet Gas
The term given to gas containing increased proportions of condensable heavier

hydrocarbons, propane, butane, pentane etc, in comparison to the lighter hydrocarbons
methane and ethane. Gas is said to increase in wetness as the proportion of heavier
hydrocarbons, and it’s density, increases.
Condensate
The term given to methane and high proportions of heavier hydrocarbons, occurring
as a gas in the reservoir but condensing to liquid form at surface.
Gas condensate reservoirs are thought to be the product of maturation and partial
destruction of crude oil.

Section 5 ORIGINS OF GAS
5.1 Classification of Gas Sources
With gas being monitored and recorded on a continual basis as the drilling of the well
proceeds, the logging analyst must be able to make informed decisions as to the origin of the
recorded gas in order to make accurate interpretations in terms of formation and reservoir
evaluation.
Gas may ‘originate’ from the formation through a number of different mechanisms. The
logging analyst must be aware of these different mechanisms and be able to distinguish
between, for example, gas that can be directly attributed to the formation; gas that may be
indirectly attributable to the formation or further influenced by drilling operations; and gas
that originates from artificial sources.
To assist in this procedure, four classifications of gas were determined by Richard Mercer
(SPWLA 15th Symposium , June 1974) and this model has been widely adopted, as the
accepted classification, across the industry.
The four categories of gas being: -
1. Liberated Gas
2. Produced Gas
3. Recycled Gas
4. Contamination Gas

5.2 Liberated Gas
This is the term given to the gas that is directly attributable to the volume of gas originally
contained within the crushed, cylindrical volume of rock produced as drilling proceeds.
It is defined as the gas that is mechanically liberated, by the action of the bit, into the drilling
fluid as the bit penetrates the formation.
Gas is mechanically and instantaneously liberated as the rock becomes broken up, crushed
and chipped by the drill bit, creating the drilled cuttings and in the process exposing a greater
surface area and void (pore) space (mechanism A).
Any gas that is not liberated during this

initial drilling process, but retained
within the cuttings, may still undergo a
slower release to the drilling fluid as
the cuttings rise in the annulus and
opposing hydrostatic pressure, due to
the weight of the mud column,
decreases (mechanism B). For this B
‘secondary’ release of gas to occur (the
major part of which will occur close to
surface), the formation has to exhibit
some degree of permeability and fluid
mobility in order for the gas to escape
from the cuttings.
These liberated gas mechanisms are

illustrated in Figure 5.1
The sum of the gas released by both

mechanisms goes to make a fair
representation of the total bulk volume
A
of free gas present in the given volume
of formation and will closely reflect the
composition of the fluids present in the
rock at the time of drilling.
Figure 5.1 Liberated gas mechanisms
However, the following points have to be remembered: -

 Some gas may be retained within the cuttings, whether trapped as free gas
within the pore spaces of the cuttings or remaining in solution within pore
fluid. This proportion of the gas will go undetected by gas analysis from the
drilling fluid but can be determined with cuttings gas analysis (see Section
6.1.2).
 Some gas, preferentially the lighter hydrocarbons, will be lost to the

atmosphere as the returning mud passes through the surface system i.e. at the
bell nipple, along the flowline etc.
As will be illustrated many times throughout this manual, the total recorded amount is of
lesser importance than the relative changes in quantity and composition. Trend analysis is
therefore foremost in hydrocarbon gas analysis.
The gas liberated by mechanism ‘A’ yields no information about permeability or fluid
mobility, but does give information pertaining to the porosity and/or gas saturation of the
formation. In other words, an increase in porosity, with no change in gas saturation, would
lead to an increase in recorded gas owing to the greater bulk volume of formation fluid.
Similarly, with no increase in porosity but an increase in gas saturation, an increase in gas
would be seen since the bulk volume of gas has increased in proportion to the same bulk
volume of formation fluid. This is illustrated in Figures 6.1 and 6.2.
Mechanism B does give an indication as to formation and fluid characteristics. A simplified

explanation would be that the more gas that is retained by the cuttings (as determined by
blender cuttings gas analysis), then the tighter the formation.
This permeability indicator, however, has to be considered along with other parameters such
as
 Formation fluid type and viscosity

 Hydrocarbon composition and mutual solubility
 Pore throat size
 Mud density
These factors all play a part in determining overall fluid mobility and the ease at which gas
can be liberated from the cuttings to the drilling fluid. This is further detailed in Section 6.1.2

As will be seen in more detail in Sections 6 and 7, one of the primary purposes of surface gas
evaluation is the recognition of changes in the quantity of liberated gas that may indicate a
change in a formations porosity, gas saturation or fluid type (Figure 5.2).
However, there are many other factors, other than formation changes, that can effect the
quantity and composition of gas detected at surface and these will be expanded on in more
detail in Section 6.
Chromatographic Gas %
0.001 0.01 0.1 1.0 10.0
Lagged
Depth
1896
1897
INCREASE IN
LIBERATED
1898
GAS VOLUME
1899
Figure 5.2 Liberated gas as seen on a real-time log

5.3 Produced Gas
This is defined as the gas that is produced into the drilling fluid, from a specific zone or
formation, as a result of the formation pressure exceeding the opposing hydrostatic pressure
resulting from the drilling fluid in the wellbore.
This pressure differential may occur at the bottom of the hole as drilling is proceeding or exist
in any open or exposed formations in the wellbore at any time.
Providing that some degree of permeability exists in the formation, fluid will flow from zones
of high pressure to low pressure.
In ‘conventional’ drilling, the mud weight is selected so as to produce a hydrostatic pressure

slightly greater than the formation pressure. This is known as overbalance and prevents
formation fluids from freely flowing into the wellbore.
If, however, the formation pressure exceeds the hydrostatic pressure, a condition of
underbalance exists and formation fluids are free to flow into the wellbore. This state of
underbalance may be permanent or temporary resulting from the following circumstances: -
5.3.1 ‘Permanent’ Conditions of Underbalance
 A purposely selected drilling fluid, or mud density, so as to provide an underbalance.

Underbalanced drilling will allow formation fluids to flow and, in effect, can provide
a continual production test as the well is being drilled. Underbalanced drilling also
results in maximum penetration rates, minimum reservoir damage and minimized
risk of lost circulation and differential sticking.
 Insufficient mud weight selected.
 Increased formation pressure that exceeds a presently balancing mud weight.
 A reduction in hydrostatic pressure should mud become gas cut. This gas may
originate from an already underbalanced condition; from excessive penetration rates
through gas bearing formations; from fractures or even from inefficient surface
equipment.

5.3.2 Temporary Conditions of Underbalance
 A reduction in hydrostatic pressure when

circulation is halted. When drilling and
circulating, the pressure in the annulus is
increased as a result of the annular
pressure losses due to the friction of the
moving fluid (circulating pressure due to
the equivalent circulating density).
When there is a halt in circulation, the
pressure in the annulus returns to the
hydrostatic pressure resulting from the
static mud weight. This reduction,
especially when drilling transition zones
of increasing formation pressure, may be
sufficient to result in an underbalance.
 A reduction in hydrostatic pressure due

to swabbing. When the drillstring is
lifted, the mud, as a function of its
viscosity and gel strength, will be
dragged along with the pipe. This results
in frictional pressure losses that cause a
reduction in the hydrostatic pressure.
Again, this could be sufficient to create a
temporary underbalance that will allow
formation fluids to flow into the
wellbore (Figure 5.3 and Plate 5.1).
Figure 5.3 Underbalance due to swabbing
5.3.3 Produced Gas from Impermeable Formations
The conditions of underbalance illustrated above will clearly lead to the influx of formation
fluid, given that the formation is permeable, resulting in produced gas should the formation be
gaseous.
Produced gas can also originate from impermeable formations should a condition of
underbalance, due to any of the situations described above, exist in the wellbore. In this case,
however, the gas is unable to flow freely into the wellbore, but is attributed to the formation
caving or collapsing into the wellbore.

As described above, fluids will always try to flow in the direction of a decreasing pressure
gradient. Cavings may result where higher formation pressure cannot be released from
impermeable lithologies, typically shales or clays. Because the fluid cannot escape, the fluid
pressure may cause formation failure or fracture, with resulting fragments caving or
collapsing into the borehole (Figure 5.4). Produced gas will be released as the formation
‘breaks’ apart, exposing pore volume (much in the same way as liberated gas from the drilling
process breaking up the formation). As the ‘caved cuttings’ rise in the annulus, further gas
may be produced into the drilling mud as a result of further fracturing of the cavings. This
results from the change in pressure differential; the cavings retain the higher pressure from the
depth of origin, but as they rise, the opposing hydrostatic decreases. This decreasing
‘resistance’ will encourage further fracturing and release of gas.
Impermeable
Permeable FP > Phyd
Figure 5.4 Produced gas mechanisms from permeable and

impermeable formations
Produced gas mechanisms and specific shows such as connection and trip gas will be
discussed at length in Sections 7.6 to 7.8.

5.3.4 Similar Mechanisms
Strictly by definition, produced gas results from formations that have a higher pressure than
the opposing hydrostatic pressure, whether due to abnormally high formation pressure,
insufficient mud weight or temporary reductions in the hydrostatic pressure.
However, very similar situations in a balanced or overbalanced well can also lead to gas
entering the wellbore. Although not strictly produced gas, this gas does not originate from
the volume of rock liberated by drilling and so cannot be regarded as representative of the
bulk volume of gas present.
Typically, the sources, that will be described, do not lead to significant changes in recorded
gas levels or to distinctive peaks or shows as in the case of ‘legitimate’ produced gas
mechanisms. Indeed, they may be very difficult to recognize or distinguish from normal gas
levels.
From formation sloughing that lead to increased cuttings (and therefore gas if the formation
contains gas) in the wellbore as a result of mechanical effects such as structural or stress
weaknesses; dip of the formation in relation to the wellbore; weak, unconsolidated formations.
Here, as with underbalanced impermeable formations, gas will be released to the drilling fluid
as the formation breaks away into the wellbore. In addition, the formation may be permeable,
allowing a normal release of gas from the cuttings as they rise in the annulus.

5.4 Recycled Gas
This is defined as gas that has not been liberated and removed from the drilling fluid while at
surface and has therefore been pumped back into the wellbore to be re-circulated and appear a
second or further time at surface.
The failure to remove gas from the drilling fluid can have the following detrimental effects so
that gas removal is an important function of the surface circulating system.
 Inefficient operation of the pumps leading to erratic circulating pressures.
 Reduction in the mud density and hydrostatic, possibly resulting in an

underbalanced condition and the influx of formation fluids.
 Different hydraulic behaviour of the mud resulting from the change in mud
rheology, particularly the density, viscosity and gel strength.
 Possible misinterpretation of recycled gas shows.
There is a difference in emphasis, in terms of recycled gas, for drilling and geological
personnel.
The priority of drilling engineers is to determine the condition of the mud and it’s effect on
drilling efficiency and well control. There are obviously occasions when quantities of free gas
are recycled, reducing mud hydrostatic pressure and therefore important in terms of well
control. A more continual concern is the amount of gas being held in solution changing the
rheological characteristics of the mud. Dangerous situations can occur, with changes in well
conditions such as temperature, pressure and mud rheology, when dissolved gas may come
out of solution leading to a rapid drop in hydrostatic pressure and blowout potential.
With agitator gas detection systems, this poses a problem since it is exactly the content of
heavier dissolved gases that is not being efficiently extracted and measured. For the purpose
of well control, determination of relative change is obviously important, but a precise
measurement is especially necessary. The application of the GasWizard TM technology will
provide this important information, since the sensor can be installed in the pump suction line
to provide quantitative measurement of gas re-entering the borehole.
For geologists, determination of continual recycled gas content is also important but does not
pose such a problem. The GasWizard technology will again provide a quantitative
measurement of differential gas. Thus, the difference between gas entering the well and gas
leaving the well determines precisely the proportions of recycled and newly liberated

formation gas. However, for routine evaluation, when gas responses, or shows, are evaluated
against a background level, the recycled gas content is effectively eliminated since it is an
equal component of both the background level and the actual response.
A more immediate problem for geologists is the recognition of significant gas responses being
recycled, so that subsequent shows are not misinterpreted as newly liberated shows.
There are many conditions and factors that may influence the potential of gas recycling to
occur:
 The efficiency of the surface degassing equipment.
 The volume of entrained gas that has to be removed from the mud.
 Mud type, weight, viscosity and solubility characteristics, all influencing the
ease at which gas can be extracted from the mud.
 Gas composition (light to heavy hydrocarbons) and mutual solubility with

the drilling fluid, determining how readily the mud will retain the gas.
 The temperature of the mud which effects the volatility and solubility of
gases, together with the viscosity and solubility capacity of the mud.
 The volumetric size of the surface system, determining how long the mud
remains at surface before being returned to the wellbore. Obviously, the
longer the mud is at surface, the more gas is able to escape.
 The degree of agitation, facilitating gas escape at surface, provided by the

length and slope of the flowline, mud shakers, mixing and agitation in the
pits etc.
Recycled gas shows are, typically, easily identified and dismissed as originating from the
formations being currently drilled, by comparing them with any associated drilling parameter
or lithology changes.
The recycled gas show will be detected at surface one complete circulation time (surface
circulation time + downtime + lagtime) after the initial gas show. It can therefore be used as a
way of determining total circulation time and thereby determining the time mud takes to pass
through the active pit system and lines. Before the ‘surface time’ is known, we have to be
able to recognize recycled gas shows through composition and duration changes, resulting
from the following factors: -
1. The recycled show will normally be longer in duration since the original
volume of gas cut mud will be mixed with a larger volume of mud at surface

and will be subject to surface agitation and to turbulence as it is pumped

back down the drillpipe. This leads to a diffusion of the gas and significant
lengthening of the show (Figure 5.5).
2. Typically, the composition of the recycled gas will show an increased

proportion of heavier hydrocarbons since the lighter hydrocarbons are more
easily extracted at surface and the heavier hydrocarbons more susceptible to
being retained and recycled (Figure 5.5).
% Total Gas % Chromatographic Gas

0.1 1.0 10 100 0.01 0.1 1.0 10
C2 C1
C3
C4
complete
circulation
Extended proportionally
Recycled more heavy
Gas peak hydrocarbons
Figure 5.5 Typical characteristics of a recycled gas peak
3. When the gas cut mud is returning up the annulus, the effective reduction in
drilling fluid density may facilitate minor diffusion from gas bearing
formations as yet unprotected by filter cake. Since lighter hydrocarbons
diffuse more readily, such diffusion may lead to an increased proportion of
lighter gases. This process would certainly be minor in comparison to the
dominantly heavier composition of the initial recycled gas.

A gas show will be concluded as recycled gas if it cannot be attributed to any of the
following: -
 A change in lithology.
 A change in porosity as indicated by penetration rate and/or cuttings analysis.
 An increase in penetration rate through different drilling parameters.
…and if the occurrence of the peak corresponds to one circulation time after a previously
recorded peak, whether a formation gas show, a produced gas peak, a carbide lag test etc.
In reality, recycled gas peaks are not particularly common because the entire surface system,
as well as specific equipment, is a very effective degasser. The most common occurrences
will be from large trip gases and influxes when the entire gas volume cannot be removed from
a ‘single pass’ through the system. Even in these cases, the magnitude of the recycled peak
will be a fraction of the size of the original peak. The recycled trip gas shown in Figure 5.6
illustrates this.
Notice that as the trip gas approaches surface (up to point A), all hydrocarbon gases, C1
through C3, are increasing at the same rate. This gas originates from the drilled cuttings that
Liberated Gas
were not circulated to surface prior to the trip (i.e. equating to liberated gas) and shows a
steady increase as the mud temperature increases. The increasing temperature reduces the mud
viscosity
C3 and
C2 increases
C1 the gas volatility, both allowing for more effective gas extraction.
A
C2 C1
Produced Gas
Bh B
h
10 min
ORIGINAL TRIP GAS PEAK RECYCLED RESPONSE

Figure 5.6 Recycled Trip Gas peak.
Note time scale difference
Looking at the recycled gas peak, the two characteristics already described are, firstly, that the
peak is longer in duration, and secondly, that the peak shows a typical increase in the
proportion of heavy gas. Although in this example the heavy gases are small and off scale,
the fact that they have increased proportionally, in comparison to the light hydrocarbons, is
demonstrated by the much lower balance ratio.
5.5 Contamination Gas

This is defined as any gas that has been artificially introduced into the drilling fluid from any
source other than the drilled formations.
There are many external contaminants that may result in anomalous gas shows or that may
result in continual background gas measurements that can complicate or confuse formation
gas analysis: -
 Addition of petroleum products to the drilling fluid to provide lubrication in high

drilling torque situations for example.
 Oil-based or invert mud systems.
 Re-used oil based mud that may have retained hydrocarbon fluids from previously
drilled wells.
 As a result of thermal degradation or chemical reaction of mud additives. Often

recognized as foam on the surface of the drilling fluid, this doesn’t actually generate
hydrocarbons, but results in a lighter fluid that increases the efficiency of the gas trap
resulting in more gas being extracted from the mud.
 Resulting from lag checks e.g. the use of calcium carbide used to produce acetylene
in water based muds. Normal gasoline is also commonly used (Plate 5.2).
 Production of hydrogen when drilling through casing shoes and collars, that will
generate a gas response on CC and TCD type total gas detectors.
 Contamination from transporters or mud tanks previously holding crude.
In general, contamination gas does not normally present too much of a problem in formation
and reservoir evaluation. Individual gas responses resulting from small volume additions can
be readily identified as long as communication is good and the mud logger or geologist is
aware of the addition. Continued contamination causing a background gas measurement,
again, does not normally present problems since volume changes in liberated gas can be
evaluated over and above the background measurement. However, there are situations when
ratio analysis and small compositional changes can be adversely effected by background
contamination gas.
There are a number of considerations for wellsite operations: -

The major concerns for formation evaluation come with the use of oil based mud systems and
with the addition of petroleum fluids for lubrication etc.

5.5.1 The Addition of Petroleum Products
Refined oils and diesels commonly used do not present a problem in themselves since they do
not contain the light end hydrocarbons (methane through pentane) being analyzed and will
therefore not cause a gas response.
However, gas responses are often recorded, resulting from the following possible situations: -
 The lighter, lower viscosity characteristics of the petroleum product may allow
diffusion of formation gas from formations as yet unprotected by filter cake.
 The different rheological and solubility characteristics of the petroleum may allow
the extraction of more gas at surface. In this situation, the size of the addition
becomes an important factor if it is not removed at surface and is incorporated in the
mud system. Since the petroleum product will become dispersed throughout the
entire system, solubility characteristics are changed throughout. This will alter the
proportions and components of hydrocarbons either retained, or released, by the mud
system, from previously established background levels.
 Certain petroleum products that are used may actually contain the lighter
hydrocarbons that are being analyzed. Again, any response resulting from the
addition can be readily identified as long as communication is good. However, the
size of the addition will determine the significance of further evaluation problems.
Consider the response illustrated in Plate 5.2 resulting from a lag check with one litre
of gasoline. The increase in C4 and C5 components is quite significant. If you now
imagine the response that would result from several barrels or cubic metres of a
similar petroleum liquid used for lubrication, it is clear that any small compositional
changes in formation fluid, occurring at the same time, may be completely masked,
or hidden, by the contamination gas.
 The use of native, or unrefined, crude oil does present an enormous problem for mud
loggers. Obviously, hydrocarbons are being introduced into the mud system resulting
in a gas response when added. Recycled gas responses will also be produced and
have to be identified. As circulation continues, the oil will be dispersed throughout
the mud system resulting in a continual background contamination and totally
changing the solubility and retention characteristics of the drilling fluid. This may
have a continual effect on the gases that are extracted and detected at surface and, in
most cases, it is virtually impossible to determine the extent of the problem.
5.5.2 Oil Based Mud Systems
Similar to the situations described above, oil based muds are typically produced from refined
products that do not normally possess the light end hydrocarbons (methane through pentane)

analyzed in routine wellsite operations. The use of oil based muds does not, therefore,
automatically result in evaluation problems with contamination gas. However, as with the
addition of petroleum fluids described above, there are often situations that will result in
hydrocarbon gases being recorded.
 If the oil being used does lead to a background level of contamination gas, the
compositional signature is easily determined and any changes in formation gas,
whether magnitude or composition, can be readily identified and evaluated. The
evaluation of compositional changes using gas ratios can sometimes be a problem
where contamination levels are relatively high and the formation change relatively
small, but in most situations, by just considering the change over and above the
background level, fluid type and changes are still identifiable.
 Over time, of course, the contamination background derived from just the oil-based
system is going to be added to by any retained formation gases. Given the high
solubility capacity of the oil, a proportion of the heavier components, especially, will
be retained and recycled. These will then add to, and in some situations will be the
sole cause of, a contamination background. The same principle, of identifying
formation changes over and above this continually changing background, applies.
 Often of concern is when oil is used to drill in the same region from which it was
produced. Being refined, the same principles apply, in that, typically, the lighter end
hydrocarbons will not be present. However, if the oil-based mud does result in
background gas contamination, then the composition may obviously be very similar
to any formation gas liberated from zones of interest. Volume changes in terms of
increased liberated gas from the zones of interest will be clearly identified, but ratio
analysis is now somewhat of a problem since the mud system itself will produce the
same ratio values. Evaluating oil type is not essential in this case since it is already
known. Of more important consideration is the identification of gas/oil and oil/water
contacts in order to determine the vertical interval of the reservoir. In these cases, the
compositional changes (for example, increased light end content in the gas zone;
increased heavier end components in the water zone showing residual oil) will often
still be identifiable over and above the background contamination.
 Addition of new oil will often result in a gas response that may be mis-interpreted as
a gas show if the mud logger has no knowledge of the addition. Communication
between the mud engineer, derrickman and mud logger is therefore of paramount
importance.
 Diesel is often used as the oil phase in invert mud systems and typically does not
present a problem to chromatographic analysis since, as with refined oil, light
hydrocarbons are not typically present. Heavier hydrocarbons (typically C4 and C5)
may be detectable but, as described above, the signature is easily discernable should
they be detected. Typically, only trace amounts will be detected, if at all, from
additions of new diesel.

A phenomena, not fully understood, that has been recognized, is the trapping and build up of
micro-droplets in dryers and filters. This, normally, does not interfere with gas analysis but,
whether due to a saturation point or the warmer temperature in the logging unit, after a period
of time these droplets go into a gas phase leading to a slow increase in the levels of C4 and
C5. The contamination is easily remedied by replacing filters, but the process is one that mud
logging personnel should be aware of. This process complicates the identification of possible
condensing of liberated gas in the gas sample line as described in Section 4.2.1. Both
processes will result in the same type of contamination gas and therefore very difficult to
distinguish.
Problems of contamination are ones, not so much of mis-interpretation, but ones of having a
detrimental effect on evaluation.
 With obvious mutual solubility, diesel and oil-based mud systems may retain
hydrocarbons in solution, so that, if muds are re-used from well to well without proper re-
conditioning, gases from other wells and formations will add to the background of the
mud being used in the present well.
 The dumping of oils into the mud system for purposes of lubrication, for example, may
not only introduce new hydrocarbons to the system but changes the solubility character of
the mud. The change in the gas content of the mud can complicate evaluation and, if
native crude from the same area is used, changes in formation gas level may be difficult
to detect because the mud already contains that composition.

Duration
Lagged Depth
of
connection
(no pumps)

PLATE 5.1 Real-time log illustration of a typical produced gas peak
Lagged
Depth
Duration of
Connection
This typical connection gas response results from a temporary condition of

underbalance, in this case, the reduction in bottom hole pressure when the pumps
are turned off in order to make a connection.
With typical connection procedure, the lowest pressure exists when the
drillstring is set in slips and the well is balanced by the mud hydrostatic pressure.
This is the time that influx will occur (shaded area); the extended peak is a result
of normal gas dispersion.
PLATE 5.2 Gas response resulting from a gasoline lag check

An illustration of a contamination gas source, in this case from a gasoline lag

check producing a response from the heavier end hydrocarbons, butane and
pentane.
Typically, diesel and refined oils used in oil based mud systems do not yield
such light hydrocarbons, but when contamination traces are seen from such
systems, they will similarly be composed of butane and pentane hydrocarbons.
If such a response is generated by a single litre of gasoline, it is easy to

appreciate the problem that can be caused when several cubic metres of similar
fluids are used for lubrication purposes. It is not so much a problem of
misidentifying the response, but a problem of a large contamination response
masking any changes in formation gas over the same interval.

Section 6 QUANTITY AND COMPOSITION OF RECORDED GAS
6.1 Formation Considerations
6.1.1 Porosity and Gas Saturation
The combination of these two formation characteristics determines the actual bulk volume of
gas present in a given rock (Figure 6.1).
Porosity defines the total void space present

within a formation and therefore determines
the maximum possible volume of any fluid
within that space, be it gas, oil or water.
Absolute porosity is reduced if voids contain
cement or clay infil etc.
Gas Saturation defines the proportion of gas,

relative to the other formation fluids, present
within the available pore space.
matrix gas pore fluid gas saturation (%) x pore volume = bulk gas
volume
Figure 6.1 Bulk gas volume
Wireline and core analysis can lead to the accurate determination of these parameters, and
while the well is being drilled, porosity can be estimated from visual inspection of the drilled
cuttings, with relative changes resulting in changes to the penetration rate for example. In
addition, apparent gas porosity can be determined from quantitative gas measurement.
Relative changes, or trends, in gas quantity recorded at surface are just as important as the
actual quantity. This is because there are many conditions that will influence how much of
the actual bulk gas volume from the formation is liberated to the drilling fluid, how much
remains in solution and goes undetected, how much escapes and goes undetected etc.

An independent increase, in either absolute porosity or gas saturation, will lead to an increase
in the actual bulk volume of gas in place, as is illustrated in Figure 6.2. This will have the
most immediate effect on the gas that is mechanically liberated by the drilling process. It will
also have an effect on the gas that is available for subsequent release from the cuttings as they
rise in the annulus.
A. Same pore volume B. Increased pore volume

Increased gas saturation Same gas saturation
Figure 6.2 Effect on gas volume due to changes in porosity / gas saturation
6.1.2 Effective Porosity and Permeability
The term effective porosity is used to describe the quantity of inter-connected pores. If a
formation has a low effective porosity, then liberated gas will be largely confined to the
fraction of gas that is released from those pores exposed by the drilling process. Pores within
the intact cuttings will retain the pore fluid, and gas, if the porosity is not effective.
The permeability of a formation is a measurement (milli-Darcy) of the quality of

communication or inter-connection between the individual pore spaces and relates, for
example, to direct lines of communication (tortuosity) and pore throat size. If there is no
connection between the pores, the formation has zero permeability (as well as zero effective
porosity) and natural fluid movement cannot occur.
The formation’s permeability is a principle factor in determining how much of the gas
retained by the cuttings is released to the mud and how much remains trapped within the
drilled cuttings when they reach surface.

If permeability is low or zero, any gas that was not mechanically liberated by the drilling
action will be retained by the cuttings as they rise to the surface. There may be a minor
amount of mechanical liberation, should the cuttings be subject to collision or erosion during
transit, but mud hydraulics is usually designed to minimize this and protect the cuttings for
evaluation.
As a simple, general, rule, the greater the permeability, the greater the amount of gas released
to the drilling fluid and this can be confirmed, to some extent, by cuttings gas analysis.
 If permeability is good, we can

expect any gas retained by the
intact cuttings to escape to the Good porosity
drilling fluid during their transit Low effective porosity
to surface, resulting in low or No permeability
zero cuttings gas.
 If permeability is low or zero, gas

will be retained by the cuttings
and the resulting cuttings gas Good porosity
analysis will be relatively higher. Good effective
porosity
Low permeability
 If effective porosity is good but

permeability low, we can expect
gas liberation to occur but at a
slower rate. Some gas may be
retained all the way to surface, Good porosity
again resulting in cuttings gas. Good effective
porosity
Good permeability
In general, these are reasonable
assumptions to make but this is a very
simplified picture. As well as Figure 6.3 Porosity vs Permeability
permeability and effective porosity,
several other factors will have an
influence on the release of gas from
the rising cuttings.
One important consideration is that permeability is relative, depending on the fluids present.

 Free gas will escape more easily, especially during expansion, than gas in solution,
which is subject to overall fluid mobility.
 Pore throat size may be such that it can provide good permeability for free gas, but
when this is mixed or dissolved with molecularly larger fluids such as water or oil,
the permeability may not be as effective.
 The composition and viscosity of the formation pore fluid will effect mobility. Here
is a proviso to the cuttings gas rule, where a higher cuttings gas analysis may be a
result of crude oil being retained by the cuttings rather than as a result of low
permeability.
 Pressure and temperature changes also have to be considered. As these decrease with
the shallower depth (relative to the cuttings rising), they will cause other parameters
to change; i.e. changes in hydrocarbon phase, fluid viscosity and solubility, all in
turn having an effect on the relative permeability.
 A further factor affecting the ‘relative’ ease at which gas and fluid is liberated from
the rising cuttings is the formation pressure retained by the cuttings - the greater this
is in comparison to the opposing mud hydrostatic, then the easier it will be for the
fluids to escape. Indeed, if the pressure is great enough, fracture of the cuttings may
occur, exposing further voids.
The use of cuttings gas analysis has been described as an approximate determination of the
degree of permeability in the cuttings. This is certainly true but it has to be recognized,
however, that there are several drawbacks and possible inaccuracies with the procedure.
Cuttings gas analysis is performed by taking a given sample of washed cuttings and
pulverizing them in a standard blender. This, effectively, completes the drilling process so
that any remaining gas is liberated from the cuttings. The gas is drawn off to the detectors
where it is measured and analyzed.
Limitations with the process are as follows: -
 The time that it takes to complete in comparison to the penetration and sampling
rate. The analysis has to be done immediately since gas will be escaping and often,
this labour intensive process is not possible to complete for small depth intervals,
owing to other work requirements.
 The cuttings have to be washed so that gas remaining in the mud is not affecting the
analysis. This adds to the time delay before testing the sample, and may even lead to
fluids being flushed from within the cuttings (especially where permeability is good).

 A typical sample will contain cavings as well as drilled cuttings so that the resulting
reading is not wholly representative of the drilled interval.
 The difficulty in determining a constant sample size, whether by weight or by

volume.
 Blending every sample to a consistent chip size.
In addition to these operational requirements and limitations, there are situations where the
rule of thumb (i.e. high cuttings gas means low permeability) does not apply, and this
uncertainty has lead to the use of cuttings gas analysis declining in popularity: -
 Heavier, viscous oil containing soluble gas will lead to high cuttings gas. The oil is
retained as a result of it’s viscosity rather than necessarily being an indication of low
effective porosity or permeability.
 Oil with a low gas oil ratio will lead to a low cuttings gas value, which cannot be
interpreted as an indication of low permeability.
Further effects of permeability will be detailed in Section 6.4, where it’s role in fluid
movement, due to pressure differential, will be covered.
6.2 Hole Depth

The hole depth has a fundamental control on gas analysis and interpretation, some of which
have already been covered in previous sections. The main consideration is to the change in
temperature and pressure, the difference between the conditions at the depth in question to
those present at the surface and the resulting effect that this has on the gases.
 The effect on the actual volume of gas present at surface. With no other changes or
influences, if the same volume of ‘in place’ gas was released from formations at
2000m and also at 4000m, the volume recorded at surface would be much greater in
the second case due to gas expansion. Taking the most basic gas expansion law
(Boyle Law, where pressure x volume is a constant), free gas will double in size for
each ‘halving’ of the depth (and therefore opposing hydrostatic pressure). In the
above case, this would mean that even though the in place volume of gas was
initially the same, the gas recorded once at surface would be double in the second
instance. In practice, it is not quite as simple since temperature is also a factor, so
too is the mud type together with solubility and phase changes that may occur. For
example, with an oil-based system, where a greater proportion of the gas is held in
solution, no expansion occurs until close to surface where the bubble point is reached
and the gas starts to break out of solution.
 The solubility capacity of fluids, which increases with pressure and decreases with
temperature.
 The gas volatility, which decreases with pressure and increases with temperature.
 The mud viscosity, which decreases with temperature.

6.3 Drilling Considerations
6.3.1 Rate Of Penetration and Hole Diameter
We have already seen how the bulk volume of gas present in a given formation is controlled
by the porosity and gas saturation.
The volume of fluid and gas that is then actually released to the drilling fluid is dependent on
the volume of the cylinder of rock (i.e. the borehole) that is created from the drilling process.
Remembering that gas extraction and detection at surface is against a time base, the final
measurement will reflect the magnitude of gas that is recorded against this time base. This,
then, obviously reflects the volume of the rock ‘cylinder’ produced over a given time.
The volume of the rock cylinder is determined by: -
1. The diameter of the hole (i.e. bit diameter)
For a given hole section, the diameter will obviously be virtually constant (changes may occur
as a result of bits becoming undergauge or due to hole enlargement where formations are
extremely friable), so that cylinder volume is principally dependent on ROP. However, a
significant difference in cylinder volume obviously occurs between holes of different
diameter, so this is an important consideration when comparing different wells.
A significant change in gas volume may occur at the start of new hole sections on a given
well because so many parameters, such as mud type, density and temperature, bit type,
drilling parameters, ROP and flowrate, will all change at the same time (Plate 6.1). All, as
this section will show, have a bearing on recorded gas.
2. The vertical height of the cylinder
Since we are dealing with the rate at which the cylinder is created against a time base, the
height of the cylinder is determined by the rate of penetration.

If a given formation is drilled at a constant rate of penetration, then the volume of rock
penetrated, chipped, crushed and released to the wellbore is constant over a given unit of time.
If there is no change in gas volume (i.e. porosity and gas saturation) throughout it’s interval,
then the volume of gas mechanically liberated to the drilling fluid will also be constant over
this given unit of time. This, then, effectively governs the resulting gas saturation of the
drilling fluid, which is reflected in a constant gas reading by the detectors at surface.
If the same formation is drilled at a faster rate of penetration, then, even though the actual
bulk gas content of the formation is the same, a greater volume of rock, and subsequently gas,
is liberated over the same unit of time into the same volume of drilling fluid. The gas
saturation of the mud is therefore increased, which will be reflected by an apparent increase in
gas by the detectors at surface.
A=r2
Gas Volume
ROP
2 min
2 min/m 1m
1 min
1 min/m 1m
Time
Figure 6.4 The effect of ROP on gas level, assuming no other changes
In fact, since hole diameter can be assumed constant over a given interval, while drilling, the
volume of crushed rock is solely dependent on the ROP. Assuming that there are no changes
in the ‘in situ’ gas volume, and that there are no other changes in volume caused by other
parameters, then the relationship between ROP and gas volume is a direct one (as illustrated
in Figure 6.4). I.e. if the ROP doubles, the recorded gas volume will double.

It is clear, therefore, that a change in the penetration rate will have a direct effect on the
resulting gas level recorded for the corresponding depth. Interpreting changes in gas level, or
gas shows, therefore requires a correlation or comparison with the ROP in order to determine
a qualitative estimate of changes in the gas volume and/or saturation.
In the example shown in Figure 6.4, if it is assumed that there is no change in the bulk gas
volume in each metre of formation drilled, it can be readily seen that the gas volume is
represented at surface by the area underneath the gas curve. For both metres drilled, the
actual volume of gas released to the drilling fluid is the same, yet, at first sight, the gas would
appear to be more significant for the second metre drilled.
The following question is one that should always be asked: -
Has the ROP increase been as a result of a change in drilling or circulating parameters, or
does it indicate an increase in porosity and gas volume?
Changes in any one of the following parameters can result in a change in ROP. Any resulting
change in the gas level does not, therefore, necessarily indicate a change in bulk gas volume
or saturation.
Positive changes on ROP will occur with: -
increases in.... weight on bit, rotary speed, formation pressure, porosity
decreases in.... mud weight
Changes in ROP will also be caused by changes in: -
lithology, bit selection, bit wear, hydraulics,
Naturally, the drillability of a formation has a major influence on the penetration rate and as
well as parameters such as type, hardness, strength of matrix and cementation, porosity is an
important element in terms of how easily a formation will drill.
An increase in porosity will lead to an increase in ROP, so that ROP is an invaluable tool in
determining formation tops or changes, closely following the sonic log transit times, which
also increase with greater porosity.
In terms of precise gas analysis, however, this does lead to a slight complication. If we know
that none of the above parameters are the reason for an ROP increase, then the increase is

indicative of increased porosity. We have already seen how an increase in porosity will lead
to an increase in gas volume even with no change in gas saturation, purely due to the
increased volume of pore fluid being liberated to the drilling mud. We have also seen how an
increase in ROP will lead to an apparent increase in recorded gas, again as a result of an
increased volume of rock and therefore pore fluid being released to the mud over a given
time.
Therefore, when an increase in recorded gas is accompanied by an increased ROP, it has to be

a result of either, or a combination of, porosity increase, gas saturation and ROP.
To determine whether the ROP or the porosity/saturation is more responsible for the gas
increase (whether gas volume has increased), a qualitative estimate can be gained by using the
principle already illustrated in Figure 6.4.
If, for a given interval, the ROP doubled due to an increase in porosity and the corresponding
recorded gas also doubled, then it can be reasonably stated that there has been very little
change in the actual gas volume.
If however, for the same interval of formation, the doubling in ROP was accompanied by a
corresponding gas increase of five times the previous level, then it can be reasonably assumed
that there has been a significant increase in gas volume. This is an important basic
consideration when evaluating liberated gas shows (Section 7.4).
A real-time example of a gas increase resulting from a drilling break is shown in Plate 6.2.
The comment made on the real-time log by the mud logger at the time of the increase tells the
story! Here, a quick appraisal of the relative increase in ROP (18 to 5 min/m) to the increase
in gas level (6 to 10%) shows that more than a 3 fold increase in ROP results in less than a 2
fold increase in gas. If the in situ gas volume had remained the same, then the ROP, alone,
would have resulted in a 3 fold increase in gas. Therefore, although we know we have a zone
of increased porosity, as shown by the drilling break, there is, actually, an overall decrease in
formation gas volume. It can reasonably be assumed, therefore, that over the zone in
question, there was an increase in formation porosity but an actual decrease in gas saturation.
How significant this is, in terms of zone or reservoir appraisal, depends largely on the type of
fluid that has been encountered. This will be expanded on in Section 7.4.
Before leaving this section, it is worth pointing out a ‘relationship’ between the bit diameter
and ROP, the two factors that determine the volume of rock produced by drilling.
As already stated, given no other influences, an increasing ROP has a corresponding increase
in recorded gas (i.e. double the ROP, double the gas). An increase in bit diameter will lead to

an increase in gas corresponding to the square of the radius (i.e. the area of the cylinder face is
given by ‘r2’ ).
Now consider the situation arising when starting to drill a new, smaller, hole section in the
well. Firstly, the smaller hole diameter results in a smaller volume of gas as given by the
above relationship. This reduction will be ‘amplified’ by the ROP component of the cylinder,
since, typically, smaller bits cannot sustain the weight that can be applied to a larger bit. This
reduction in weight on bit, together with smaller bit, tooth size etc will lead to a ‘naturally’
reduced ROP for the new bit, further reducing the gas recorded at surface.

6.3.2 Bit Type and Resulting Drilled Cuttings
The bit type is obviously a main factor in determining the ROP, as described above, so will
have a subsequent effect on the amount of gas released over a given time.
The other important effect on gas analysis is the cutting action, degree of crushing, and size of
the final drilled cuttings. This is controlled, not only by the size of the bit, but by the bit type.
When discussing the processes involved in the occurrence of liberated gas, we have seen how
the drilling action will allow for the mechanical release of gas. This occurs as a result of an
increased amount of surface area and voids becoming exposed as the rock is broken, chipped
and crushed into smaller and smaller cuttings.
The amount of gas mechanically released during this initial process will be dependent on the
size and degree of crushing of the cuttings. The smaller the final cuttings, then the greater the
amount of gas mechanically liberated. If the final cuttings are large, then the greater the
proportion of gas retained by the cuttings. Factors such as permeability, solubility and fluid
mobility then become a factor in determining how much of the gas retained by the cuttings
will be released as the cuttings rise in the annulus and arrive at surface.
Cuttings produced from insert bits and especially diamond bits are much smaller than those
produced by steel toothed bits. With tooth (and insert) bits, the size of the teeth is also very
important in determining the size of the cuttings; the larger the tooth, the larger the cuttings.
Where there are a greater number of smaller cuttings being produced, then a greater surface
area and void space will have been exposed by the drilling process, leading to a greater
liberation of formation fluid and improved gas shows.
In fact, purely for the quality of gas shows and subsequent evaluation, diamond or PDC bits
are the best since they generate the smallest cuttings (often completely pulverizing cuttings
into “rock flour”) with maximum liberation of gas. Unfortunately, other formation evaluation
techniques such as ROP changes with lithology/porosity changes, and cuttings evaluation, are
lost with such bit types!

6.3.3 Coring
Coring is a special case that often disheartens inexperienced geologists. After having seen a
good gas response and making the decision to core, the gas levels during the coring operation
are seen to drop to a fraction of what they were beforehand (Plate 6.3). For experienced
geologists or mud loggers, this is to be expected and again occurs as a result of the volume of
rock from which gas can be liberated.
There are four main factors to consider when assessing the drop in gas levels due to the coring
operation: -
 The most important and influential change is that the amount of rock available for
gas liberation is reduced significantly since, obviously, the central core remains
intact inside the core barrel and retains all of the formation fluid contained within
that volume of rock. This obviously leads to a significant reduction in liberated gas
from a given interval of formation.
 Most coring operations will typically result in slower penetration rates than if the
same formation were drilled conventionally, leading to a further apparent reduction
in liberated gas.
These two factors result in the most significant change, a large reduction in liberated and
recorded gas, and far outweigh the following two factors that result in a relative increase: -
 A proportionally greater volume of gas will typically be liberated from the ‘outer’
volume of rock that is ground and crushed by the core bit than the equivalent volume
of rock drilled by a conventional bit. This is purely a result of the action of the
diamond core bit producing much finer cuttings.
This can sometimes be accompanied by an apparent compositional change, as

illustrated by gas ratios. With conventional drilling, any permeability restrictions
may result in cuttings retention, preferentially, of the heavier components. More of
these components will be released when coring, since smaller cuttings are generated
and permeability is less of a factor.
 The flowrate is also typically reduced for coring operations so that any liberated gas
will be concentrated within a smaller volume of mud (see Section 6.3.4).

6.3.4 Flowrate
Changes in the flowrate of the circulating fluid have a similar and automatic effect on gas
volume measurement, as we have already seen with the rate of penetration.
For a given flowrate, if the bulk volume of gas that is being liberated to the drilling fluid is
constant over the interval of a formation, ROP and other factors are all constant, the gas
entrained within a given volume of mud will be a constant. As this mud is drawn into the trap
and sampled at the said flowrate, a constant gas recording will result.
If ROP remains constant, then the volume of formation rock being released into the annulus,
over a given period of time, remains constant. An increase in flowrate will lead to a greater
dispersal, or dilution, of the gas within the mud, i.e. the same volume of cuttings, together
with formation gas, are now being liberated into a greater volume of mud, effectively
reducing its gas saturation. When this mud is sampled at surface, a reduction in gas volume
will be recorded.
At first sight, this appears to be a relatively straightforward concept in that a higher flowrate
reduces the gas saturation of the mud, resulting in lower gas levels recorded in surface. This
is, in fact, the over-riding influence, although increasing the flowrate introduces or results in
other changes that have a less significant effect on the recorded gas.
 An increase in flowrate produces greater annular velocities that result in more

pronounced cuttings and gas dispersal. However, the significance of this will vary
throughout different sections of the annulus where annular volumes and relative
velocity increases vary significantly. Dispersal will be greater in the lower sections
of the hole, where annular clearance is smallest, but will be less significant in the
larger upper sections of the hole, and is especially so in the case of offshore marine
risers.
 The increase in flowrate and annular velocity results in a higher equivalent

circulating density due to increased frictional pressure losses. This increase in
opposing pressure, or pressure differential, may have significant effects on gas
release, including effects such as flushing or influxing.
1. Greater opposing pressure that will reduce the amount of gas that is released
from the cuttings as they rise in the annulus. Where permeability is good,
however, this has little bearing, since the gas will be released at surface when the
opposing pressure will be atmospheric.

2. Increased pressure differential at the bottom of the hole that results in: -
 A reduced penetration rate that will result in less volume of rock being
produced, and therefore a reduction in the amount of liberated gas per
unit volume of mud.
 An increased risk of flushing the formation (if permeable) ahead of the

bit. This displacement of formation fluid will lead to a reduced gas
content in the formation when it is drilled. The effect of flushing and
other fluid interactions will be discussed more fully in Section 6.4.
 The increased flowrate will lead to greater agitation of the mud as it passes through
the surface system, therefore leading to the release of more gas to the atmosphere.
This will lead to a preferential bias towards increased heavy hydrocarbons since the
lighter gases are the ones that will escape more easily to the atmosphere.
 The most significant effect is one that the mud logger does have some control on!
The increased flowrate will lead to a rise in the mud level in the shaker box or shaker
box. This will lead to a larger mud sample being sampled by the trap, but a
corresponding decrease in agitator rotation and extraction efficiency. In most
situations, the overall effect will be an increase in the level of recorded gas. This
effect will typically have a more significant influence on the gas level than any of the
others, but will obviously be corrected for by the mud logger resetting the trap to it’s
former height.
All of the possible influences and changes in gas liberation and recorded levels, as a result of
a change in flowrate, are illustrated in Figure 6.5.

higher and preferential losses to the

atmosphere
due to increased turbulence in flow
DECREASE in lighter components
rise in mud level and

gas being sampled >DECREASE
INCREASE
relative increases in annular

velocities, leading to dispersal
of cuttings and gas >>DECREASE
greater pressure opposing

early fluid escape from
cuttings
>>>DECREASE
increased pressure differential due to higher ECD:-

flushing potential due to higher overbalance reduced ROP due to
DECREASE increased differential
DECREASE
Figure 6.5 Schematic showing the possible changes and influences on

recorded gas levels due to an increase in flowrate

6.3.5 Differential Pressure
It has been seen, in many instances already in this manual, how fluids will preferentially flow
from high pressure to low pressure, along the path of a negative pressure gradient. This
principle has an enormous influence in many aspects of gas liberation or generation and is a
principle that anyone who is involved in the analysis and interpretation of gas data should be
very familiar with.
The differential pressure is the difference between the hydrostatic pressure of the formation
pore fluid and the hydrostatic pressure exerted in the wellbore by the vertical mud column.
Mud Hydrostatic Pressure = Mud Density x Vertical Depth x gravity/conversion constant
Phyd (psi) = ppg x ft x 0.052 imperial units where psi = pounds per square inch
ppg = pounds per gallon
Phyd (KPa) = kg/m3 x m x 0.00981 metric units KPa = kilopascals

kg/m3 = kilogram/cubic
metre
If formation pressure > hydrostatic pressure the well is underbalanced, and formation
fluids are able to flow, or escape, from the
formation into the wellbore. This is termed
an influx.
If formation pressure = hydrostatic pressure the well is said to be at balance
If formation pressure < hydrostatic pressure the well is overbalanced and the drilling fluid
is able to flow from the wellbore into
permeable formations. This may be termed
flushing or fluid invasion, depending on the
time of it’s occurrence.
The condition of balance is therefore determined by the relationship between the actual
formation pore fluid pressure and the mud density. The hydrostatic pressure resulting from a
given mud density will be further increased by frictional pressure losses while circulating (to
give an equivalent circulating density or ECD), or by downward pipe movement (surging).
Conversely, hydrostatic pressure may be reduced by frictional pressure losses caused by mud
movement induced by upward pipe movement (swabbing).

Circulating Pressure (due to the ECD) = Hydrostatic Pressure + Annular Pressure Loss
In order for fluid flow to occur, whether from the borehole to the formation or vice versa, the
other condition that must exist is permeability. If there is no permeability, then fluid flow
cannot occur (although, as we have seen, produced gas may still result from high-pressured
impermeable formations due to caving).
Before discussing fluid invasion and influxing specifically, let us summarize the effects of
differential pressure on normal gas liberation as detailed previously: -
 Penetration Rate
The greater the overbalance, the slower the ROP. We have already seen how a change in
ROP has a direct effect on the apparent level of gas recorded at surface. A doubling of the
ROP leads to twice as much rock and therefore gas (given the same porosity and saturation)
being liberated to the same volume of mud, resulting in a doubling of the recorded gas at
surface.
 Bottom Hole Effect
In an underbalanced situation, the cuttings will be washed clear of the bit more rapidly by a
combination of expanding formation gas and the jetting action from the bit nozzles.
Mechanical liberation from the action of the bit will therefore be reduced.
 Rising Cuttings
Gas retained by the cuttings will still escape, given permeability, as they rise in the annulus
and the ‘fossil’ or ‘residual’ formation pressure retained by the cuttings becomes greater than
the opposing hydrostatic pressure. This process will be reduced or delayed if the hydrostatic
pressure is higher. This liberation may continue at surface and will be seen as gas bleeding
from the cuttings. If the formation is impermeable or if pores are isolated, gas expansion
and/or increasing pressure differential (formation > hydrostatic) may cause the cuttings to
fracture allowing the further release of gas.

6.4 Fluid Invasion and Flushing
6.4.1 Invasion and Filtration
Once a permeable formation has been drilled and is then left exposed in the wellbore, a
normal condition will occur, given a state of overbalance, of drilling fluid invading the
formation (Figure 6.6). The severity of this, i.e. how far the mud invades the formation, will
be dependent on how high the pressure differential is, the degree of permeability and effective
porosity, and on the type of mud system being used (invasion is not such a problem with oil-
based mud systems owing to oil-water immiscibility).
MudHYD > FP
Mud invasion into

“clean” Invaded Filter Invaded
permeable
formation zone - cake zone -
formations – mud
fluids filtrate layers filtrate
solids left on
borehole wall
Figure 6.6 Invasion of formation before an impermeable filter cake layer is built up
Invasion does not affect gas responses. Gas is liberated normally when the formation is
drilled, so that normal responses occur identifying zones of interest. Invasion occurs after
drilling and can therefore have a detrimental effect on subsequent evaluation by electrical
logs, where filtrate is being detected rather than formation fluids.
Invasion by the drilling fluid is minimized by allowing an impermeable layer of mud solids,
or filter cake, to build up on the borehole wall and prevent continued invasion. This occurs as
a result of filtration. As the drilling mud flows into the formation, given sufficient particle
diameter of the clay solids incorporated within the mud, the solids will filter out from the mud
to be left on the wall, becoming thicker and building up the impermeable filter cake to prevent
further filtration. This process is ‘efficient’ for all except extremely permeable formations
where the clay solids may be carried into the formation along with the drilling fluid (leading
to lost circulation).

The time that it takes for the filter cake to become thick enough and sufficiently impermeable
will determine the amount of invasion that may take place. This is an important process,
since, if invasion and filtration is too excessive, the formation properties may be damaged: -
 Deeper invasion obviously means that a larger volume of the rock will be
affected.
 The deeper the invasion, then the further the formation fluids are displaced from
the borehole wall. This may lead to erroneous electric log data. The situation
may be such that initial liberated gas and show analysis give indications of good
reservoir potential, yet the wireline ‘post filtration’ results indicate no potential
or a water-bearing formation.
 Poor sidewall cores may result, containing reduced levels of formation fluid and
large amounts of filtrate.
 The filtrate may damage and reduce the formation’s permeability or porosity.
This may reduce the effectiveness of formation tests such as RFT’s (repeat
formation test) and DST’s (drillstem test) and may even permanently damage the
formation, affecting productivity.
Filtration and filter cake are carefully monitored by the mud engineer with the degree of
filtration measured by the water loss, which should be kept to a minimum. The value should
be clearly reported on the mudlog so that it may help to explain any non-correlation that may
occur between electrical and mud logging analyses, as illustrated in the above example.
A measurement of the filter cake is important to ensure that the impermeable layer is
sufficiently thick and being built quickly enough.
There are certain conditions that may act against the filter cake build up, or dislodge existing
solids.
 The circulating flow of mud, especially if turbulent (in fact, in the section
above the bit and around the collars where filter cake build up is required,
the annular velocity will be the most rapid in the entire borehole). Filter
cake will not build up effectively until the drill collars have passed the zone
and lower annular velocity and pressure is present.
 Slower drilling through permeable formations can therefore result in higher

levels of mud invasion.

 Pipe movement and drag, especially in deviated or horizontal wells and

where full gauge tools scrape against the wellbore wall.
It is also important that the layer of filter cake does not become too thick because this will
obviously reduce the size of the borehole and may lead to problems with sticking pipe. This
is of special consideration when differential sticking is a problem - a thick, spongy filter cake
will only enhance the problem.

6.4.2 Flushing
What was previously described as invasion and filtration, can also technically described as
flushing since formation fluids are being flushed or displaced away from the borehole.
However, this happens after gas has already been mechanically liberated by the drilling action
and therefore does not effect the initial gas response from the formation. The term invasion is
used to describe this process once a formation has been drilled and left exposed in the
borehole.
The term flushing, in the scope

of mud logging, is more usefully
used to describe the similar
action of formation fluids being
displaced, but more specifically
referring to the time during, or
prior to, penetration by the bit.
invasion
Here, the displacement of
formation fluid will effect the
amount of gas that will be
consequently liberated from the
volume of rock produced by
drilling and therefore does have
an effect on the initial gas show.
Similar conditions are required;

an overbalance together with a
permeable formation, the degree
of both determining the severity
of the flushing. What may
further enhance the degree of
flushing is a slow penetration
rate (allowing more time for the Displaced, or flushed
flushing to take place) and Formation fluid
excessive horsepower and jet
velocity at the bit (effectively
blasting drilling fluid into the Figure 6.7 Flushing mechanisms
formation).
The zone beneath and surrounding the bit is extremely turbulent and subject to the action of
the bit, preventing the build up of filter cake. This layer will only begin to form once the bit
has passed the formation and a smoother circulating flow is present. The presence of
stabilizers in the bottom hole assembly will also be a factor, since they are full gauge and will
remove any filter cake that has been built up on the wall.

Given the suitable conditions of overbalance, formation permeability and jet impact force,
some degree of flushing is then almost certain to occur ahead (i.e. before the formation has
even been drilled) and to the side of the bit (Figure 6.7).
The consequence of this is that formation fluids are displaced and flushed away from the rock
face, down and/or to the side depending on the easiest line of communication provided by the
permeability. Horizontal permeability is typically much more significant than vertical, but
flushing ahead of the bit does require a degree, or combination, of both. Subsequently, when
the formation is penetrated, the volume of rock crushed by the bit will contain fewer
hydrocarbons that can be liberated into the drilling mud. This results in a reduced, or lower,
gas response when parameters such as ROP and cuttings analysis suggest that a better show
might have been expected.
Recognizing that flushing is actually occurring can be very difficult, and not conclusive on the
basis of gas response alone.
Does a low gas response
signify flushing or does it
simply mean that a poor zone
has been penetrated? We will
look at evidence that will lead
us to suspect that flushing may
have occurred, but often, it is
not conclusive until electric
logs are run, identifying
flushed zones or identifying a
potential zone that yielded a
poor gas response when it was
drilled.
It is possible, given suitable

formation thickness and
specific conditions of vertical
and horizontal permeability,
that the displaced formation
fluid will be cycled back into
the wellbore into the less
turbulent and lower pressured
zone above the bit (Figure 6.8).
This would result from a
natural movement of the Figure 6.8 Formation recovery leading to a
displaced hydrocarbons delayed gas response
towards areas of lower pressure.

Initially, when equilibrium is disturbed, the area of lower pressure for the displaced fluids is
vertically upwards. Once the bit has passed by, lower pressure exists in the annulus behind the
bit. Thus, formation fluids can cycle back towards the wellbore
This ‘formation recovery’ may therefore result in a delayed gas response. In other words,
ROP and visual cuttings analysis may indicate the top of a zone at a given depth, but the
corresponding gas show indicates a depth a metre or two deeper (Figure 6.9 – response A).
This, initially, may well be evaluated as a subsequent change in properties such as fluid type,
porosity, gas saturation or permeability, giving a lower gas response. However, if the
conditions for flushing exist, it has to be recognized that zonal flushing may be occurring and
that resultant hydrocarbon evaluation is subject to error.
ROP Total Gas
A
Partial flushing, delayed gas response
B
Initial response, followed by flushing
Severe flushing, negative response C
Figure 6.9 Indications of possible flushing through gas responses
A delayed response may even be interpreted as an incorrect lag time! It is therefore important
to consider all available data. If there has been no change in ROP from the top of the zone to
the depth of the show, then it is unlikely that there has been any change in porosity that would
result in a similar gas response and flushing has to be suspected.

If a completely impermeable layer overlay the flushed zone, then flushing cannot occur before
the zone is penetrated. An initial gas response would be seen in this case, before giving way
to a reduced response, caused by flushing once the zone was penetrated (Figure 6.9 – response
B).
Where the flushing is more severe, or where conditions do not allow, it may not be possible
for the “recycling” of formation fluids as described above. In many instances, this severe
flushing may lead to an overall reduction in gas response, as compared to the previous
background level (Figure 6.9 – response C). The degree of this obviously depends on the
particular situation, the level of background gas and the severity of flushing. Again, it leads to
a problem of immediate evaluation; does it indicate flushing or simply a poor zone? However,
given permeability (which has to exist for flushing to occur in the first instance), it is still
possible for the formation to ‘recover’ over time with formation fluids returning to the flushed
zone. This may occur, for example, over the duration of trips when the wellbore is at the
lower hydrostatic pressure and when swabbing reduces annular pressure further. This can
therefore result in a permeable zone that gives no hydrocarbon indication when drilled, but
when tested with electric logs, gives every indication of being a hydrocarbon bearing zone.
With these types of occurrences, flushing can be suspected and subsequent gas evaluation has
to bear this in mind since it may be erroneous. However, it can never be conclusive unless
wireline data, at a later date, results in different information.
Flushed
Zone
Invaded
Zone
Figure 6.10 Flushing with subsequent Invasion
However, where permeability and pressure allow, or where permeable zones are thin and
bounded by impermeable layers, a condition of total flushing may occur where formation

fluids are completely flushed away from the wellbore area and are unable to return. This will
not only result in no gas being liberated when the formation is drilled, but, with a
combination of total flushing and subsequent invasion (Figure 6.10), may also result in zones
going undetected by electric logs.
In this situation, only some form of testing could identify the presence of hydrocarbons. But,
with such severe contamination, permeability may be damaged to such a degree that a test
would not be possible (not forgetting that there would have been no information to suggest
that a zone warrants testing in the first place).
With no initial gas response and no indications from wireline, there is really nothing to go on,
so that flushing can lead to zones going completely undetected.
Examples of flushed gas responses are illustrated in Case Study 13, Section 10.9.

6.4.3 Fluid Influxes
We have seen how mud invasion of the borehole can occur when a positive pressure
differential, i.e. overbalance, exists between the pressures due to the drilling fluid and the
formation pore fluid. When a negative pressure differential exists, i.e. a state of underbalance,
when the pressure due to the formation fluid is greater than the pressure exerted by the mud
column, then fluid flow will occur in the opposite direction; that is, formation fluids will be
able to flow into the borehole.
The same factors that influence the degree of flushing also influence the degree of fluid
influx, namely the degree of underbalance and permeability. A distinction should be made
between permanent and temporary conditions of underbalance and the different influences that
they have on recorded gas levels.
Temporary conditions of underbalance occur when the hydrostatic pressure, due to the weight
of the mud column, is temporarily reduced below the formation pressure by the two
mechanisms described in Section 5.3.2.
 Reduction in hydrostatic pressure when circulation is stopped.
 Reduction in hydrostatic pressure due to swabbing when the drillstring is lifted

(Figure 5.3).
The resulting produced gases such as connection gas are important for evaluation purposes.
They indicate the condition of well balance for well safety and can confirm whether
production may be taking place while actually drilling, to explain changes in gas level.
Connection gas and such evaluation techniques will be discussed separately in Section 7.7.
Permanent conditions of underbalance will exist if the balancing pressure due to the drilling
fluid is less than, and remains less than, the formation pressure. Since we are referring to the
influences on gas responses while drilling, then the balancing pressure is that exerted by the
equivalent circulating density (the increase in hydrostatic pressure due to the frictional
pressure losses of the circulating mud).
This is the desired case in underbalanced drilling when fluids such as air, gas, foam, mist or
aerated fluid or, simply, low density water or oil muds are used specifically to provide an
underbalanced condition. This provides certain advantages in the drilling operation, such as: -
 improved penetration rate

 limiting lost circulation

 eliminating the potential for differential sticking
 minimizing formation damage
 the reduction of drilling costs and improvement of production
Such underbalanced drilling will allow the free flow of formation fluids, from permeable
formations, into the wellbore so that, in essence, the well is in a constant state of production,
or testing, as it is being drilled.
In conventional balanced drilling, the mud weight is selected so as to provide an overbalance

in order to prevent the flow of formation fluid into the wellbore. A condition of permanent
underbalance will only occur if a formation of higher pore pressure (exceeding mud weight) is
drilled into and no changes to the mud weight are made. Similarly, a permanent condition
may result from a reduction in mud weight so that the hydrostatic pressure may fall below the
pore pressure of previously drilled formations. Fluid flow from the formation will then be
possible until the mud weight is increased to a point where it once again exceeds the
formation pressure. The hydrostatic pressure may also be reduced through “normal”
situations, principally from allowing too much gas into the annulus thereby reducing the
overall mud density: -
 fracture generated gas

 excessive penetration rates through gas bearing formations
 inefficient removal of gas at surface
The difference to gas evaluation is, that in such a situation, there are two sources of formation
gas, liberated and produced. As shall be demonstrated in Section 7.4, basic show evaluation
comes down to the determination of gas volume (i.e. porosity and saturation) changes through
changes in liberated gas. This basic technique is lost, to some extent, when production is
occurring since the gas measurement does not simply reflect the volume of gas in a given
volume of rock.
Gas responses that can be expected when drilling into a higher pressured formation, giving a
condition of underbalance, will vary depending on the relative conditions of the underbalance,
permeability and porosity. The formation fluid type is obviously a factor too, but for the
purposes of this discussion, we are assuming the presence of gas.
The worst conditions of influx occur when the pressure differential is high and when porosity
and permeability are good, so that the influx is large enough to cause a substantial kick, or
even worse, become uncontrollable so that a blowout condition results. In continual
monitoring of total gas and other parameters such as mud flow and pit levels, it is one of the
mud loggers’ primary duties to detect such occurrences and inform the driller and company
representative so that appropriate measures can be taken.

Drill into Overpressured Formation Reduce mud

High Pressure Lower Pressure weight to leave
Differential Reduced exposed formation
Differential Good Permeability Permeability underbalanced
Good Permeability
Total Gas Total Gas Total Gas Total Gas
0 0 0 0
drilling background
penetrate
formation
initial
bottoms increase
up due to influx
steady increase
as
drilling proceeds
Well flowing/pumps off/ shut in
stop drilling
circulate
NB pressure reduction and increases
in flow and mud level due to bottoms up
expanding gas displacing mud from
the wellbore would normally lead to
the well being shut in before gas
sustained circul-
reaches the surface
ating background
Figure 6.11 Typical gas trends resulting from fluid influxes
If permeability is still good, but the pressure differential is lower, fluid flow still readily
occurs resulting in a kick, but the rate and volume of influx will be lower. This may result in a
longer period of influx occurring before it is detected by surface changes. The gas increase
may be less significant, but the end result will still be an influx that needs to be controlled and
then mud weight increased to prevent further influx.

If permeability is restricted, then fluid flow will not be so ‘easy’ and the rate of influx will
vary according to the pressure differential. Rather than a rapid influx occurring, a slower
gradual influx or ‘feed-in’ will result. This will be evident from changes in background gas
rather than a rapid increase in gas levels. As more of the formation is penetrated, a greater
area of the formation is exposed from which fluid flow will emanate. Therefore, as drilling
proceeds, the amount of influx increases so that the drilling background level of gas will
show a continual and steady rise.
If the pressure differential results from a reduction in mud weight, causing a previously drilled
formation to become underbalanced, an initial increase in the drilling background gas will be
seen when the influx begins and this higher background level will be maintained as long as
conditions remain the same.
In both of these cases, if drilling was stopped but circulation maintained until bottoms up was
reached, a higher level of circulating background gas will be observed and maintained as a
result of the continual influx.
These different situations are illustrated in Figure 6.11
N.B. the background level terms introduced above will be explained further in Section 7.2.

6.5 Mud Type and Rheology
Many of the effects that the drilling fluid has on gas analysis have already been discussed in
relation to other conditions. Here, they will be summarized: -
6.5.1 Mud Type
We have seen that different drilling fluids have varying degrees of mutual solubility in respect
to different hydrocarbons compounds.
 Oil based muds have a high solubility capacity for all hydrocarbons whereas
water has a much lower capacity. The degree of salinity in water based
muds will reduce this capacity further. This, then, has a bearing on the
extraction and sampling of gas. Oil based muds are more subject to the
efficiency of agitator type traps since the gas is principally in solution. With
water based muds, the light end gas, especially methane, is more prone to
being lost to the atmosphere when the mud is at surface, whereas the heavier
ends held in solution are, again, more subject to the trap efficiency.
 The solubility factor not only determines which hydrocarbons are going to
be held in solution but it is also a major consideration in how easily the
hydrocarbons can break out of solution. A smaller proportion of light end
hydrocarbons will be taken into solution, and, what there is, will be more
readily released. The heavier hydrocarbons, however, being denser with
higher boiling points, critical temperatures and lower vapour pressures, are
less readily extracted from the mud.
 This principle can also be applied to the formation fluid. For example, if the
gas recorded is dominantly methane, then the zone is more likely to be water
bearing.
 Oil based mud systems are more likely to retain and recycle gas, simply as a
result of the higher proportion of gas held in solution. This, generally, is a
more significant factor than their typically low viscosity and gel strength
making it physically easier to break gas out of solution. This relationship
will vary from case to case, depending on the specific composition, rheology
and temperature of the drilling fluid together with the composition of the
gas.

6.5.2 Mud Density
Mud density determines the hydrostatic pressure present in the borehole and is therefore a
factor in the release of gas from the formation: -
 The pressure differential is a factor on the ease at which fluids will escape
from the rising cuttings. This, potentially, may lead to a separation of gases
(in relation to the lagged depth interval) with lighter gases escaping before
heavier components. However, the significant release of gas will occur with
the gas expansion when the mud is close to, or at, surface. Also, this volume
of gas is, in most cases, much less than the volume of gas initially liberated
by the drilling process, so that the mud density is a fairly minor factor in
overall gas liberation.
 The pressure differential is a main factor, along with formation permeability,

in the flow of fluids between the borehole and the formation and therefore
effects the degree of flushing and the degree of influxes, should they be
occurring. Obviously, the greater the mud density is over the formation
pressure, the more serious flushing becomes. In ‘conventional’ drilling,
however, it should be noted that the actual mud density makes no difference
if it is providing just a marginal overbalance against the formation pressure.
 With conventional agitator systems, the mud density, along with the
viscosity, is a major factor in the extraction of gas at surface, since it will
effect the efficiency of the gas trap. The heavier the mud, the more load
there is acting against the rotation of the agitator and the less efficient it will
be.
In fact, in normal balanced drilling, the mud density has very little ‘ variable’ effect,
downhole, in the liberation of gas. The over-riding factor is the control on gas trap efficiency
as mud density changes and the actual extraction of the gas.

6.5.3 Mud Temperature
Mud temperature is often overlooked as a factor in gas measurement, although it has a

number of important various effects: -
 Along with pressure it is a factor in phase changes and solubility and

whether hydrocarbons arrive at surface as a free gas, dissolved gas or as a
liquid.
 Temperature effects the volatility of hydrocarbons and the ease at which they
can flow and be liberated. The higher the mud temperature, the more
volatile the gas.
 Temperature effects the viscosity of the mud (Section 6.5.4.) and of

formation fluids and is therefore a factor in fluid flow (i.e. fluids escaping
from cuttings) and the retention of gases. The higher the temperature, the
lower the viscosity and the lower the retention.
In fact, all of these factors act together as mud temperature changes. The hotter the mud
system, then the better the gas measurements, as a result of: -
 The lower the volume of gas that can be held in solution. More gas will be
‘free’ and more readily extracted at surface.
 The lower the viscosity of formation fluid, resulting in a greater volume

being released from the rising cuttings.
 The more volatile, and readily extractable, the gas.
We now have to consider when these temperature considerations are going to have an effect
on gas analysis: -
 Shallow wells with lower mud temperatures
 High temperature – High pressure wells
 Water depth in offshore operations where the mud is cooled to a much larger
degree when passing through the marine riser or conductor.
 Changing effect as hole depth and/or bit run duration increase.

6.5.4 Viscosity and Gel Strength
The viscosity and gel strength are very important rheological factors since they are the
‘holding’ or retention parameters of the mud.
 High viscosity mud may limit the release of formation fluids from the rising
cuttings since there is more of an ‘obstacle’ to fluid flow. This effect will be
more evident in water based mud systems since oil based muds are typically
low viscosity and gel strength systems.
 They are also a large consideration in how effectively gas can be sampled
and extracted at surface for analysis. A low viscosity system will lead to a
greater loss of light end gas (free gas) in the surface system, but a more
efficient extraction of the heavier end gases. A high viscosity system will
lead to better retention and measurement of the free gas, but, at the same
time, better retention and reduced trap efficiency will result in poorer
extraction and measurement of the dissolved, heavier gases. An example of
this, dealing with fracture quartzitic sandstone, is illustrated in Section 10.7
 Another important effect of viscosity is the control of gas dispersion in the

drilling fluid and the resulting definition of gas shows that can be related to
specific zones of interest or formation boundaries. Dissolved gas is not so
effected by gas dispersion so that oil based muds generate sharp, clearly
defined gas responses. However, with water based muds, most of the light
end gas is free and subject to dispersion. Low viscosity mud will be more
susceptible to gas dispersing readily, so that a gas show may not be so well
defined, leading to poorer correlation with drill breaks and cuttings analysis
in the determination of formation changes. On occasions, there may be a
degree of separation (i.e. a delay in their arrival and detection at surface)
between light end and heavy end gases since a greater proportion of the
heavy gas is in solution. It is very important that this is taken into
consideration when evaluating the composition of a gas response in order for
gas ratios to be determined accurately.
 Viscosity is also a factor in the amount of gas produced into the wellbore
through swabbing when the drillstring is lifted producing a temporarily
underbalanced condition. The greater the viscosity, the higher the frictional
pressure loss and the greater the resulting influx leading to connection or
similar gas response.

6.6 Surface Considerations
Up to this point, we have seen that there are many factors and combinations of factors that can
influence the gas quantity and composition as it travels from the formation to the surface.
However, many of the largest influences occur while the gas is travelling through the surface
system before it finally reaches the gas detectors for analysis.
6.6.1 Design, Efficiency and Location of the Gas Trap
The gas trap is probably one of the least sophisticated pieces of equipment used in a modern
mud logging unit and yet it is undoubtedly one of the most, if not the most, important!
Without a means to efficiently and effectively extract and sample the gas from the drilling
fluid, the heart of the mud logging operation is lost!
Variations in trap type and design may obviously lead to differences in the efficiency of gas
extraction and may make it difficult to make accurate quantitative comparisons between wells
that have been monitored with different equipment. Efficiency considerations were discussed
in detail in Section 3.1.1; here, we shall detail the more operational considerations.
 Trap location is a very important consideration. Typically, agitator type traps can
only be situated in the shaker box where the mud exits the flowline (Figure 6.12).
Ideally, the trap should be located directly over the flowline, in order to sample the
mud as soon as possible and where the flow is greatest and fresh returning mud will
be constantly flowing past the trap. If the trap is located away from this zone,
especially where the shaker box is large (maybe combining several shale shakers),
then not only is the flow reduced, but the mud is more likely to have been in the
shaker box for a period of time before being sampled. This allows more time for
light end gas to escape to the atmosphere, and it will also mean less accurate lagged
correlation and possibly even missed horizons, contacts or formation tops.
 The depth at which the trap is set in the mud determines the volume of mud that is
sampled and therefore the amount of gas that can be extracted, together with the
efficiency of the agitator. The mud logger should ensure that the trap is set at the
correct depth and that this depth is maintained for the duration of the well so that the
amount of mud that is being sampled is a constant. This will require resetting of the
trap at any time that the mud level in the shaker box changes, i.e. when the mud
flowrate is changed or in the event that the shaker/gate arrangement is altered (Figure
6.13). If this is not carried out effectively, not only does the change in the volume of

mud sample effect the amount of gas, but it also changes the load acting against the
agitator, effecting it’s efficiency.
Variations in mud Proximity to

level flowline
Figure 6.12 Location of agitator trap
 The mud logger has to ensure that the flow passing the trap is not restricted in any
way by the build up of cuttings around the trap. Mud caking the entrance port, the
agitator or the exhaust port also has to be avoided to ensure as uniform an operation
as possible. Anytime that this ‘passageway’ is blocked or altered, the flow pattern of
the mud through the trap is altered and this effects the efficiency of the agitator.
 The agitator is the most important component of the trap, in terms of gas extraction
from the mud, so should be regularly checked to ensure that it is fully operational.
Damaged or worn blades (erosion from the drilled cuttings in the mud), mud caked
blades, reduced rotation speed due to failing bearings, will all greatly effect the
efficiency of the trap.
Even with the trap and agitator properly maintained and fully operational, variations in gas
extraction due to other factors may still lead to changes in the efficiency of the system.

Changes in mud properties (viscosity, gel strength), mud temperature, and gas composition
may lead to changes in overall or preferential gas extraction as discussed in Section 6.5.
Mud level drops
Check chromatographic
response with test gas
Trap position reset
Figure 6.13 Drop in mud level in the shaker box, requiring the
re-setting of trap height
6.6.2 The Gas Sample Line

Once the gas has been extracted from the mud, it still has to be collected and transported to
the gas detectors and here, again, there are several conditions or factors that can affect the
final gas analysis.
It is known that standard polyflow tubing can absorb heavy hydrocarbons until saturated. This
will effect, to a minor degree, the butane and pentane being analyzed. Any gas absorbed can
be subsequently desorbed, should the gas concentration within the sample line decrease.
Gas extracted from the mud is lifted from the trap by air being pumped through the system.
The volume of air in the gas line does contribute to the degree of gas dilution, but this volume
is minor when compared to the internal volume of the gas trap where the significant gas-air
dilution is occurring.
Variations in the flowrate of air through the sample line will only lead to minor changes in the
concentration of gas to air in the mixture being analyzed. The main effect of the sample line
and air flow is in the amount of gas-air sample being lifted from the trap. A reduction in
flowrate will lead to a reduction in sample and in the gas measurement. This will have the
additional effect of ‘extending’ or ‘elongating’ gas responses. The slower the pump rate, the
longer it will take to evacuate a given volume of gas from the trap so that, a given gas
response spans a greater period of time leading to poorer show definition.
Datalog uses an air pump that operates at a constant flowrate of 4.0 scfh (standard cubic feet
per hour) but variations in actual flowrate may be caused by: -
 The length of the sample line. The longer the line, the greater the air volume and the
greater the ‘load’ acting against the pump, causing a reduction in the flowrate.
Although this will be a constant for a given well, there may be differences when it
comes to comparing different well data.
 Blockages caused by mud entering the line – this will be immediately rectified by the
mud logger so should not lead to any erroneous data.
 Ambient temperature has a significant effect. Low air temperatures may lead to
extracted gases condensing back into a liquid. This not only reduces the quantity of
free gas that will be carried to the detectors and measured, but also restricts the flow
in the sample line imposing an extra load on the sample pump. The length of the
sample line also comes into play here; the longer the line, then the longer the time
that the gas is subjected to the colder air temperature and the more condensing will
take place.
 Air temperature is also important in terms of normal moisture in the sample line. In
areas of cold climate, this may lead to moisture freezing in the sample line,
restricting flow and eventually blocking it completely. Continuous monitoring and
maintenance is required.

 Drying agents and filters are placed in the sample line, not only to keep the flow in
the line unrestricted, but also to prevent any moisture from entering the gas detectors.
These have to be regularly monitored and replaced to prevent them restricting the
sample flow and also to prevent them from becoming contaminated with condensed
hydrocarbons and perhaps giving subsequent erroneous gas readings.
6.6.3 Losses of Gas to the Atmosphere
Unfortunately, in terms of gas analysis, the surface equipment can, and in most cases does, act
as a very efficient degasser before the mud and gas even reaches the gas trap.
As illustrated in Figure 6.14, gas losses to the atmosphere will occur at the bell nipple and
along the flowline, before the mud ever reaches the shaker box for sampling and extracting of
gas. The severity of the gas loss will be influenced by the flowrate and by points of turbulence
in the system.
When installing equipment on a rig, it is important to survey the surface system in order to
determine how serious an effect will be imposed on gas detection.
The following characteristics of the flowline will all introduce turbulence to the returning mud
flow resulting in a higher gas loss: -
 Degree of inclination; obviously, the steeper the flowline the more rapid the
flow and the greater the amount of lost gas.
 Changes in the angle of inclination.
 Abrupt changes in direction.
 Length of the flowline – the longer it is, the greater the amount of lost gas.
 Whether the flowline is open or closed.
 The shape of the flowline and depth of mud. A cylindrical flowline will tend
to have a deeper level of mud, whereas a square, flat bottomed flowline will
generally result in a shallow level of mud so that any effects of turbulence
are only made worse.
 Entry point into the shaker box. On many older systems, the flowline may
end above the shaker box so that the mud simply drops into it (rather than

entering into the body of the shaker box below the mud level), resulting in a
major loss of gas.
Losses at the bell nipple where mud

flow changes from vertical to
horizontal
Losses along flowline
depending on length, shape,
steepnees, changes in gradient
or direction
Losses if
flowline
terminates above
the shaker box
wellhead shaker box
Figure 6.14 Potential gas losses throughout the surface system
A real example of an appallingly designed rig layout, requiring an exceptionally long

flowline, had many points that made the flowline bad for gas retention. These were as
follows: -
 A square flowline with a very large cross sectional area and a flat bottom, resulting
in a mud level of only a few centimetres.
 Sharp changes in slope angle.
 90 degree turns.
 Completely open to the atmosphere.
 The open end was positioned about ½m above the mud level in the shaker box.
 The only available site for the gas trap was at the end of the shaker box, opposite to
the flowline, where there was virtually no mud flow.
Obviously, in this case, very little consideration had been given to gas analysis since,
everything that could be wrong, was!

PLATE 6.1 Gas decrease with change in hole size
0 min/m 15 0.001 Chrom Gas % 100
Casing Point
The dominant effect at casing points is obviously the reduction in hole size with less liberated
gas. However, many other parameters are changing at the same time such as reduced flowrate,
change in bit type and reduced weight on bit, change in mud system or rheology or, at least, a
significant cooling of the mud, change in hydraulics and flow regimes.

PLATE 6.2 Real-time gas response resulting from a drilling break
Lagged Depth Chromatographic Gases
10
The 0.2m lagged depth ticks shows a relative increase in ROP from 18 to 5 min/m, with a
corresponding increase in gas level from 6 to 10%. In other words, a 3 ½ fold increase in ROP
results in less than a 2 fold increase in gas. Therefore, if all other possible causes of the drill
break are eliminated so that we know we have a zone of increased porosity, there is, actually,
an overall decrease in formation gas volume. It can reasonably be assumed, therefore, that
over the zone in question, there was an increase in formation porosity but an actual decrease
in gas saturation.
PLATE 6.3 Drop in gas levels as a result of coring

ROP Chromatographic Gas % Gas Ratios
Cored
Interval
An expected decrease in gas levels, when coring, is clear, resulting from the volume of rock
retained within the core barrel and often lower rates of penetration.
What isn’t so fully appreciated is the occasional compositional change in recorded gas and
subsequent gas ratios. This can result from the different sized cuttings being produced when
accompanied by reduced permeability.
When drilling into the zone with a conventional tri-cone bit, the cuttings are typically going to
be larger and, with reduced permeability, they will retain a proportion of the gas,
preferentially the heavier end components. When proceeding with the core bit, cuttings are
typically smaller so that more gas is actually liberated from the volume of rock drilled. In this
case, permeability is less of a factor so that proportionally more heavier end gas may be
released and recorded.


Section 7 EVALUATION OF LIBERATED AND PRODUCED GAS
Having investigated the different sources of gas, and the different factors that may influence
the final quantity and composition of gas recorded at surface, Section 7 looks at how the gas
is monitored and interpreted on a real-time basis, and how this information is presented and
evaluated on depth based logs.
This log will be used in the final evaluation of a well and in future well correlation, so that the
data has to be presented in such a way that it is easily understood, and so that the maximum
possible amount of information can be gained from it.
7.1 Basic Definitions
1. Background Gas A reasonably constant level of gas that is established when drilling
through a consistent lithology interval.
2. Gas Show Any gas response, in either quantity or composition, that increases
above the established background level.
3. Gas Kick Although significant gas shows may be referred to as a gas kick, this
term should be used specifically to describe an influx of formation
fluid into the wellbore that leads to a displacement of drilling fluid
from the annulus and a well control situation. Note that formation
fluids other than gas can result in such a well control situation.
7.2 Background Gas
Gas present in the drilling mud may be as a result of liberation from newly penetrated
lithologies, as a result of being ‘produced’ into the wellbore, as a result of recycling or due to
contamination. The gas measured at any point in time can therefore be a result of all, or a
combination of these causes.

The purpose of determining a background level of gas is so that we have what can be a
considered a normal gas value, or control, against which, volume variations can be compared
in order to evaluate possible reservoir potential.
Exactly what should be thought of as the background level and how it should be determined is
open to different interpretations but, as will be demonstrated, there is a clear difference
between theory and what is actually practical or sensible in the field.
The first obvious and essential requirement is that detectors are properly calibrated and
zeroed. This requires Total Gas Sensors to be zeroed against ambient air flowing through the
detector at the same rate that the gas sample will be supplied at. The mud logger must be
careful that this ambient air is sampled from an area where there is no possibility of the
presence of diesel or other vapors, since this would lead to a false zero.
There is no such complication with the micro-chromatograph, since it is calibrated to

determine specific gases (rather that a total response) and will automatically zero itself to the
response caused by the carrier gas, every time that a sample is injected.
Now it comes to the point of sampling the drilling fluid for any gas entrained within it. Mud
loggers are aware that: -
 A proportion of gas will be retained by the mud and detected even if

stationary in the shaker box.
 Different levels of gas are seen when the mud is being circulated or when
drilling is taking place (Figure 7.1).
So, what do these different levels (the stationary background, the circulating background and
the formation background) represent and which provides the best control or background
level?
7.2.1 Stationary and Circulating Backgrounds
Drilling mud, at any time, will contain a certain amount of gas that hasn’t been extracted at
surface. This gas will be as a result of recycled and contaminated sources. Typically, there
will be a bias towards the heavier alkanes that are preferentially retained, in solution, by the
mud.

Calibrated Zero
Total gas sensors calibrated
with ambient air flow
Stationary Background
Recycled and/or contaminated
gas retained by the mud
system
Circulating Background
Strictly recycled gas content,
but will initially contain
liberated and produced gas
from previous bit run/trip and
requires a period for mud
temperature to stabilize
Formation
Background
Incorporating
newly liberated gas
TIME
Figure 7.1 Background gas terminology, as seen when beginning to

drill a new interval at the start of new bit runs.
This, then, is the quantity of recycled gas being pumped back into the hole. Gas newly
liberated from the formation will be over and above this level. The problem with trying to
establish a background level from this, is that the longer the mud sits at surface, the cooler it
becomes with increasing viscosity due to the gelling action of the mud.

This effects the volatility and ease of extraction of the gas from the mud by the agitation of
the trap and can therefore lead to different recorded values, depending on how long after the
previous drilling/circulating period the measurement is done.
The only suitable time is during a trip out of hole, but before the pipe is run back in when
warmer mud containing more volatile gas, together with gas that was produced during the trip
out of the hole, will be displaced from the annulus. For some bit runs that may last 12 hours,
24 hours, or even cover a period of several days, this is not a reliable or acceptable means of
establishing a background level against which all subsequent shows will be evaluated.
A more reasonable time to establish a background level would be during a continued

circulation, but again, there are major operational difficulties to determining this in order to
make it a reliable background reference.
The point of a background level is to provide a value against which gases, liberated or
produced from formations while drilling, can be satisfactorily evaluated. A circulating
background level therefore has to be free of these gases that have been freshly introduced into
the drilling fluid.
At the start of drilling bit runs, this would require a long circulating period, without drilling,
to ensure that all previously liberated gas has been extracted from the mud and to allow
temperature and mud properties (density and viscosity) to become uniform. It would also
require that there be no pipe movement during this period so that produced gas is not being
freshly introduced into the mud.
The initial circulating background then, should only be a measurement of the contamination
or recycled gas present in the drilling fluid before gas is liberated from drilled formations.
Consider the gas that would be recorded following a trip into the hole but before any new
formation is drilled: -
 A steady increase would be observed as gas, liberated from the previous

drilled interval, still in the annulus, reaches the surface (this is assuming that
‘bottoms up’ was not circulated at the end of the previous bit run).
 Added to this would be the gas produced from the formation during the
previous trip out of the hole.

 Even after bottoms up, when these gases will have been circulated out of the
hole, several circulations may be required in order for the temperature and
rheology of the mud to become stable.
Given the cost of operating a drilling rig, this is obviously an unacceptable use of rig time
without any new hole being made!
Before the time required to establish a stable circulating background has elapsed, there is
extra gas in the mud that has been liberated from drilling. Most of this gas will be removed at
surface, but some may be retained within the mud increasing the background level.
It is therefore difficult to establish a circulating background level, when there is, effectively,
always a higher level due to the gas liberated from drilling. One way of establishing
circulating background when drilling is proceeding requires the frequent co-operation of the
drilling contractor (and operator, since time and money is a requirement).
At any time, if drilling was to be halted for just a few minutes, but circulation maintained,
then for that period of two minutes, no further gas is being liberated into the drilling mud
from drilled formation. Drilling can then resume immediately. When this ‘operation’ is
lagged to surface, the gas level would drop from that representing the drilled, liberated gas, to
the circulating background level.
For this background level to represent nothing other than the gas retained in the mud, a further
requirement of the operation is that when drilling is halted, the bit must be held stationary. If
it was to be lifted, then gas may be swabbed in from the formation, adding to the background
level.
In order for this to be successful and a circulating background ‘window’ in the mud to still be
evident once it has reached surface, then circulating time and mud properties are important.
The following points, resulting in gas dispersion that would remove the ‘window’, limit the
success and accuracy of background determination: -
 Deep hole or long ‘bottoms up’ time, allowing a greater period for dispersion.
 Connections or pipe working that disturb gas in the mud column.
 Low viscosity and gel strength, resulting in less resistance to dispersion.
Knowing the circulating background is of obvious benefit to the drilling and evaluation of a
well. It is a measurement of the gas volume retained and recycled by the drilling fluid and is
therefore very important to well safety. In addition, any gas above the circulating background
can only have originated from the formation. Where a circulating level can also be beneficial
is in the identification of an underbalanced condition when gas is being continually produced

into the wellbore. This may be due to increased formation pressure and permeability of a
newly penetrated zone and would result in gas levels being sustained while circulating, after
drilling had been stopped and bottoms up reached (Figure 7.2). After this time, the
mechanically liberated gas will have reached surface and been removed from the mud. If no
gas were being produced, the level would drop off after bottoms up and fall to a level that
would be the normal circulating background. A higher and sustained level of gas can only be
due to gas being produced into the wellbore.
Total Gas
Time
Stop drilling and Removal of liberated
circulate bottoms up gas during bottoms up
circulation
FBG
Bottoms up
Circulating
Background
Continued feed-in
of gas after
bottoms up shows
that the well is
A sharp drop in gas level underbalanced
after bottoms up shows that and continuing to
the well is overbalanced produce into the
wellbore
Figure 7.2 Well balance as indicated by circulating gas level
It should also be remembered that stationary and circulating backgrounds, being a

measurement of the recycled , dissolved, gas content, are also subject to the accuracy or
efficiency of the gas extraction equipment.
7.2.2 Formation Background

Owing to the practical difficulties in establishing stationary or circulating background levels,

a more accepted practice is for the background level to be determined from the formations as
drilling proceeds. Obviously, this background reference now includes newly liberated gas as
well as the recycled gas content within the mud and is subject to changes previously
described.
However, consider that the production potential of possible reservoir zones is being evaluated.
If drilling through an impermeable, non-producing lithology such as claystone or shale,
maintaining constant penetration rate, flow rate and mud density, the amount of gas liberated
into the drilling fluid from the formation will be constant as long as porosity, formation
pressure and gas saturation remain constant.
% Total Gas
siltstone FBG 1
claystone FBG 2
sandstone
Gas Shows
Figure 7.3 Formation background gas (FBG) vs gas show
This background level can be determined for any lithology. If a potential producing zone is
then penetrated, the resulting gas increase or show can be evaluated against the background

level established for what we know is a non-productive lithology (Figure 7.3). In other
words, the producing potential of the new zone is represented by the change in gas level or,
more simply, the value over and above the non-producing formation background previously
established (Figure 7.4).
The over-riding benefit of the formation background is that any complication from recycled or
contaminated gas within the stationary and circulating backgrounds is eliminated, since they
are a component of both the formation background and the gas show. Only the liberated gas
is being evaluated or compared, thus determining how much more gas is liberated from the
potential reservoir zone as compared to the non-producing lithology immediately above it.
Background
Time Show
Show
Figure 7.4 Background versus formation gas show
7.3 Interpretation of Background Gas
The formation background level is subject to the changes already described in Sections 5.2
and 5.3 as applied to liberated and produced gas, namely formation changes such as porosity,

saturation, permeability and formation pressure and ‘outside’ influences such as penetration
rate, flowrate and mud density.
Over a given depth interval, flowrate and mud density are unlikely to change significantly
leading to erroneous evaluations, but have to be born in mind when determining the possible
causes of background changes.
 If the flowrate is changed, there will be an immediate and corresponding change in

gas level (Section 6.3.4) so that the correlation is clear, and a new background level
established.
 If the mud weight is being gradually increased or decreased, then a corresponding

decrease or increase in gas level can be expected. Complication may occur if a
formation change occurs during the same time period since gas level changes that are
a result of porosity or saturation changes, may be masked or hidden.
However, a change in gas level due to a formation change will be immediate, whereas the
changing mud density will result in a gradual change, the trend of which would already have
been seen. Once the mud weight is stable, the new formation background can be readily
established. These changes should be clearly reported on the mudlog to avoid any confusion
or misinterpretation at a later stage (Figure 7.5).
If all ‘external’ influences, such as penetration rate, mud density and flowrate, on the
background level remain unchanged, then any change in gas level must correspond to a
change in formation property such as porosity, formation fluid, saturation, or pressure. This
may correspond to a change in a given formation or to a complete change in lithology, where
all or a combination of the above factors may change.
Changes in formation pressure may lead to an immediate or gradual change in gas level
depending on the situation. If the pressure increase corresponds to the penetration of a sealed,
overpressured body (such as a reservoir), then the response will be immediate, resulting in a
gas show or even a kick.
If the pressure increase is due to transitional undercompaction of shale for example, then the
background gas level will increase as the pressure differential increases. In this case, the mud
logger will be looking at other pressure indicators such as produced gas peaks, cuttings (size,
shape, volume), drilling exponent, mud temperature, salinity etc, to confirm the change in
formation pressure.

REAL-TIME CHART
Lagged Mud weight Total Gas

Depth
CORRESPONDING MUDLOG
1000 Lithology Total Gas
1002 Initial BG
1000
1004 MW 1020
Increase
Increase MW
MW
1006 Decreasing
BG
1008 Increase BG at
formation 1010
1010 change
Further BG decrease
1012 with MW 1035
continued MW increase
1014
1016
New BG
1020
with
1018 stable MW
1020
Figure 7.5 Background trend with simultaneous changes in mud density and formation
The change in gas level in these situations may be due to combination of liberated and
produced gas. Changes in pressure as described above will be associated with an increase in
porosity, so that a given volume of rock will contain more formation fluid, leading to an
increase in liberated gas. This increase will be more significant if there is also an increase in
gas saturation.
In addition to the liberated gas, if the pressure increase leads to an underbalanced situation,
then gas will also be produced into the wellbore as drilling proceeds. Connection gases

(Section 7.7) will also occur when the pumps are off and/or when gas is swabbed into the hole
when the drillstring is lifted.

7.4 Show Evaluation
Gas evaluation, of increased background or shows, or when a change in porosity leads to a

higher gas volume, is complicated by the fact that there will typically be an accompanied
increase in the penetration rate. This, in itself, results in a higher gas recording as was
detailed in Section 6.3.1 (Figure 6.4 and Plate 6.2). This is simply as a result of the rock
becoming easier to drill due to the increased porosity. In fact, the ROP is used, in addition to
cuttings analysis and gas level, as a reliable indicator of changes in porosity. This is
illustrated in Plate 7.1, where the higher ROP’s and increased gas level provide a good
indication that that interval of limestone has higher porosity (shaded intervals).
The problem, then, is that the ROP has to be taken into consideration when evaluating the gas
show. As illustrated in Figure 6.4, a faster penetration rate will result in higher recorded gas
even if there is no change in the actual gas volume in place in the formation. A gas show from
porous sand for example, will result from an increase in porosity and gas volume, but also
from the effect of the increased drilling rate. The significance or comparable importance of
the two influences has to be determined in order to evaluate a show.
0 ROP min/m 10 EMA % 1. 0 10
1000
BG
1010 1 0.7 ABG
1020
2 2.1 ABG
1030
Figure 7.6 Gas show vs penetration rate

Consider the two sand bodies illustrated in Figure 7.6, where Sand 2 has resulted in what
appears to be a more significant gas response.
STEP 1 Evaluate the change in gas volume in comparison to the previous background
(above background, ABG). This applies whether you are dealing with a
change in formation or a change within a formation. This is done by
comparing the degree of change in ROP and gas and by using the rule of
thumb method detailed in Section 6.3.1.
Background ROP = 9 min/m Background Gas = 0.1%
Sand 1 ROP = 6 min/m, Gas Show = 0.7 % ABG
Here, the increase in ROP is x1½, yet the increase in gas is x7. It can
therefore be deduced that there is certainly an increase in gas volume.
Sand 2 ROP = 2 min/m, Gas Show = 2.1% ABG
The increase in ROP is x4.5, with a gas increase of x21. So, again, the sand
unit certainly shows an increase in in-situ gas volume.
STEP 2 In an example like this, with sand units occurring in the same geological
sequence with the same well conditions, it is quite valid to compare the
individual gas responses against each other, as well as against the background
levels.
Initially, we look to have a much better zone with Sand 2, just on the basis of
the higher gas response (3x greater than Sand 1). However, when looking at
the ROP, it can be seen that Sand 2 drilled three times as fast as Sand 1 and,
as we know, for a similar in situ gas volume, three times the gas should have
been liberated.
It follows then, that the total gas volume in each of the sands is, actually, very
similar. Without the additional information provided by the ROP curve, we
would not be able to deduce this from a depth based mudlog.
This deduction is confirmed by referring to the corresponding real-time chart shown in Figure
7.7. Although Sand 1 only yielded a maximum of 0.7% EMA above background, this level
was maintained for the 36 minutes required to drill the sand unit (sand 6m thick, drilled at a
rate of 6 min/m). Comparing this to the second sand unit drilled at the rate of 2 min/m,
2.1% EMA was maintained for the 12 minutes required to penetrate the unit. The area
underneath the real-time gas curve approximates to the volume of liberated gas, and, by

comparing the area beneath the two curves, it is reasonably clear that both sands contain
similar total quantities of gas.
Total Gas % EMA

0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
10.00
Actual
Time
11.00
SAND 1
12.00
13.00
SAND 2
14.00
Figure 7.7 Real-time evaluation of gas shows, where the area

under the gas curve approximates to gas volume
This is not quite all that has to be considered however. Firstly, the reason for the different
penetration rates has to be considered. Sand 2 may have better porosity (and possibly
permeability) or higher pressure and therefore may well have better production possibilities.
Similarly, Sand 1 may be harder, more consolidated or cemented. Therefore, the gas show has
to be evaluated alongside not only the ROP, but also the drilled cuttings and other indicators.
If changes in drilling parameters and lithological changes (other than porosity) can be
eliminated as a cause of the higher penetration rate, then it is down to increased porosity and
the evaluation procedure can be taken a step further.

STEP 3 It has been determined that the bulk volume of each sand unit is equal, yet
Sand 2 has higher porosity.
It can therefore be further deduced that Sand 2 has lower gas saturation.
STEP 4 The significance of step 3 is dependant on the type of reservoir fluid, and for
this, we would need to go to the chromatographic gas ratios and/or
fluorescence indications.
For an oil zone, the gas saturation is lower; it is likely that the oil in Sand 2 is
of lower API.
For a gas zone, the situation is different. With a lower gas saturation, it is
likely that Sand 2 is a poorer zone (even though porosity is better), since we
are considering the gas saturation in water and the zone would almost
certainly produce more water.
Of course, comparison with the real-time gas chart and such ‘area under the curve’ is a valid
evaluation tool when dealing with a continuous total gas curve. However, when dealing with
chromatographic analysis, individual samples are being analyzed.
Many real-time chromatographic curves do not have the same validity as total gas curves,
since the curve is not a continuous measurement, but an updated measurement after each
sample injection. The accuracy or usefulness of the ‘area beneath the curve’ principle is
therefore dependent on how frequently the chromatograph is taking samples.
Many chromatographs may take between 2 and 5 minutes between samples so that the area
beneath the curve has no validity whatsoever. As can be seen in Figure 7.8, a curve generated
by a 5 minute sample time gives no representation of gas volume at all. Not only that, it is
quite possible that no sample will be taken at the time corresponding to the main gas response
or zone of interest, so that, even the compositional analysis is subject to significant error.
The Datalog chromatograph samples and updates for each hydrocarbon (C1 through C5) every
30 seconds so that the curve is very analogous to a continual gas curve, providing good real-
time ‘area’ comparison. This principle is very well illustrated in Figure 10.23 (Section 10.7),
looking at the detection of thin fractures with the chromatograph.

30 second divisions
Total Gas Sensor
30sec Chromatograph
5min Chromatograph
Figure 7.8 Real-time chromatograph trends
Most mud loggers and geologists are very familiar with the significance of the effect of ROP
on individual gas shows and are, typically, quite satisfied to visually appraise the gas values
alongside the penetration rate in order to evaluate individual shows. However, attempts have
been made to remove the human error and mathematically correct or normalize gas shows for
different penetration rates. The practice of this will be discussed in Section 7.5.
Regardless, when gas shows are quoted and tabulated in reports, they should always be
quoted with the value of each hydrocarbon compound above formation background (so that
relative changes in composition can also be identified) together with the change in penetration
rate, as shown by Table 7.1
Depth Litho- ROP Total Total C1 C2 C3 C4 C5

logy Change Gas BG Gas BG / Pk BG / Pk BG / Pk BG / Pk BG / Pk
Peak
Min/m % % % % % % %
1200 – Sandston 15 / 2.3 1.250 7.395 1.0500 / 0.0250 / 0.0030 / ------- / ------- /
e

1203 6.5763 0.3654 0.0658 0.0231 0.0195
1275 – Sandston 21 / 1.5 0.950 13.823 0.8750 / 0.0035 / ------- / ------- / ------ /
1279 e 12.2681 1.1050 0.2045 0.1265 0.0873
Table 7.1 Typical reporting of gas shows
This allows, during the final well and subsequent evaluations, for immediate comparisons to
be made and for any preferred normalization calculation to be used.
In addition, the ‘ratios’ of increase can be included in the report to allow for direct
comparisons and evaluation. The same gas responses are shown again in Table 7.2.
Depth Litho- ROP Total Total C1 C2 C3 C4 C5

logy Change Gas BG Gas BG / Pk BG / Pk BG / Pk BG / Pk BG / Pk
Peak
Min/m % % % % % % %
1200 – Sandston 15 / 2.3 1.250 7.395 1.0500 / 0.0250 / 0.0030 / ------- / ------- /
1203 e 6.5763 0.3654 0.0658 0.0231 0.0195
Increase X 6.52 6.145% 5.5263% 0.3404% 0.0628% 0.0231% 0.0195%
(abg) x 4.92 x5.26 x13.62 x20.93
1275 – Sandston 21 / 1.5 0.950 13.823 0.8750 / 0.0035 / ------- / ------- / ------ /
1279 e 12.2681 1.1050 0.2045 0.1265 0.0873
Increase X 14 12.873% 11.393% 1.1015% 0.2045% 0.1265% 0.0873%
(abg) x13.55 x13.02 x315
Table 7.2 Gas report including relative increases
Here, we can see that for both sands, the increase in the total gas response is less than the
increase in ROP, indicating that the actual gas volume has decreased. Looking at the
chromatographic breakdowns, this decrease is only reflected by the methane component with
all heavier components showing a volume increase.
The increase in heavier components is much more significant in the second sand, suggesting a
heavier fluid. We can go further if we look at the actual gas ratios (Section 8).
Sand 1 has a C1/C2 ratio (Section 8.2.1) of 16 which, unfortunately, is a borderline case,
indicating a wet gas, a condensate or possibly a light oil. Given the drop in C1 saturation, and
lesser increases in the heavier components (as compared to sand 2), the zone is most likely a
condensate.

Sand 2 has a C1/C2 ratio of 10, indicating a high gravity oil.

7.5 Gas Normalization
Section 6 illustrated that, because of the many parameters and conditions (see below) that
have a direct or indirect influence on the quantity of gas recorded at surface, relative changes
in gas trends are more meaningful than the actual value.
 Pressure and temperature

 Porosity
 Gas saturation
 Permeability
 Hole depth
 Rate of penetration
 Hole diameter
 Bit type
 Flowrate
 Differential pressure
 Mud type and rheology
 Trap efficiency
The recorded gas value may be modified further, by such conditions as: -
 Fluid movements in terms of flushing and influxes

 Phase and solubility changes
 Losses of gas to the atmosphere
 Gas retained by cuttings
Gas Normalization is an attempt to quantify a qualitative measurement in order to improve

the data allowing for better: -
 Determination of the significance, or quality, of a given gas show

 Comparison of shows from different zones in the same well
 Correlation of shows from different wells
Obviously, not all of the variables are directly calculable and so, cannot be accurately
normalized. However, some parameters are purely geometrical so that their influence can be
mathematically determined and corrected for.
1. Rate of Penetration

Section 6.3.1 illustrated the direct effect that ROP has on the quantity of measured gas, in that
it controls the amount of rock and formation fluid that are liberated into the drilling fluid over
a given time period. An increase in ROP will lead to a direct increase in gas.
2. Hole Diameter
As with ROP, hole diameter also determines the volume of rock liberated to the drilling fluid.
3. Flowrate
A change in flowrate has a direct effect in that it controls the dilution of gas within the
drilling mud. An increase in flowrate will lead to the gas, liberated over a given time, being
diluted in a greater volume of mud and will therefore result in a drop in recorded gas value.
Although this correction, in itself, is a valid one, it does not allow for secondary changes that
can occur when the flowrate is changed (see Section 6.3.4).
Normalization of these parameters is a mathematical correction that is made to eliminate them

as variable factors. In this way, the significance of gas shows can be directly compared
against each other and against normal background levels. However, it has to be remembered
that, although this is certainly an accurate correction for the volume of gas released into the
drilling fluid together with the subsequent dilution, it is not a complete correction. It cannot
account for all the other variables that play a part in the final recorded gas total.
Nevertheless, it will be demonstrated that, purely as a gas volume correction for geometric
variations, normalization of gas curves does work. However, many geologists/engineers find
that a further gas curve on the mud log may only serve to complicate the information
displayed, and that in many instances, although accurate, it provides the same information
that can be determined from the ‘rule of thumb’ techniques already illustrated in this manual.
Gas normalization is not ideally suitable for total gas detector values owing to the variable
and non-linear responses resulting from changes in gas composition and concentration.
What can be effectively normalized is a total gas value taken from the sum of the
chromatographic gas values, since these are an absolute measurement of the concentration of
each hydrocarbon compound.
This Total Chromatographic Gas value can then be normalized to eliminate the effects of
diameter, ROP and flowrate.

Many equations have been formulated for gas normalization, varying from the most basic to
extremely complicated procedures. The problem with bringing in too many other variables is
that they can not be geometrically corrected, so that a false perception of normalization may
be given, or worse still, further errors may be introduced.
A case in point is the correction made for different bit types, where, simply, a correction
factor for the bit type plus tooth or insert size, is entered into the normalization. This is a
gross over simplification in allowing for different sized cuttings being generated since no
consideration is given to lithology type and strength.
Datalog employs a normalization equation that purely corrects for the geometric variables as
described above: -
Where N = normalized gas (%)

a = pump output (m3/min)
b = ROP (min/m)
c = hole diameter (mm)
d = total gas (chromat) (%)
Example 1 Comparing shows in the same hole section (Figure 7.9)

In this situation, although accurate, gas normalization may be considered by some to be

superfluous, since the information that it provides is readily apparent.
In other words, while drilling the same hole section and circulating with the same flowrate,
the only ‘external’ variable is the rate of penetration controlling the volume of rock and gas
liberated to the wellbore over a given time.
For gas shows resulting from two potential zones, the rule of thumb method (Section 6.3.1)
can be used as effectively as normalization to compare the two shows or to compare the
shows to the established background level.
ROP min/m Total Chromatograph %

0 5 10 15 0.1 1.0 10 100
3 min/m 10% abg
1 min/m
20% abg
Figure 7.9 Comparing shows, Example 1
With a constant background gas of 1% from the shale, drilled at an average ROP of 10 min/m,
it is clear that both sands have production potential in terms of gas volume. If there had been

no change in actual bulk gas volume, the ROP increases would generate 3.3% gas in sand 1
and 10% gas in sand 2.
Sand 1 was drilled at a rate of 3 min/m and resulted in 10% total gas (above background).
With no change in drilling parameters, sand 2 was drilled at a rate of 1 min/m (i.e. 3 times as
fast as sand 1). If the sand units contained similar volumes of in place gas, an equivalent
show would therefore be 30%.
Assuming that hardness, grain size or cementation are not the cause of the different
penetration rates, based on the ROP alone it is reasonable to assume that Sand 2 has better
porosity than Sand 1. This can be confirmed by cuttings inspection and, subsequently, by
wireline information.
With the actual recorded gas for Sand 2, on reaching surface, being less than 30% (assume
20%), it can be deduced that a less than equivalent volume of gas has been liberated from the
formation.
Possible reasons for this are: -
 Lower porosity and therefore bulk volume – unlikely in this case since the faster
penetration rate tells us that the porosity is greater in Sand 2.
 Lower gas saturation.
 Reduced permeability, so that more gas has been retained by the drilled cuttings
– this can be confirmed by the relative volumes of cuttings gas.
 Increased permeability – resulting in flushing of the formation so that less

formation fluid was ‘available’ for liberation. This is unlikely in this case since
there is no delay in the timing of the gas show to suggest flushing.
What we have deduced then, is that both sand units have higher gas volumes than the
background control and that, although it possesses better porosity and generated a higher gas
response, sand 2 actually contains less gas volume than sand 1. The particular fluid type
would then tell us how significant this difference is.
A normalization curve, in this context, would tell us the same information, but nothing further
since ROP is the only variable.
Example 2 Comparison of shows in different hole sections or wells (Figure 7.10).

Gas normalization has more relevance to the operator when comparing or correlating wells. A
common question exists: “Why, when we drilled this zone on the last well did we see 10%
gas, yet on this well we are only seeing 1%?”
Normalization will improve this situation, to some extent, by removing the geometrical
variables as a cause.
However, it cannot eliminate any of the other possible causes: -
 Perhaps the mud density is higher resulting in flushing and/or decreased trap efficiency.
 Perhaps the mud viscosity is higher, making it more difficult to break the gas out of the
mud.
 Perhaps a different type of bit is being used, resulting in different cuttings size.
 Perhaps a different mud system is being used with different solubility or bubble point.
So, normalization can only go so far in making overall gas data from different wells directly
comparable. However, it will always have the benefit of removing the volumetric variables.
Take the same sand units illustrated in example 1, but now, assume that sand 2 was penetrated
in a different hole section, so that not only ROP, but flowrate and hole diameter would also
now be very different.
Sand 1 still yielded 10% with ROP 3 min/m, flowrate 2 m3/min, 12 ¼” hole.
Background gas from shale 1%, drilled at an average 10 min/m.
Sand 2 yielded 20% with ROP 1 min/m, flowrate 1.4 m3/min, 8 ½” hole.
Background gas from shale 1%, drilled at an average 10 min/m.
Which sand now has the best production potential, in terms of gas volume?
Using the ROP rule of thumb and comparison of each trend with the background resulting
from the unproductive shale: -

Sand 1 drills approximately 3 times as fast as the shale, so a gas show exceeding 3% would
be required to cause excitement. The fact that 10% is recorded points to a good show worth
further evaluation.
In other words, after eliminating the effect of ROP, sand 1 contains around 3 times the gas
volume as the background.
Sand 2 drills 10 times as fast as the shale, so would need to record at least 10% to be worth
further investigation. Liberated gas of 20% indicates some potential, but maybe not as much
as Sand 1.
In other words, sand 2 contains around 2 times the gas volume as the background.
If the varying conditions of different flowrate and hole size are now taken into consideration,
does a normalized gas lead to any different conclusion?
Applying the normalization formula to the 2 situations: -
Sand 1 normalized background = 0.84%

normalized show = 24.8%
Sand 2 normalized background = 1.22%

normalized show = 18.0%
After normalization then, the show from Sand 1 is 24% over background whereas Sand 2 is
only 16.8%.
Comparing the relative gas volumes from the two different techniques: -
Rule of Thumb Sand 1 = ~3x above background; Sand 2 = 2x abg ~ ratio 3:2
Normalization Sand 1 = 24% abg; Sand 2 = ~17% abg ~ ratio 3:2
So again, the normalization has mathematically corrected the variables and has the same
conclusion that was derived from the ROP/gas response rule of thumb.
This phenomenon has occurred because the gas shows have been compared to the
background levels, which are obviously affected to the same degree by the changes in flow

rate and hole diameter. The only real variable, due to lithology and porosity change, is the
ROP and this is what was being assessed in the first instance.
What the normalized gas curve does add, is an easier appraisal and the elimination of the
simple mathematics (Figure 7.10).
Flowrate m3/min Normalized Gas %
ROP min/m Total Chromatograph %

0 5 10 15 0.1 1.0 10 100
0 3
12 ¼ “
8½“
Figure 7.10 Gas shows with normalized gas curve
So, whereas in the first instance, sand 2 gave the false impression of a larger gas response,
after normalization it is readily apparent that it actually has less gas volume than sand 1.
A situation where a gas normalization process may prove of benefit on individual wells is
when they are being directionally drilled with a downhole motor. The alternate sliding (where

rotation is just due to the downhole motor) and rotation (where rotation is due to both the
motor and surface rotation) can often produce distinct changes in the recorded gas (Plate 7.2).
The typical normalization process will account for the relative changes in penetration rate due
to the different drilling methods (with typically faster penetration resulting from the higher
RPM when applying surface rotation) but will not allow for the effect of rotation on the
release of gas from the cuttings.
The extra rotation while applying rotation from the surface will often result in smaller cuttings
being produced, leading to an increase in the initially liberated gas.
Plate 7.2 shows the lower gas levels associated with alternating sliding (shaded) and rotating
of the bit while directionally steering a well.
As can be seen, higher gas levels result when rotating the bit. There are two principal causes:
-
Increased penetration rate due to faster rotation

increased weight on bit
Smaller cuttings resulting from faster rotation.

7.6 Evaluation of Produced Gas
In Section 5.3, the various mechanisms by which produced gas may occur were described.
Here, we will examine the precise situations when produced gas shows occur, which
mechanisms are mainly responsible, how the gas appears on real-time charts and how it
should be evaluated and represented on logs and in reports.
Produced gas is defined as gas that is produced into the drilling fluid from a specific zone or
formation as a result of the formation pressure exceeding the opposing hydrostatic pressure.
If such a condition of underbalance exists while drilling, the background gas level will
represent a combined effect of liberated and produced gas. If a well is drilled purposely
underbalanced, then this situation will always be the case. If the well is being drilled
conventionally overbalanced, then this situation will arise if there is an increase in formation
pressure to the point that it exceeds the hydrostatic pressure in the annulus.
There are several points to bear in mind, in terms of hydrocarbon evaluation, if a formation is
producing.
Firstly, the gas that is being extracted and measured is now composed of liberated and
produced gas. With normal show evaluation, the volume of gas liberated from a given volume
of rock is being evaluated, so that changes in volume are readily identified. If a formation is
also producing, then much of the basic show evaluation is lost since we are not, now, dealing
with volume changes. Gas is flowing from the same formation, in addition to the volume
liberated from the drilled bore.
Secondly, depending on the particular fluid type and amount of production that is occurring, a
compositional change can often be identified. When fluids flow, the light end components
will flow more readily, so that gas ratio analysis will determine a lighter composition to the
fluid. A similar process can occur from fracture generated gas.
In addition, if a previously drilled formation continues to produce as drilling proceeds, then

this will add to the background gas level, and where significant, it may be more difficult to
identify changes from the formations actually being drilled.
Whatever the particular mechanism causing an overpressured formation, all have a common
characteristic. That is, the overpressure results from the formation retaining an abnormal

volume of formation fluid, which is then supporting a greater proportion of the overburden.
This is important, since, possessing greater fluid volumes necessarily means that
overpressured formations possess a greater porosity. So, even if an overpressured formation is
actually balanced by the drilling fluid so that flow cannot occur, an increase in gas will still be
seen just as a result of the pore volume increase.
Two typical situations of overpressured formations are illustrated: -
7.6.1 ‘Sealed’, Overpressured, Permeable Formations
An obvious example is that of hydrocarbon reservoirs, where the overpressure will lead to a
gas show and potentially a gas kick.
ROP min/m Gas %
Background Gas
FP<ECD liberated
produced
FP>ECD
FP<ECD
Figure 7.11 Produced gas as a result of an overpressure body
With the example shown in Figure 7.11, the formation background level is established in the
impermeable shale overlying the sand body. On penetrating the sand, the initial gas response
is going to be evaluated as a liberated gas response. It is what happens subsequently that
enables you to determine that the formation is also producing: -
 Obviously, if the well is flowing leading to a well control situation, it is clear!

 If the formation is producing while drilling, then connection gases are also definitely
going to be produced.
 A valid assumption can also be made about the background gas level after drilling
through the sand unit. In the situation illustrated it can be assumed, that if the shales are
in the same geological sequence with the same burial and compaction history, the lower
shale unit will result in a similar background level to the upper unit. If, after drilling
through the sand, a higher background level is maintained, it can be reasonably assumed
that it is being produced. Although there are situations when this is not always going to
be the case, it is a common and reasonable assumption to make.
In Figure 7.11, the gas show, on entering the sand, results from: -
 An increase in liberated gas due to increased porosity and gas volume.
 Possible increase in gas saturation.
 The faster penetration rate.
 Produced gas as a result of the pressure differential and permeability.
After drilling through the sand, if there were no produced gas, the background level would
return to the previous background level established in the shale. Here, however, with no
change in mud weight, the sand body will continue to produce into the wellbore leading to a
higher background level. This higher level serves as an indication of how much of the gas
show from the sand was due to liberated and how much due to produced gas.
Even in a situation where a sand body is normally pressured and balanced by the circulating
mud, proper drilling practices should be followed when drilling through thick bodies
containing gas. If such a formation were to be drilled too quickly, then a large amount of gas
would be liberated into the drilling fluid. This gas cut mud may, in itself, be sufficient to
reduce the hydrostatic pressure of the mud column below the formation pressure and allow an
influx to occur.
7.6.2 Undercompacted shales with a transitional pressure increase

As described in Section 5.3.3, an “influx” of formation fluid can still occur even if
permeability does not exist in the formation. In the case of shale and claystone for example,
if the fluid pressure is greater than the hydrostatic of the mud column, the fluid cannot flow
into the wellbore as it would from a permeable formation. The fluid pressure will open up
micro-fractures, causing the rock to fracture and cave into the wellbore. This will be
accompanied by the release of gas as the rock breaks apart (Figure 5.4).
In a typical situation where shale is abnormally pressured due to undercompaction during

burial, the rock will contain a greater amount of formation fluid (and, for the relevance of this
manual, we will assume increased gas content). If drilling the formation with a mud weight
less than the formation pressure, an increase in background gas will be seen as a result of
proportionally more gas being mechanically liberated by the bit, but a sustained influx or kick
is unlikely due to lack of permeability. Once the formation has been penetrated and left
exposed in the wellbore, further ‘influx’ may occur as a result of the caving mechanism
described above.
Such caving of the formation does not require an abnormally pressured formation; if the
hydrostatic due to the mud weight is less than a normally pressured formation, the same
mechanism can occur. Similarly, if a formation is weak or unconsolidated, or if structural dip
is such that rock can break away and fall into the wellbore, then such caving can occur under
‘normal conditions’.
In the example of a transitional pressure increase illustrated in Figure 7.12, the formation
background level is again established in the shale prior to entering the transition zone.
As the zone is drilled into and the formation pressure increases (but still below the ECD so
that the well remains overbalanced), the background gas level will increase due to an
increased amount of liberated gas resulting from: -
 Increasing undercompaction is accompanied by an increase in porosity and

therefore gas volume. It is quite typical that through these transitional zones,
the pressure increase and associated porosity increase is uniform, leading to a
constant increase in gas level.
 As undercompaction and porosity increase, the penetration rate will increase.
If the formation pressure continues to increase, to a point where it exceeds the circulating
pressure due to the ECD, a kick is unlikely to occur owing to the lack of permeability, but the
background level will continue to increase, now as a result of: -
 Continued increase in liberated gas as detailed above.

 The occurrence of produced gas. A minor amount may be a result of fluid flow due
to the pressure differential, but since shale is essentially impermeable, the produced
gas content is primarily due to the formation caving into the wellbore and releasing
gas.
ROP Pressures Total Gas
ECD BG
liberated
FP
produced
A
Figure 7.12 Produced gas resulting from a transitional overpressured zone
If no change is made to the mudweight to the balance the formation, point A, where the
background increases for the second time, determines the point at which the well becomes
underbalanced. There would have been warning of this beforehand, since connection gases
would have been produced prior to this point.
Even though the shale itself is not going to result in a kick, there are other associated
problems that necessitate the mudweight being increased. The greater the underbalance, the
more shale cavings there are falling into the hole leading to rotation and drilling problems and
a strong possibility of the hole packing off and the pipe becoming stuck. In addition, there
may well be thin sand stringers within the shale, which will be at the same pressure, and these
may possess the permeability to allow the well to kick!
In both of the above situations, we have seen the gas response due to pressure changes while
drilling is proceeding. As mentioned, the mud logger will also be looking for the occurrence
of produced gas peaks to confirm these suspected pressure changes.

7.7 Connection Gas
7.7.1 Causes of Connection Gas
Connection gas results from an influx of formation fluid that occurs over the duration of a
connection due to a temporary condition of underbalance. When pumping is stopped, the
hydrostatic pressure in the wellbore will be that exerted by the static vertical column of mud,
i.e. due to the mud weight.
In cases of increasing formation pressure, the increase may be masked by the circulating ECD
when drilling, but when pumping stops, the drop in pressure may create the underbalance
required for a fluid influx. If the producing formation is at the bottom of the hole, the gas
peak will occur at surface when one lagtime has passed after circulation is re-established
following the connection.
There are two mechanisms by which a condition of underbalance may be caused, resulting in
the occurrence of produced connection gas: -
1. Due to the reduction in annular pressure when pumping is stopped.
Typically, any ‘new’ occurrence of connection gas resulting from this pressure drop will
originate from the formation newly penetrated at the bottom of the hole. Formations
previously drilled would have been balanced by the existing mud weight otherwise
connection gas would have occurred before. These formations will obviously remain
balanced unless there has been a subsequent reduction in the mud weight.
As drilling proceeds, this ‘newly drilled’ formation will be left exposed in the well bore and is
still subject to influx when connections are being made. It will only cease if the mud weight is
increased, or, if over a period of time, sufficient filter cake builds up during circulating
periods to prevent further influx. Connection gases corresponding to this formation will now
be arriving at surface before bottoms up, since it is no longer at the bottom of the hole.
At the same time, new formations that are subject to influx, may be penetrated. Now, two
connection gases will be detected; one corresponding to bottoms up and the other arriving
some time before bottoms up (Figure 7.13).
2. Due to swabbing
This occurs when there is a reduction in the annular pressure resulting from frictional pressure
losses caused by movement in the drilling fluid when the drillstring is lifted. These pressure
losses are calculable so that the reduced equivalent mud weight (i.e. the balancing pressure)
when pipe is being lifted can be accurately determined.

With normal connection procedures, the pumps are generally kept running when the pipe is
being lifted, so that it is the ECD that is being reduced by swabbing. Normally, this reduced
pressure will still be greater than the mud hydrostatic. Therefore, if influx is occurring as a
result of swabbing, the connection gases will be larger and longer in duration, because the
influx will still continue when pumping is stopped and the connection is being made.
One result of the pipe movement, which is present but not calculable, is the syringe effect
resulting in suction and a temporary ‘void space’ beneath the bit as the pipe is lifted. This is
influenced by how fast the pipe is lifted; by the mud rheology and flow characteristics (how
‘quickly’ the mud can fall to fill the space); and by the nozzle diameter (the smaller the area,
then the harder it is for mud to fall from the pipe to fill the space left beneath the bit).
This process is less significant than the pressure losses described above. Certainly, the suction
effect is only going to result in influx for the short time that it takes to pull tools, such as the
bit and stabilizers, passed permeable formations. The pressure losses, on the other hand, occur
for the whole time taken to lift the pipe and they occur for the entire length of drillstring,
resulting in an accumulated pressure drop at the bottom of the well. Never the less, given
conditions of rapid pipe speed together with viscous mud and small nozzles, the resulting
‘void’ may permit the influx of formation fluids before mud displaces to fill it.
The pressure reduction due to swabbing will occur throughout the open hole section as the
string is being lifted so that influxes can occur at any point in the hole. The degree of pressure
reduction will be a factor of: -
 The speed of pipe movement (the faster the string is pulled, the greater the
pressure loss).
 The annular clearance i.e. the difference between the hole diameter and the
outside diameter of the pipe (the smaller the difference, the greater the
pressure loss).
 Mud rheology (viscosity and density), the greater these are, the higher the
pressure loss.
 The length of drillstring, in other words, the depth of the hole. The more
string there is, the greater the pressure loss.
The effect of swabbing increases with depth since the pressure at any depth is a result of the
mud hydrostatic and the reduction due to the accumulated pressure losses occurring
throughout the wellbore. It is therefore more likely, since the reduction is greater, that
swabbing will result in an underbalanced condition near to the bottom of the hole.

It has to be remembered, however, that an underbalanced condition may be created at any

point in the borehole. This is especially important to recognize when formations of greater
pressure are exposed at a shallower depth.
The pressure reduction and swabbing effect will be greatest at the bottom of the hole.
 The annular clearance (borehole diameter versus drill collars and tools) is smallest,
creating the greatest suction effect.
 Here exists the largest pressure drop for a given length of pipe, but also, at the bottom of
the hole, the pressure reduction is a cumulative affect of all of the pressure losses
throughout the entire borehole.
 At the bottom of the hole, also, filter cake would not have had sufficient time to provide a
barrier against fluid movement.
The example in Figure 7.13 shows two connection gases. The second peak of 1033units
corresponds to bottoms up and the formation influx at the bottom of the hole. The first peak
of 1253 units arrives before bottoms up and therefore corresponds to a formation further up
the borehole.
The exact depth of the shallower producing formation can be determined by looking at the
time that the gas arrives at surface, the volume of mud pumped and the annular volume at the
bottom of the hole.
In this case, the peak arrives 20 minutes before bottoms up. If the pump rate is delivering
1.5m3 of mud per minute, this equates to a mud volume of 30m 3.
If the annular volume at the bottom of the hole (in practice you would have to determine the
annular volumes for the drill collar and heavy weight drillpipe sections) is 0.0436m 3/m (that
for a 311mm hole and 203mm drill collars), then the height of the formation is: -
30/0.0436 = 688m above bottom
In this particular example, the shallower formation is producing more gas than the bottom
hole formation. At the shallower depth, the swab pressure loss is lower and you would also
expect filter cake build up to reduce swabbing, all resulting in a lower connection gas
response. The higher gas level in this case results from higher formation pressure and possibly
better permeability in the shallower formation, leading to a greater influx when the connection
is being made. The response is also longer in duration and slightly asymmetric (Section
7.7.3), so it is likely that the formation pressure is great enough to bring the well

underbalanced when the pipe is being lifted and the well balanced by the swab reduced ECD.
This is illustrated in Figure 7.14.
Chromatographic Gases Total Gases
Figure 7.13 Double connection gas peaks
It is very important that lagtime and annular volumes are accurately known, so that, with the
occurrence of connection gas, the depth of the producing formation can be properly
determined.
In the example shown in Figure 7.14, there are two abnormally pressured sands, the upper one
being of higher pressure. Neither sand unit is balanced by the existing mud weight, so that
both will influx when a connection is made and the pumps turned off. However, the
swabbing effect when the pipe is being lifted, has reduced the circulating pressure due to the
ECD. This pressure at the bottom of the hole is still greater than the formation pressure, so
that there is no additional influx. However, the reduced ECD at the depth of the upper sand
has fallen below the formation pressure, so that influx will occur when the pipe is being lifted
and when the pumps are off, generating a larger and longer connection gas (similar to that
shown in Figure 7.13).

Given that the conditions allow for the occurrence of connection gas, the size of the resulting
peak is dependent on the degree of underbalance, the degree of permeability and the duration
of the underbalanced condition.
Even though the influx, or flow of formation fluids, will not be sustained in this situation
since the well will be balanced as soon as circulation begins, a kick may still ultimately result.
If conditions allow for a large volume of gas to enter the wellbore, then once it is rising in the
annulus and approaching surface, the gas will expand and may lead to the displacement of
drilling fluid from the wellbore. In addition, the rapidly expanding gas volume may reduce
the hydrostatic pressure sufficiently to produce a ‘permanent’ state of underbalance downhole,
allowing the formations to begin flowing, even when circulating.
FP HYD ECD
Mud movement
and frictional
pressure loss ECD Pressure reduced
due to swabbing
% Total Gas
- Lagged
BG
CG
CG
Figure 7.14 Connection gas as a result of swabbing
Significant changes in mud weight and/or pipe speed would have to occur for such a situation
to develop from previously drilled formations and are therefore very unlikely in practice.

The occurrence of connection gas is therefore very significant, not only because it is an
immediate indication of permeability, but also, if there has been no change in mud weight or
connection procedure, it is indicative of a pressure change. Its occurrence should therefore be
duly noted, reported and recorded and closely monitored for any change.
Connection gas originating from the bottom of the hole should always be closely monitored.
Two typical situations of subsequent connections producing increasing volumes of gas
without any significant change in mud weight, connection speed or duration, signifying
downhole changes, are illustrated.
7.7.2 Zone of increasing formation pressure due to undercompaction.
Typically, such transition zones occur within impermeable shales or clays that are unable to
sustain a continual fluid influx. Background gas shows an increase as the zone is penetrated,
resulting from increased porosity and gas volume, together with increased ROP. This trend
would continue as the well is approaching balance or even becoming underbalanced, with
further produced gas originating from caving shale resulting from the pressure differential.
With no permeability, however, a fluid influx or kick is unlikely unless the gas is not
removed from the mud at surface, reducing the density and hydrostatic of re-circulated mud.
The appearance of connection gas confirms the state of balance of the well and signifies
increased caving of the formation and gas release during the connection when the pressure
differential is greater. Increasing connection gases, at this point, would indicate increasing
formation pressure as the transition zone is further penetrated, and an increased interval of
formation subject to caving during the connection.
However, should some permeability, allowing formation fluids to flow, exist, then there will
obviously be the danger of a kick, since the well is already underbalanced as shown by the
connection gases. This permeability may be by way of some weakness in the shale, or more
significantly, by way of fracture or interbedded sand that may be charged by the
overpressured shale.
Therefore, even though there may be no immediate danger when drilling an underbalanced
but impermeable formation, steps should still be taken to increase the mud weight and bring
the well back on balance to pre-empt the occurrence of permeability allowing fluid flow.
From a drilling point of view, this would be the normal practice in order to avoid excessive
cavings loading the annulus, to avoid tight hole, rotary torque and stuck pipe problems.

7.7.3 Underbalanced permeable zones
If a kick doesn’t occur immediately on entering a permeable formation, then a similar

situation, in terms of gas response, may be observed as described above. i.e. increasing
background gas, this time resulting from increased feed-in as more of the formation is
penetrated. Initially, this would be justifiably interpreted as increasing gas due to increased
porosity and/or gas saturation. However, if such an increase is accompanied by the
occurrence of connection gas, then we know that we are dealing with an underbalanced
formation. Increasing connection gases would again be indicative of more formation being
penetrated and exposed to influxing during connections (Figure 7.15).
For any logging engineer, these would be classic warning signs preceding a kick and should
be reported immediately to the drilling supervisor so that appropriate measures can be taken.
If the mud weight isn’t subsequently increased to alleviate the problem, then even though the
formation is ‘feeding rather than kicking’, more and more gas is entering the mud, reducing
the hydrostatic pressure, and at some point the well is going to flow!
BG
pumps off for connection
CG Liberated
Gas
Produced Gas
feed-in and
CGconnection
CG
Well flowing
Figure 7.15 Produced gases preceding a kick
Trends in connection gases, and their correlation with changing background level, can
therefore be used to determine exactly what is happening downhole.

Similarly, if mud weight is increased to restore a state of balance to the well, the formation
pressure can be fairly accurately determined by comparing the current mud weight with
background gas reduction and the disappearance of connection gases. We know, at that point,
that the formation pressure lies somewhere between the mud hydrostatic and the equivalent
circulating density.
7.7.4 Shape, duration and timing of connection gas peak
As long as the lag time is known exactly, the characteristics of the connection gas peak can be
a very reliable indicator of formation pressure when compared to the precise operation during
the connection.
The important characteristics are firstly, at what point of the connection the influx
corresponds to, and secondly, the symmetry of the connection gas response.
With a normal connection

Lagged
Depth gas, the time of the influx is
going to be when the drill
string is set in slips and the
well is balanced by the mud
dispersion hydrostatic (shaded area in
Figure 7.16).
INFLUX
The resulting gas peak will be
‘elongated’ but symmetrical,
through normal gas
dispersion, when it is
circulated to surface.
If the well is also influxing

when balanced by the swab
reduced ECD (ie when lifting
Figure 7.16 A normal connection gas the pipe back into slips), you
can see that the period of
influx is longer and that the
resulting connection gas peak would also be longer in duration, corresponding to the different
connection operations and balancing pressures.

RESULTING CONNECTION
2
GAS AFTER BEING
LAGGED TO SURFACE
3
1
ECD ECD – Swab HYD ECD
OPERATION AND
BALANCE PRESSURE
Drill to Kelly Down Lift pipe into Pumps off –make Drill ahead
slips while connection
circulating
Figure 7.17 Connection procedure with balancing pressure versus produced gas response
Consider the examples shown in Figure 7.17.
Connection Gas 1 A symmetrical peak of short duration, the period of influx

corresponding only to the time when the pipe is set in slips, the
connection being made and the mud column static.
mud hydrostatic < Formation Pressure < ECD - Swab
Connection Gas 2 This larger symmetrical peak has a longer duration, the influx
corresponding to the period of the complete connection, i.e. when the
pipe is being lifted and when the pipe is set in slips. Influx is now
occurring through swabbing.
ECD – Swab < Formation Pressure < ECD

Connection Gas 3 This peak is similar to peak 2, in that, we can determine that influx is
occurring through swabbing when the pipe is being lifted. Here
however, the peak is asymmetrical or extended, indicating continued
production after circulation has recommenced. This longer period,
required for the gas to fall back to a normal background, shows that
the well is approaching balance even when circulating, and that the
formation pressure is approaching the actual ECD.
ECD  Formation Pressure >> ECD – Swab
In practice then, the formation pressure, or changes in formation pressure, can be very
accurately determined by studying the connection gas peaks in relation to the connection
procedure.
As the pressure differential increases, the connection gas will become larger and longer in
duration as swabbing becomes increasingly more important in the production of formation
gas.
Further, if a change in shape is also observed, formation pressure is approaching the actual
ECD as the gas peak becomes increasingly asymmetrical. This is obviously very important to
determine, since the well is approaching a condition of permanent underbalance.
With computerized logging systems, these pressures (ECD, swab reduction) are accurately
calculated on a real-time basis so that connection gases are an extremely reliable means of
determining the formation pressure with a very small margin of error.
In practice, operators and drillers are very aware of the causes and results of swabbing and
typically follow a safe procedure when making a connection. That is, pipe is pulled at a
sensible speed to minimize the pressure loss through swabbing, and mud circulation is not
halted until they are ready to set the string in slips. This procedure ensures that the annular
pressure, balancing the well, over a connection never falls below the mud hydrostatic pressure
(Figure 7.18).
Also, it is worth mentioning that when pipe is being worked over a connection for hole
cleaning and stability, the pipe is also run back to bottom at a safe speed to minimize surge
pressures and the potential of fracturing weaker formations.

OPERATION RESULTING PRESSURE
time
Drill to kelly ECD

down
Work pipe ECD - swab

prior to the
connection ECD + swab
ECD
Pull pipe back to slips ECD - swab

Pumps off
Make connection Mud hydrostatic
Pumps on
Drill ahead ECD
Figure 7.18 Pressures resulting from a typical connection
7.7.5 Reporting of Connection Gases
As already stated, the occurrence of connection gas is very significant. It should not only be
reported immediately and monitored at wellsite through the drilling operation, but must also
be clearly represented on the mudlog and in reports.
In order for the significance of a particular gas peak and continuing trend to be determined,
the following information should be recorded: -
Peak value / background value a connection gas of 2.5% is obviously more

significant if the background level is 0.5% as
opposed to 2.2%.

Time that the pumps were off subsequent increases must be compared to the time
that the influx could be happening. No significant
changes in underbalance would be present if
connection gas doubled but the connection time also
doubled. However, it would be significant if there
had been no change in connection time.
Mud weight / ECD normally recorded separately on the log, enabling

connection gases to be compared to the balancing
pressures.
In a written report, the gas would then typically be reported in the following format: -
peak value / background value / time pumps off
Typically, produced gases that have the same origin such as during a survey, resulting from a
flow check or any kind of shut down, are identified separately as shown in Table 7.3
Further explanation should be provided if the cause/time of the peak can be determined (i.e. as
a result of swabbing reduced or normal hydrostatic pressure), leading to the determination of
the formation pressure, as detailed in Section 7.7.3
Produced Gas Type Depth (m) Peak Value (%) BG Value (%) Time Pumps Off (min)
Connection 1050 4.135 3.500 5
Connection 1060 4.568 3.610 5
Survey 1069 5.993 3.860 15
Connection 1078 5.625 4.250 5
Flow Check 1085 7.475 4.980 10
Table 7.3 Reporting of Produced Gas Shows
Representation of produced gas peaks on the mudlog should be done separately, or rather, in
addition to the recorded gas curves. If the produced gas peaks were left as part of the
formation gas curve, it may easily be confused with a gas show resulting from increased
liberated gas from a formation (Plate 7.3).
Not only this, but the typically increased proportion of lighter hydrocarbons in produced gas
peaks completely distorts the gas ratios. This complicates evaluation but can also make the
ratio curves extremely ‘messy’. In the example shown in Plate 7.3, the liberated gas indicates

a light oil or condensate on the basis of the ratios. All of the peaks are produced gas, with the
gas ratios now indicating a light gas due to the easier movement of light components under
fluid flow.
0.1 (produced gases) 1.0 Total Gas % 10

(Liberated)
1050 CG
1060 CG
SG
1070
CG
1080
FCG
Figure 7.19 Log presentation of produced gas shows
The produced gases detailed in Table 7.3 are illustrated in a typical log format in Figure 7.19.
Note that each produced gas peak is represented by a ‘bar graph’ type line to the value of the
Chromatograph
peak above the background level,and Produced
rather than Gas
the actual total Gas Ratios
value. Each peak is also labeled
as to the particular operation that led to the production.
Another type of log representation is illustrated in Figure 7.20. Here also, the produced peaks
are detailed separately to the normal gas curve in order to avoid confusion of origin but, now,
the peaks are represented numerically in the same format as the tabulated report (i.e. type,
peak value, background value, time pumps off).

Figure 7.20 Log presentation of produced gas shows
7.8 Trip Gas

7.8.1 The occurrence of Trip Gas
Trip gas is the term given to a gas show that occurs after one bottoms up circulation has been
completed immediately following a trip back into the hole. Typically, shows that follow a
trip to surface (to change the bit or BHA, section T.D’s, fishing trips etc) are referred to as
trip gas (TG). Shows following partial trips out of the hole, for the purpose of hole cleaning
and stability for example, are referred to as wiper or dummy trip (WTG) gases.
Although the mechanisms described in the

production of connection gas are also a major
factor in the duration and size of trip gas diffusion
peaks, a condition of underbalance is not a
requirement. If gas has been liberated from
the formation and recorded while drilling,
then a show following a trip is a normal settled
occurrence, being a result of the conditions cuttings
illustrated in Figure 7.21.
Owing to time and money constraints, previously

bottoms up will only be circulated, following flushed
a bit run, under specific situations such as to
confirm the bottom hole formation or to diffusion
remove gas from the annulus prior to tripping.
Figure 7.21 Normal conditions leading to
the occurrence of trip gas
Ordinarily, therefore, cuttings and liberated gas remain in the annulus during the trip. Gas
already liberated into the drilling fluid will slowly migrate, but there will also be gas that
remains trapped within the drilled cuttings. This comprises one of the ‘normal’ sources of trip
gas, as detailed below.
 The accumulation of cuttings from the most recently drilled formations (as a result of
settling during the duration of the trip) towards and at the bottom of the hole. Gas
not liberated when the formation was drilled will be retained until circulation
recommences and subsequent pressure and temperature changes, as the cuttings rise,
result in phase and solubility changes allowing the normal release of the gas.
 Normal fluid diffusion from permeable formations while the mud column is static
during the trip and before a filter cake layer prevents it.
 Gas that may have been displaced, as a result of flushing, when the formation was
drilled, may re-enter the borehole during the period of the trip and lower annular
pressure.

Just considering these ‘normal’ processes leading to trip gas, a distinct peak will result from
gas that has accumulated at the bottom of the hole (Figure 7.22), even if no other factors come
in to play, since: -
 Drilled cuttings and gas will be present throughout the annulus (unless circulated out
prior to the trip) but will lead to nothing more than a background level of gas when
circulated out. It is the settling of cuttings to the bottom of the hole, leading to an
abnormally high ‘annular’ concentration of cuttings with the subsequent release of
retained gas when they are circulated up the hole after the trip, that will result in a
gas ‘show’. The degree of settling that occurs is a function of the duration of the
trip, the relative densities of cuttings and mud, together with mud viscosity and gel
strength.
 The effect of fluid diffusion will be greatest at the bottom of the hole where filter
cake has not yet had the time to build a sufficient barrier against such fluid reaction.
 Previously flushed gas returning to the borehole will only be a factor from the most
recently drilled permeable formations, again resulting in gas concentrating at the
bottom of the hole.
Background Level
The first process is no more than an
accumulation of drilled cuttings that
subsequently liberates gas. The latter Liberated when
accumulated cuttings rise
two processes involve fluid movement
and release gas
from the wellbore and are, therefore,
classed as produced gas which are
subject to differential pressure. Even in
overbalanced conditions, all of these TRIP
processes may lead to a trip gas peak GAS
being recorded, but their importance is
minor when compared to produced gas Produced through swabbing,
mechanisms in a state of permanent or diffusion and return of any
temporarily induced underbalance. flushed gas
Figure 7.22 Trip gas components
A typical trip gas, resulting primarily from these mechanisms is illustrated in Figure 7.23.
Notice that as the trip gas approaches surface (up to point A), all hydrocarbon gases, C1
through C3, are increasing at the same rate. This gas originates from the drilled cuttings that
were not circulated to surface prior to the trip (i.e. equating to liberated gas) and shows a
steady increase as the mud temperature increases. The increase in mud temperature, as
circulation proceeds, results in decreasing viscosity and increasing gas volatility. Thus, a
gradual increase in gas is typically seen at the beginning of new bit runs as the mud system
stabilizes.

Now consider the actual trip gas

peak. The peak is short in
duration and corresponds exactly
Liberated Gas to bottoms up. It can, therefore,
be determined as resulting
primarily from the produced
C3 C2 C1 mechanisms previously
described. I.e. fluid movements
due to influx and diffusion, with
AA
minimal bottom hole swabbing.
Produced Gas When such fluid movement
Bh occurs, the molecularly lighter
and smaller hydrocarbons flow
more readily.
This results in a preferential

increase in light end gases,
typical of such produced gas
peaks. This can clearly be seen
in the chromatographic gas
curves but is also illustrated by
the high balance ratio (Bh, see
Section 8.3.2) which increases
with the higher proportion of C1
and C2.
Figure 7.23 Typical trip gas response
By far the most important process involved in the production of trip gas is much the same as
that described in the production of connection gas, namely, the reduction to a normal
hydrostatic pressure and the effect of swabbing throughout the duration of the trip. This is a
major influence on the amount of gas produced into the wellbore, making the evaluation of
trip gas an important aspect of well balance and safety monitoring, but one that is often
overlooked.
Naturally, a trip out of the hole will not be proceeded with if the hydrostatic pressure of the
mud does not balance the formation pressure. The worst well control situation is one where
the string is out of the hole! However, the important thing here, and the difference between
connection gas and trip gas, is that when swabbing takes place, it is the hydrostatic that is
being reduced leading to much lower balancing pressure.

Normal drilling practices dictate that the mud density should be such as to provide an
overbalanced condition for the duration of the trip in order to prevent any influxing under
static conditions. However, when the pipe is being lifted, the degree of pressure reduction is
critical in terms of temporary influxes.
The importance of swabbing during trips: -
 It is the mud hydrostatic pressure being reduced, not the equivalent circulating
pressure.
 There is repeated swabbing every time that a stand is pulled, not a one off occurrence
as during a connection.
 Even when the string is half way out of the hole, frictional pressure losses occur for
that length of string, but the accumulated pressure loss at that bit depth is still acting
on the bottom of the hole.
 All permeable zones in the open hole will be subject to swabbing, through the piston
or suction effect of the drillstring, when the BHA and full gauge tools are pulled
passed formations. Over a connection, only the formations at the bottom of the hole
will be effected. The importance of this during a trip will depend on the precise
pressure differential, the degree of permeability and the effectiveness of filter cake
build up in individual zones.
 With the increased likely-hood of swabbing during a trip, there will be more gas in
the annulus reducing the overall hydrostatic. In addition, with the duration of trips,
this gas is subject to migration and expansion, reducing the hydrostatic further. This
can result in increased swabbing and further influx.
Swabbing is therefore a concern throughout the open hole section, for the entire duration of
the trip, but the most significant effect still remains at the bottom of the hole.
The importance of swabbing at the bottom of the hole: -
 This is where the greatest pressure reduction will be.
 Recently drilled formations will have no protection from filter cake.
 It is possible that a higher pressured or more permeable formation was penetrated at

the end of the drilled section, so that there would have been no prior indication while
drilling.
The pressure loss caused by swabbing will increase with: -

 Increased hole depth and string length.
 Smaller annular clearance (difference between hole diameter and pipe outer diameter).
 Higher density and viscosity mud.
 The rate at which the string is lifted.
The danger of swabbing in too much gas during a trip, is that the increased volume of low
density gas will reduce the normal mud hydrostatic pressure. This reduction in differential
pressure will lead to increased feed-in and swabbing, further reducing the hydrostatic and so
on. This may ultimately lead to the well becoming underbalanced in a normal static condition
and allowing the well to flow.
It is, therefore, very important that such influxes are minimized by maintaining a trip margin
over the formation pressure. Thus, if the formation pressure is known, or accurately
estimated, the mudweight can be selected to produce a higher bottom hole pressure, that, even
when reduced by swabbing, maintains a balance over the formation pressure.
With the help of software, a graph of pipe running speed against the resulting pressure loss
due to swabbing can be prepared (Figure 7.24). From this, the maximum running speed (X)
that does not exceed the pressure loss (Y) that would reduce the existing hydrostatic pressure
below the formation pressure (i.e. maintaining the trip margin) can be determined.
A further factor when considering formation fluid influxes is the effectiveness of the filter
cake that has built up on the wellbore wall and whether this cake remains in place. If the cake
is insufficient or is being knocked off the wall, then influxes will continue. The following
conditions should therefore be considered: -
 Turbulent or rapid mud flow, while drilling, will prevent effective build up.
It is unlikely that build up will begin until the drill collars have passed the
zone in question and lower annular velocities are present. How quickly filter
cake builds up therefore depends on the ROP and how quickly the collars
proceed passed the zone.
 Movement of the drillstring can knock filter cake off the wall especially if
full gauge tools such as stabilizers are included in the string.
 Repeated working of the pipe or hole cleaning will lead to the removal of
more cake.

 Build up of filter cake will be less efficient in deviated or horizontal wells

since the drillstring will always be dragging along the lower side of the wall,
removing the cake.
Pressure
Reduction
X Pipe Running Speed
Figure 7.24 Determination of running speed to minimize swabbing
7.8.2 Interpretation of Trip Gas
Changes in the magnitude of trip gas can be evaluated in a similar fashion to connection gas,
but it is not such a definitive guide to downhole changes.
The first control on trip gas is that of the background gas level, since the main constituents of
trip gas are swabbing at the bottom of the hole and cuttings collecting at the bottom of the
hole. Observed trip gases are then largely dependant on lithology and the volume of gas
present. If minimal gases were observed while drilling, then trip gases can be expected to be
low.
For a given interval, trip gas will normally show an increase with depth for the following
reasons: -
 An increasingly larger open hole section becomes subject to swabbing.
 Pressure reduction through swabbing is greater due to the longer pipe length.
 The longer duration of trips allows for increased diffusion and for more
cuttings to settle to the bottom, increasing the concentration that will result
in a gas show.

If significant deviations from this trend cannot be explained by an observed increase in

background gas, then we have to look at other possible explanations: -
 Has there been an increase in formation pressure leading to increased

swabbing and production?
 Has a more permeable zone been penetrated, leading to increased feed-in

when swabbing is occurring?
 Has the tripping speed increased resulting in increased swabbing (different

floor crews can often be identified by trip gas responses resulting from the
speed at which they pull the pipe!)?
 Has the mud rheology (density, viscosity) changed resulting in reduced

hydrostatic or increased swabbing?
 Has the BHA changed (diameter of drill collars, more full gauge tools)
resulting in increased swabbing?
Similarly to connection gases, pertinent downhole information can also be gained by the
arrival time of the trip gas peak and by the shape of the peak (Figure 7.25): -
1. Peak is of short duration and arrives at the calculated lag time.
 The mud weight balances

BG the well and swabbing is minimal.
2. Early peak – shallow zone
 The gas originates from accumulated drilled cuttings and minimal swabbing at
the bottom of the hole.
Gas from bottom of hole, well
Hydrostatic – Swab > Formation Pressure
balanced, minimal swabbing
2
Early onset – extensive
2. Peak arrives early, before the complete lag time is reached.
swabbing and/or gas
migration during
 A permeable,
Bottoms producing zone is at a shallower depth
long in the well.
period of trip
1 4
Up
5a. Well continues to produce

due to lower hydrostatic as
5a gas cut mud is circulated
out of the hole
5b 5b. Well not balanced by the ECD
and continues to produce
Time
Figure 7.25 Significance of trip gas arrival, duration and shape
3. Multiple peaks
 Gas from more than one zone has been swabbed in, with enough separation for
the influxes to remain distinct. Considering the effects of gas migration and mud
disturbance through pipe movement etc, this is not very commonly observed. Gas
will tend to merge into one extended peak.
4. Extended peak with an early onset.
 This could indicate producing zones over a larger interval, therefore an indication
as to the extent of swabbing occurring throughout the trip.
Formation Pressure > Hydrostatic – Swab
 Or, this could be an indication of gas migration over an extended period out of
the hole, with gas still entering from the bottom-hole producing zone.
Formation Pressure > Hydrostatic of gas cut mud
 Or, it could simply be an indication of mud and gas disturbance due to the lifting
of the pipe, running of the pipe, breaking circulation at regular intervals etc.

 If the peak falls off immediately after bottoms up, the increased circulating
density (even allowing for gas reduced hydrostatic) still balances the well.
ECD of gas cut mud > Formation Pressure
5a. Slow drop off of the peak after bottoms up.
 The hydrostatic pressure reduced by the swabbed gas does not balance the well
even when circulation begins.
ECD of gas cut mud  Formation Pressure
The slow ‘drop off’ occurs as the gas cut mud is circulated out and gradually replaced
by conditioned mud, returning the well to a normal hydrostatic. The well is barely
balanced in this situation.
5b. Should the level not return to the previous background, or show an increase, then the
ECD is no longer balancing the increased formation pressure and continued fluid
feed-in is occurring.
Formation Pressure > ECD
In reality, this should not really be possible, since, if the ECD is not balancing the
well, then indications of a flowing well would have been observed over the duration
of the trip when the balancing pressure was lower. However, the balancing pressure is
subject to decrease as gas is lifted in the annulus and expands.
Such a situation may arise if a trip gas of large magnitude is not efficiently removed
at surface and is recycled down the hole. Not only will this result in a second peak,
but the still gas cut mud may allow further influx as it is being recycled. Such a
situation is shown in Figures 7.26 and 7.27 where a trip gas of over 90%, lasting 60
minutes, has not completely depleted before it runs into the recycled gas as it
reappears at surface, resulting, in effect, with an extremely long, double trip gas peak.

Chromatographic Gases Total Gas Sensors
10 minutes
Figure 7.26 Significant Trip Gas peak
Trip gas is reported and signified on logs in exactly the same way as connection, or any other
produced gas. That is, the peak should be separated from the actual gas curve and reported as
the level over and above the background gas reading at the time of the trip. Pertinent
information such as the mud weight and duration of the trip should also be available.

Chromatographic Gases Total Gas Sensors
Drop in gases caused due to

shaker gate being opened,
reducing mud level, as the
increased flow arrives with the
recycled gas
Figure 7.27 Recycled Trip Gas peak
Plate 7.4, with the use of available spreadsheets, illustrates a very useful method of reporting
all produced gases. A bar graph format together with the background gas level creates a clear
visual picture of pressure changes leading to gas increases and produced gases.

7.9 Kelly Gas
A further occurrence of gas, that should be mentioned, is that of ‘kelly cut gas’ since it can
lead to ‘false shows’ or misinterpretation of gas cut mud.
It results from the pipe not being completely filled at the end of a trip into the hole, or after a
connection, so that a bubble of air becomes trapped when the kelly is connected and
circulation of drilling mud begins.
The air is pumped down the string,

Air cut mud arrives
becoming compressed in the process Trapped air pumped
at surface
and aerating the surrounding mud. down string
When circulated back up the annulus

to surface, the air bubbles will
expand back to their original volume
so that the mud appears to be gas cut
(Figure 7.28). To all intents and
purposes, the mud is gas cut except
that the gas is air rather than
hydrocarbons!
The volume of mud that this effects air compresses,

is relatively small, so that the ‘gas aerating mud
cut’ mud is fairly short lived in terms
of time at surface. However, it can possible
lead to mistaken reaction on the part diffusion
of shaker hands, for example,
thinking that there is a gas and well
control problem. lighter, aerated
mud returns up
the annulus
Another problem is one of anomalous
gas shows and this is a phenomenon
that is not fully understood.
Firstly, why should air result in a Figure 7.28 Occurrence of kelly cut gas
hydrocarbon gas show and, secondly,
why is it only an infrequent
occurrence when there is air in the kelly every time a connection is made? There are two
likely answers to these questions: -
1. Once in the annulus and returning to surface, the lighter aerated mud may be more
likely subject to fluid diffusion from the permeable formations, especially of the
lighter end hydrocarbons.

Hence, hydrocarbons will only result if there are permeable formations as yet
unprotected by filter cake. The process is not likely to be particularly significant in
any case, since it will only be occurring for the time that the aerated mud is passing
such formations.
2. A more likely cause is a gas response resulting from the effect of the aerated mud on
agitator type gas traps. The mud is aerated and lighter and, as a result, will lead to an
increase in the efficiency of the trap. This increase in efficiency will lead to a higher
proportion of soluble gas actually being extracted from the mud. The response will be
sustained for the time that it takes the aerated mud to pass through the shaker box and
trap. As to why it doesn’t happen all the time is a question of relative changes; the
initial density and viscosity of mud, the degree of aeration and change in trap
efficiency, and the quantity/composition of soluble gas available for extraction.
The important thing is that, whatever the particular mechanism that leads to a kelly gas
response, it is correctly identified and not misreported. The worst thing, because it is recorded
following a connection, is that it is actually reported as connection gas, something that tells a
very different story about the well!
Bottoms Up
(Lag Time) Possible TRIP or CONNECTION GAS
Lag Time +
Downtime KELLY GAS
Time
Figure 7.29 Appearance of gas following a trip or connection
Clearly, identifying the occurrence of kelly gas is by the time that it arrives at surface (Figure
7.29). When circulation begins following a trip or connection, the air is in the kelly at the top
of the drill string. It therefore has to travel around the system, and will be recorded one
downtime and one lagtime after circulation begins. It should never be misreported as
connection gas, which is coming from the bottom of the hole and arriving at surface after one
lagtime!


PLATE 7.1 Porosity effect on penetration rate and gas level
ROP min/m  Chromatograph Gas %

0 25 0.001 100
Higher porosity, as confirmed by cuttings analysis, clearly generates higher penetration rates
when drilling through zones of interest.
Both the higher porosity and the higher ROP will lead to increased measurements of liberated
gas and the relationship is the basis of show evaluation in the determination of gas volume
changes (Section 7.4).

Plate 7.2 The effect of directional drilling on gas responses.
0 min/m 15 0.001 Chrom Gas % 100 Gas Ratios
This example shows how the gas curves can follow a high low pattern depending on whether
the drilling operation is through sliding (bit rotation achieved through downhole motor) or
rotation (the addition of surface rotation through the rotary table or top drive). Note that the
sliding intervals are shaded.
Higher gas levels result when surface rotation is being applied, principally as a result of the
higher penetration rate that typically results. This can be corrected through normalization of
the gas measurement.
In addition, the higher rotation may, in certain situations, result in smaller drilled cuttings, so
that a higher volume of gas is physically liberated from the formation.
Plate 7.3 Poor representation of produced gases on the mud log

0.001 Chrom Gas % 10 1 Ch 3 1 100

Bh Wh
In the example, the gas responses seen all result from temporary influxes and produced gas
responses. It can be appreciated that this deteriorates from the evaluation of liberated gas
responses and the determination of gas volume changes. Liberated and produced gases are
better reported and evaluated separately.
The other complication that can result is the effect on the gas ratios. When influxes result in
produced gas responses, there will typically be an increase in the proportion of light end gases
that will flow preferentially. This will be reflected in the gas ratios and, in this case, actually
causes the wetness and balance ratios to invert every time that there is an influx of gas.
Plate 7.4 Bar graph presentation of background and produced gases


Section 8 CHROMATOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS
8.1 Gas Ratio Analysis
As illustrated in Section 7, basic gas evaluation concentrates on the interpretation of gas

trends and gas responses in the determination of volume changes and formation pressure
changes.
More detailed and exact evaluation requires the evaluation of the constituent components. The
analysis of absolute chromatographic gas values has proven to be of great benefit in
diagnosing the quality and composition of potential production zones, and in more specialized
applications such as the geosteering of wells and the identification of miscible flood extents.
In these applications, gas ratio analysis has been shown to provide an accurate and cheaper
alternative to LWD tools.
Changes in composition are undoubtedly apparent from a visual perspective by the normal
chromatographic gas curves, but ratio analysis of compositional changes does provide a
further beneficial interpretative tool, providing more exact information in the determination of
gas shows that may not be so readily apparent from the mudlog.
Because there are so many factors influencing the amount of gas finally detected at surface,
the actual magnitude of a gas show has little importance in terms of predicting the
productivity potential of a reservoir. Rather, it is the comparison of the gas show against the
preceding background gas level and the analysis and comparison of individual hydrocarbon
compounds that enable evaluation of reservoir composition and production potential.
As explained in preceding sections, situations can arise when there may be a question as to
the absolute quantitative accuracy to gas measurement, regarding the amount and composition
of gas actually detected at surface, and this always has to considered when evaluating such
measurements.
No single parameter should be used as conclusive diagnostic evidence, and the ratio evidence
should always be used alongside other real-time evidence such as drilling parameters, cuttings
analysis, fluorescence indications etc and subsequently with wireline evidence to provide an
overall evaluation of potential zones.

8.2 Gas Ratio Plot using chromatographic values of methane through pentane
Often referred to as the Pixler ratio plot in the industry (after B.O. Pixler’s initial paper, SPE
2254, 1969), this analysis provides the following information: -
 Type of petroleum fluid, whether gas, oil or condensate.

 Oil gravity and gas wetness.
 Production potential of the reservoir.
 Permeability of the reservoir.
 Presence of formation water.
The ratios were developed by using data from Texas (SPE 2254) and later, by data gathered in
Alberta and British Colombia, Canada (Ferrie, Pixler and Allen, PSCIM 81-32-20, 1981).
A steam still was used to provide the gas sample, so that hydrocarbons (certainly C1 through
C5) present in a given mud sample were more completely extracted and analyzed. Although
not completely efficient, especially for larger gas volumes, the steam still is certainly a more
efficient extraction mechanism than agitator type traps. However, the steam still process
prevents it’s application on a real-time basis at wellsite while the zones are being drilled.
When a ditch line gas sample is used, it has to be remembered that gas traps are not 100%
efficient in removing all gas from the mud and that the sample is then diluted with air.
However, this limitation is obviously present throughout continued sampling, so that the error
is reduced or removed by comparing the relative change in gas values from the gas show to
the background level.
With the Gas Ratio Plot it is this relative change that will provide the information as to
production potential.
Where there may be a certain amount of error is when higher viscosity muds are being used,
reducing the amount of the heavier hydrocarbons that are liberated by the trap from the mud.
This preferential retention of gas by the mud would not be so evident with the lighter
hydrocarbons so that the ratio of light to heavy may be erroneous.
The steam still will therefore reduce the error produced by higher viscosity muds, but it still
has to be recognized that it, too, is only measuring the gas present in the actual mud sample. It
was shown in Sections 5 and 6 that this may not provide a measurement of overall gas
content, owing to the potential of the loss of light end gas to the atmosphere once the mud
arrives at surface and, also, because it doesn’t consider the gas that is retained by the cuttings.
It is generally accepted, that the relative changes in ditch gas values, provides accurate data
without the added use of the labour intensive steam still.

8.2.1 Use of the Ratio Plot
The ratio plot compares the quantity of each hydrocarbon (ethane, propane, butanes and
pentanes) compound to the quantity of methane present in the gas sample analyzed. The ratio
of methane to other heavier hydrocarbons has proven to be a reasonable indication of gas, oil
or water production potential, although, there is no doubt that regional ‘calibration’ against
production or test results improves its dependability.
From a series of tested or producing wells, petroleum actually being produced was compared
to the recorded gas data and the ratio of methane to other heavy hydrocarbons determined.
From these ratios, probable limits were determined for productive oil and gas zones and non-
productive zones (Figure 8.1).
Ratios from lagged gas data can be plotted on this graph to give an immediate prediction of
reservoir fluid and production potential. The location of the curve will determine the probable
petroleum product and it has been shown that water bearing zones and permeability can also
be evaluated from this plot. If production data is also available, these values can be
determined or verified regionally. The better the calibration, the more effective the Pixler ratio
in reservoir evaluation.
The obvious advantage of such data is that an appraisal of the zone of interest is available just
one lag time after the zone has been penetrated, i.e. the time it takes for the gas to travel up
the annulus to the gas chromatograph.
From the zones illustrated in Figure 8.1, the C1/C2 ratio is the principle ratio in determining
the petroleum composition of the zone, whether oil or gas, or whether it is non-productive.
The original guidelines are shown below: -

1000
NON-PRODUCTIVE GAS
100
PRODUCTIVE GAS
10
PRODUCTIVE OIL
NON-PRODUCTIVE OR RESIDUALOIL
1
C1/C2 C1/C3 C1/C4 C1/C5
Figure 8.1 The Gas Ratio Plot
C1/C2 ratio Fluid Type and Gravity
<2 non-productive, residual oil

2–4 low gravity oil, API 10 – 15
4–8 medium gravity oil, API 15 – 35
8 – 15 high gravity oil, API > 35
10 – 20 gas condensate
15 – 65 gas
> 65 light gas, non-productive
C1 only salt water
Observations on these guidelines: -

 The value of 2, below which, any oil is non-productive or residual, is a little erroneous.
Certainly, residual oil will lead to such values. However, low values can also be generated
by heavy oils that will be productive. This obviously has to be determined by testing, but
certainly, these oils may be productive today whereas they may not have been productive
with the technology available when the ratios were derived. Another situation is shown in
Figure 10.30, case 14, where a 25 API oil simply does not contain a significant quantity
of methane. All the other components increase proportionally against the methane,
generating very low ratio values.
 At the other end of the plot, the value of 65 to determine productive or non-productive gas
has proved reliable. Typically, these values will be produced when methane is by far the
dominant component of a gas. Without the heavier components present (ie ethane present
in such a quantity so as to reduce the ratio below 65, together with the presence of C3-
C5), the gas is typically non-productive because it is not associated with a true
hydrocarbon source. Such situations may arise from bacterially derived gas, methane
generated through deep thermal cracking outside of the oil window, or even gas
associated with abnormal pressures.
As well as it’s function with the gas ratio plot, the C1/C2 ratio can be calculated real-time and
plotted, both on a real-time basis and on mud logs together with other depth based data. This
provides immediate evaluation of fluid changes as zones are being drilled and means that
relative changes in the ratio value are as indicative as the actual precise values (see Figure
8.2).
Further evaluation from the gas ratio plot comes from the character of the curve. The slope of
the curve is an indication of whether the zone possesses water, and also gives an indication as
to the permeability of the formation. The original guidelines, together with some observations
are detailed below: -
 A fully positive slope indicates productive hydrocarbons.
 A negative slope, or negative interval, indicates a water bearing zone.
Typically, water is indicated by a negative slope between the C1/C3 and C1/C4 ratios;
in other words, the total of iC4 and nC4 is greater than C3. Although a reliable
indicator of water, no explanation as to why is given in the original papers; the reason
may lie in the greater water solubility of the heavier hydrocarbons. This characteristic
is often misinterpreted as indicating zones of no interest. The presence of water is can
clearly be an indication of passing through an oil-water contact, but in other
situations, it is indicating that there is some degree of water saturation. Whether the
zone is wet and non-productive or whether it will produce hydrocarbons
economically, along with some water production, requires testing of the zone.

 A gradient similar to the zone lines indicates good permeability.
 The steeper the slope (greater than zone lines) indicates reduced permeability; a very
steep slope may indicate tight formations.
Although it should be recognized that tight formations may lead to poorer quality gas
measurements, the principle of the slope’s gradient refers to the restriction in
movement of hydrocarbons. The tighter the formation, the more gas will be retained
by the drilled cuttings and go undetected. Typically, this restriction will affect the
heavier components to a greater degree, so that they are proportionally lower than
methane. This will result in higher C1/C4 and C1/C5 ratios compared to the C1/C2
and C1/C3 and the steeper slope (left to right) of the curve.
 If C1/C2 is low in oil section and C1/C4 is high in gas section, the zone is probably
non-productive.
0 min/m 20 1 C1/C2 10 RATIO 100
High Ratio –
normal formation
gas, non productive
TOP OF ZONE
Ratio 8 – 10;
Medium to High
gravity oil
Oil Water Contact
Ratio < 2,
Residual Oil
Figure 8.2 Use of the C1/C2 ratio real-time or log-based.
8.2.2 Evaluation of Oil Bearing Zones

Figure 8.3 illustrates 5 gas ratio plots for probable oil zones.
1000
1
NON-PRODUCTIVE
100
GAS
10 3
OIL 4
5
NON-PRODUCTIVE
1
C1/C2 C1/C3 C1/C4 C1/C5

Figure 8.3 Example ratio plots for oil zones
 With a C1/C2 ratio of between 8 and 9, plots 1 and 2 both indicate a medium gravity
oil.
 Plot 1 has a very steep slope, an indication of low permeability.
 Plot 2 shows productive oil with an indication of very good permeability shown by
the slope of the curve being very similar to the zone line.
 With a C1/C2 ratio of between 3 and 4, plots 3 and 4 both indicate a low gravity oil.
 Plot 3 indicates productive oil and fair to good permeability as indicated by the
shallow, positive slope of the curve.

 Plot 4 indicates a water bearing formation, as given by the negative slope between
C1/C3 and C1/C4. This zone may therefore be wet and non-productive or it may
produce both oil and water.
 Plot 5, with a C1/C2 ratio of less than 2, indicates a heavy or non-productive oil with
the presence of water shown by the negative slope between C1/C3 and C1/C4. This
will certainly indicate residual oil below an oil water contact if previous plots
through an interval have indicated productive oil. However, if this plot is seen on the
entry straight into a zone of interest, then it is possible that we have either residual
oil or heavy oil with a degree of water saturation.
8.2.3 Evaluation of Gas Bearing Zones
Figure 8.4 illustrates 4 gas ratio plots for potential gas zones.
 Plot 1 clearly shows predominantly methane (which would be evident from the mudlog)
producing a very high C1/C2 ratio. The zone is probably a non-associated and non-
productive gas. The steep slope adds to this non-productive prediction, showing the
formation to be tight.
 Plot 2 shows a productive zone of moderately wet gas, with very good permeability
indicated by the constant positive slope at a gradient similar to the zone line.
 Plot 3 shows
1000 a similar moderately wet gas but the very steep slope suggests that the
formation is much poorer permeability
1 and possibly too3 tight to be commercially
productive.
 Plot 4 shows a lighter,NON-PRODUCTIVE

drier gas but the permeability is questionable with different
degrees of slope to the curve. Since the permeability indicator is considering the
4
components more likely to be retained when permeability is lower, it is reasonable to
assume that 2 a more reliable
the differences exhibited by the C4 and C5 components are
100
indicator. In this case, the slope between C1/C4 and C1/C5 would suggest good
permeability. In addition however, this zone is most likely wet as indicated by the
negative slope between C1/C3 andGAS C1/C4.
10
OIL

NON-PRODUCTIVE
1
C1/C2 C1/C3 C1/C4 C1/C5

Figure 8.4 Example ratio plots for gas
8.2.4 Prediction of Condensate Bearing Zones
A greater degree of interpretation is required to predict gas condensate reservoirs, since there
is obviously an overlap with the predictions made by the C1/C2 ratio. In most cases this
distinction is not possible on the basis of gas ratios alone since the fluid types in question are,
compositionally, very similar.
For example, with a C1/C2 ratio of between 15 and 20, the fluid could be a gas condensate or
a wet gas. With a C1/C2 ratio of between 10 and 15, we could again be dealing with a
condensate or, alternatively, a high gravity oil with a probable high gas oil ratio.
Figure 8.5 illustrates gas condensate fluids indicated by particular ratio plots, but typically,
comparison with other data and test results would be required for final determination and
distinction from gas or oil zones that may produce a very similar ratio plot.
Typically, there may be less confusion between gas condensate and gas prediction because
gas zones typically yield a higher, more definitive C1/C2 ratio. Confusion or uncertainty is
more likely between gas condensate and light oil predictions since the C1/C2 ratio may be
very similar.

1000
NON-PRODUCTIVE
100
GAS
10
OIL
NON-PRODUCTIVE
1
C1/C2 C1/C3 C1/C4 C1/C5

Figure 8.5 Example ratio plots for gas condensate
However, in reality, it isn’t possible to be any more specific in the determination of the actual
fluid. This information must therefore be compared to other gas ratio data (section 8.3) and
more usefully, to fluids and fluorescence evident in the actual drilled cuttings.
8.2.5 Comparison with Drilled Cuttings
Again, it should be emphasized that the ratio plot, like any other logging parameter or
calculation, is just one piece of information. Always, the mud logger will use every piece of
evidence available to him/her before making an informed evaluation. Most importantly, the
most basic of evidence should not be forgotten; that provided by the drilled cuttings
themselves!

 If the ratio plot is suggesting low permeability, then the quantity of

cuttings gas can be used to confirm or deny this prediction.
 If the ratio plot is predicting oil of particular gravity, or if there is

uncertainty as to whether the plot is suggesting condensate or light oil,
then the cuttings should be examined for traces of the liquid. The natural
colour and fluorescence colour under UV light will provide a guide as to
the petroleum product present (see Table 8.1).
For example, if the C1/C2 ratio is 13, indicating either high gravity oil or condensate, either
none or a violet fluorescence would confirm a condensate whereas a blue-white fluorescence
would indicate oil. If a sample exhibited no visible fluorescence, however, it could indicate a
gas zone or a condensate fluid that is fluorescing in the ultra-violet range of the spectrum.
C1/C2 Ratio API Gravity Fluid Type Natural Colour of

Colour Fluorescence
2–4 10 – 15 Low Gravity Oil Dark brown to Red brown to

black orange
4–8 15 – 35 Medium Gravity Light to medium Cream to yellow,

Oil brown gold, green
8 – 15 > 35 High Gravity Clear Bluish white,

Oil blue
10 – 20 > 45 Gas Condensate Clear Violet / none

visible
Table 8.1 Guide to colour and fluorescence of petroleum liquids

In summary, the gas ratio plot has proven to make valid predictions of petroleum type, oil
gravity, production potential, permeability and water content. In effect, it is a form of gas
normalization, since only the difference of the gas show above the background level is used,
so that external influences are minimized or eliminated.
However, the plot does have minor inconveniences: -

 The number of plots that can be provided for each potential zone is limited, since
the data available originates from a database. The evaluation is not real-time,
although the C1/C2 ratio can be used effectively in this fashion.
 Plots are offline, separate to the mudlog, so that information not immediately
apparent.
A summary use of the plot is shown in Figure 8.6
1000
Non-productive gas
Non-associated methane
100
Dry gas
Productive gas Gas Condensate
Increasing wetness
Wet gas
Hi gravity 10
Productive oil
Increasing density
Low gravity
Heavy oil, possibly Residual oil

1
C1/C2 C1/C3 C1/C4 C1/C5
Figure 8.6 Summary use of the ratio plot

8.3 Wetness, Balance and Character Ratio Analysis
Unlike the gas ratio plot, these ratios were determined on the basis of gas extracted from the
return ditch line and the ratios derived were then compared to actual production and test data.

The ratios were developed in the mid 1980’s from data gathered in the USA and in the North
Sea (Haworth, Sellens and Whittaker, AAPG V69 No8, 1985 and Haworth, Sellens and
Gurvis, SPE 12914, 1984).
By comparing the proportion of light gas to heavy gas recorded at surface, these ratios can be
used to determine the fluid type (whether dry or wet gas, light or heavy oil etc) present in the
reservoir.
Although the ratios use actual gas values (rather than the values above background), a distinct
advantage is that they can be immediately calculated, as drilling is proceeding and the
reservoir being penetrated, and graphically represented on real-time paper or screen plots.
This provides immediate evaluation, enabling different zones and contacts to be identified
while the reservoir is being drilled.
This enables effective trend analysis in addition to the specific values, in identifying fluid
changes and contact points and therefore, not only provides good reservoir analysis but allows
for other applications such as the geosteering of wells (Section 10.1).
Further, the ratios can be plotted on a depth-based mudlog. The trends are easily
understandable and provide final well and future analysis of curves alongside any other
mudlog or wireline parameter, enabling the overall character of a reservoir to be readily
assessed.
8.3.1 Wetness Ratio (Wh)
This ratio shows an increasing trend as gas and oil density increases, i.e. as the amount of
heavy gas increases proportionally against the lighter gases.
Simply, as the ratio increases, dry gas (principally methane) through to wet gas (higher
concentration of heavy gases) is being indicated, increasing further from light, through
medium and high density oil (high to low API gravity) to, finally, a residual oil deposit.
Wh Fluid Type
< 0.5 non-productive, non-associated dry gas
0.5 – 17.5 gas, increasing in wetness as Wh increases
17.5 – 40 oil, increasing density (decreasing gravity) as Wh increases

> 40 residual oil
The exactness of these values has to be viewed with a degree of caution and will certainly
benefit from regional calibrations.
Residual oil being indicated if the wetness ratio exceeds 40 is a little erroneous in a similar
way to the gas ratio plot. Certainly, heavy oils yielding a ratio of over 40 have been produced,
so really, these situations have to consider relative changes, comparison to other data and
evidence provided by the drilled cuttings in terms of fluids and solids present.
These predictions, based on the wetness ratio, are illustrated in Figure 8.7.
1 10 100
NON-PRODUCTIVE
DRY GAS
Increasing density or wetness
POTENTIAL GAS
PRODUCTION
Increasing density
POTENTIAL OIL PRODUCTION
HEAVY, POSSIBLY RESIDUAL OIL
Figure 8.7 Reservoir fluid based on wetness ratio

8.3.2 Balance Ratio
The Balance Ratio (Bh) is a direct comparison of light to heavy hydrocarbons and, for
interpretative purposes, is used together with the wetness ratio as shown in Figure 8.8. This
diagram can be thought of as a reservoir profile, either time-based when drilling, or depth-
based on a mud log.
0.1 0.5 1.0 10 17.5 40 100
Wh NON-PRODUCTIVE GAS
Bh
POSSIBLE PRODUCTIVE GAS
PRODUCTIVE GAS
Increasing
Wetness
GAS, CONDENSATE or OIL
Decreasing
Gravity PRODUCTIV
E
OIL
HEAVY, POSSIBLY RESIDUAL OIL
Figure 8.8 Fluid type using wetness and balance ratios
Bh reacts inversely to Wh so that it decreases as the fluid density increases. It therefore

decreases as the gas wetness increases and further as it passes into the oil phase. It is used to

determine, or confirm, gas production potential. The value will be very high with non-
associated methane for example, then fall rapidly as soon as there is even a trace of the heavy
hydrocarbons.
8.3.3 Using Bh with Wh
A typical representation of the two ratios and how they react inversely to each other is shown
in Figure 8.9. This graph can be thought of as depth based, so it is evident how these ratio
curves can be beneficial in determining the nature of reservoir fluids and contacts against a
vertical section of lithology, or time-based so that fluid changes are identified as zones are
being drilled.
Table 8.2 shows exactly how the two ratios are used, numerically, to determine these zones.
Balance Ratio Wetness Ratio Reservoir Fluid and Production Potential
> 100 Very light, dry gas

Typically non-associated and non-productive such as
the occurrence of high pressured methane, metagenic
cracking out of the oil window, bacterial methane etc
< 100 < 0.5 Possible production of light, dry gas
Wh < Bh < 100 0.5 – 17.5 Productive gas, increasing in wetness as the curves are
closer together
< Wh 0.5 – 17.5 Productive, very wet gas or condensate or high
gravity oil with high GOR (Bh<Wh indicates liquid,
but Wh still indicates gas)
< Wh 17.5 – 40 Productive oil with decreasing gravity as the curve
separation increases
<< Wh 17.5 – 40 Lower production potential of low gravity, low gas
saturation oil
> 40 Very low gravity or residual oil

Table 8.2 Fluid and production predictions from wetness and balance ratios
The examples shown in Figures 8.9 and 8.10 shows how these principles and guidelines can
be used to evaluate fluid changes and identify contact points in practice.
1 10 17.5 40 100 1 10 17.5 40 100

Wh Bh Wh Bh
High Bh, Low Wh

Non-associated gas
Normal formation gas Reservoir Top
Gas Zone
Gas-Oil contact
Reservoir Top
Low Gravity Oil

Medium gravity oil
Oil-Water contact Oil-Water contact
Here, the Wh/Bh cross-over is In this example, the top of the reservoir
lithological, as well as fluid based, since is identified when the balance ratio
the well enters straight into an oil bearing drops to show a more productive gas.
reservoir with no true gas-oil contact. The top of the reservoir is a gas cap as
The curve separation through the zone the curves gradually come together,
suggests medium gravity oil and the oil indicating an increasingly heavier gas as
water contact is determined when there is the oil zone is approached. The gas-oil
a greater degree of separation resulting contact is seen when the two curves
from heavier, residual oil. finally cross.
With the higher wetness and greater

separation from the balance, a lower
gravity oil is predicted in this example.
Figure 8.9 Using the Wetness and Balance ratios

1 10 17.5 40 100 1 10 17.5 40 100

Wh Bh Wh Bh
Possible Condensate
Productive
Gas Zone High Gravity Oil
Oil Water contact

- more light end gas
is detected in this
case
Productive gas zones are indicated when When Wh and Bh cross in this example
the balance ratio falls (below 100) in to indicate the top of the reservoir, they
relation to the background formation gas remain very close together. In this
level. At the same time, the wetness ratio situation it is very difficult to determine
increases and converges on the balance the fluid type between condensate, gas or
rato – the closer the curves come oil, although the character ratio can be
together, the heavier the gas. used as an extra indicator.
Typically, any gas-water contact will be With lower Wh, and the curves quite
evident from the ratios returning to a close together, the main zone is a high
light, normal formation type gas gravity oil.
composition.
The oil-water contact acts inversely to
what can normally be expected – in this
case, more light gas is evident from the
water than heavier gas from any residual
oil.
Figure 8.10 Using the Wetness and Balance ratios

It is clear from the graph and table, and from the example in Figure 8.10, that when the two
curves are close together near the crossover point, it is very difficult to determine the exact
nature of the fluid, since wet gas, gas condensate and high gravity oil are very similar,
compositionally.
I.e.
 When Wh indicates gas but Bh is only slightly greater than Wh, then the reservoir
could contain wet gas or condensate.
 When Wh indicates gas but Bh is less than Wh, then the reservoir could contain
condensate or light oil with a high gas oil ratio (GOR).
 Even after the crossover when Wh now indicates oil, if the two lines are still close
together it is difficult to predict whether we have a condensate fluid or light oil with
a high GOR.
In this situation, a third ratio known as the Character Ratio (Ch) can be used to help in the
evaluation.
8.3.4 Character Ratio
By omitting the lighter hydrocarbon compounds (methane and ethane) and just comparing the
heavier compounds, the presence of a dense hydrocarbon fluid can be confirmed and this
should aid in the distinction of a very wet gas from a very high gravity oil.
The significance of comparing these three compounds is that C3 will typically be more
important in a gas reservoir, with only small or trace amounts of C4/C5. All the heavier
components will increase as the fluid density increases, but C4 and C5 will increase
proportionally in the case of light oils.

If Ch < 0.5 With C3 the major component, the presence of a productive gas
phase is confirmed, indicating either wet gas or gas condensate.
If Ch > 0.5, The presence of a productive liquid phase is confirmed, so that the
gas indicated by the wetness ratio is associated with light oil.
Character Wetness Ratio

Ratio Balance Ratio
0 3 1 10 17.5 40
100
Dry Gas
Increasing
Wetness
Gas or Condensate
High Gravity Oil with High GOR
Decreasing
Gravity
Heavy or
Residual Oil
Figure 8.11 Reservoir analysis using Wetness, Balance and

Character ratios
Often, in practice, evaluation of the ratio curves is based initially on the balance and wetness
curves – where they cross over is taken as the gas/oil contact. There is nothing wrong with

this basic premise, however, it may be erroneous if the cross-over occurs while Wh is still less
than 17.5 indicating gas. This is where the use of the character ratio can be used to be more
specific, as illustrated in Figure 8.11.
Plates 8.1 to 8.3 show some examples of how the ratios can be plotted and used to determine
the reservoir fluid through a vertical section and remember, that this information is not only
present on the mud log, but these changes are being monitored while the well is being drilled.
Further examples are shown throughout the cases in Section 10.

8.4 Oil Indicator
This simple ratio is one that is widely recognized in the industry, but during research for this
manual, it’s origin has not been discovered, nor indeed, has any reference to it in any other
publication been found.
It is therefore a little bit of a mystery, but it is extremely useful as an additional source of ratio
information. It works in a very similar fashion to the balance ratio; in fact the formulae are the
same except for the omission of C2 in the oil indicator. Not knowing the source of the ratio,
the reason for the exclusion of C2 cannot be explained.
The oil indicator compares the methane content of returned gas to the heavy hydrocarbon
content, with the resulting trend reflecting the changing density of the hydrocarbon fluid.
The oil indicator will range between 0 and 1, but plotted inversely, the numbers are easier to
deal with and follow a similar trend to the balance ratio.
The Inverse Oil Indicator will therefore range from 0 to 100, increasing as the fluid density
decreases (Figure 8.12).
Oil Indicator Evaluation Inverse Oil Indicator
0.01 – 0.07 dry gas – wet gas 100 – 14.3
0.07 – 0.10 condensate – light oil 14.3 – 10

with high GOR
0.10 – 0.40 oil (under-saturated) 10 – 2.5
0.40 – 1.0 residual oil 2.5 – 1

1 10 100
Dry Gas
Wet Gas
Condensate or
Light Oil/Hi GOR
Oil
Residual Oil
Figure 8.12 Use of the inverse oil indicator

8.5 Limitations to Gas Ratio Effectiveness
Gas ratio analysis utilizes economical, readily available data and, correctly interpreted,
provides an excellent tool by which to evaluate potential reservoir zones.
Ratios such as the wetness, balance and character, the oil indicator and the C1/C2 ratio allow
fluid changes and contact points to be evaluated immediately as the zone is being drilled.
They are also readily presentable alongside depth-based information for effective vertical
profiling of potential zones.
In addition, the gas ratio plot allows further information relating to the permeability and the
presence of water.
All in all, there is a lot of required and necessary information available from a very economic
source.
However, mud loggers are aware that certain situations can arise, whether from external
influences or resulting from specific fluid types, that lead to inaccuracies in the precise
numerical values.
Hence, it is important to evaluate relative changes in the trends of ratios in addition to the
exact numbers. Trends will still determine contact points and fluid changes even if the
numbers are telling you that you have a light oil rather than a medium gravity oil.
All ratio data should be evaluated together, alongside the basic chromatographic gas curves
and together with information from cuttings; what fluid or fluorescence is actually seen.
Having a good understanding of what can lead ratio data to be less accurate will allow for
better evaluation during those situations, but will also provide confidence in the use of this
information when, for the most part, they are reliable.
 Heavier oils that do not possess the light end hydrocarbons, particularly methane.
If methane is low or non-existent, then any ratios contain C1 will be distorted, either high or
low. All the gas ratio plot values will be low (see Case 14); the wetness ratio will be high and
the balance ratio low (see Plates 8.4 and 8.5 and Case 14); the character ratio will not be
affected since it only considers C3 to C5. As the above examples show, although the ratio
values are distorted to extremes, trend analysis will still effectively determine changes in fluid
gravity together with contact points.
 Oils with low gas saturation (low gas-oil ratio).

Ordinarily, low gas responses are no impediment to identify zones. A response, no matter
how small, in the heavier components above background, is enough to ensure that that zone is
evaluated carefully. Although there is a risk of changes being masked, even in situations of
high background or contamination, this principle still applies. However, especially in the case
of high background contamination, the ratio analysis may be affected as a result of the
contamination gas values. For example, if high levels of C4/C5 are being recorded from the
mud, a gas response of a few parts per million may not lead to a significant change in real-
time and depth-based ratio values.
Similarly, when the gas levels are low, then any deficiency in the gas extraction can lead to a
bigger degree of error. In the case of heavy gases, if the concentration is only in terms of low
ppm, then a difference in extraction of a few ppm could lead to a different ratio interpretation.
 Tight formations.
The gas ratio plot can be an accurate indicator of degrees in permeability when a greater
proportion of heavier components are retained by cuttings and not liberated to the drilling
fluid and subsequently detected.
However, it should be appreciated that in the case of extremely tight formations, then we may
see a ‘worsened’ situation of gas being retained by cuttings. The accuracy of the gas ratios
will then depend on just how much gas is liberated to the drilling fluid at the moment of
penetration.
 Large amounts of produced gas.
Ordinarily, seeing a degree of production from a zone is good, because we are seeing the
actual fluid flowing from the formation, enhancing the gas response and indicating pressure
support and permeability.
However, in the case of absolute gas ratio evaluation, there may be a degree of error in the
determination of fluid type. This will depend on the actual permeability, fluid type and
mobility, but can result through production when the light end gases flow preferentially to the
heavier end components. This can lead to lighter fluids being predicted.
 Flushing
If zones are being flushed, then formation fluids are being displaced and we are simply not
seeing a true volume of gas liberated into the drilling fluid and all subsequent evaluation has
to be viewed with a degree of caution (see Case 13).

 Surface losses or poor extraction, leading to erroneous proportions of light or heavy

gases.
As detailed in previous sections, occasionally situations are such that the mud logger is fairly
certain that we are not seeing a true reflection of the actual composition being liberated from
the formation.
- High viscosity mud leading to poorer extraction of heavy components.

- Low viscosity mud leading to poorer retention of light components (see Case 15).
- Poor surface system leading to larger volumes of lost gas, particularly light end
components.
- Cold ambient temperatures leading to condensation of heavy components.
In practice, these situations are not ‘everyday’ occurrences, and if they are present, they will
be taken into consideration, and their influence assessed, when evaluating zones. For the most
part, the ratios are dependable and together with the actual gas response and other data,
provides invaluable data from which reservoir contacts and production potential can be
reasonably and accurately determined.
This not only provides essential information from which zones that should be further tested
can be pinpointed and confirmed with wireline, but in many instances, has highlighted zones
that have been subsequently undetected by wireline.

Plate 8.1 Vertical profile of fluid changes determined by

the use of chromatographic gas ratios.
Wh
Ch
Bh
DEPTH (m)

Plate 8.2 Ratio determination of a high gravity oil bearing sand
0 min/m 30 0.001 Chrom Gas % 100 0 Ch 3 1 Wh/Bh 100

C3 C2 C1 Total 0 C1/C2 90
High Bh and
C1/C2 shows
normal dry
C4/C5 gas
No change in
Ch relative to
proportions
of C3-C5 in
the
Wet
background
Gas
Low C1
Hi API
oil
Slow drop off

- produced
gas
Bh/Wh ratios
slowly separate;
C1/C2 increases as
gases return to
background

Plate 8.3 Ratio determination of gas/oil zones and contact
0 min/m 30 ø 0.001 Chrom Gas 100 0 Ch 3 1 Wh/Bh 100

C3 C2 C1 Total 0 C1/C2 90
Dry gas
indicated by Bh,
although wetter
gas shown by
C1/C2
C4/C5
Reservoir Top
Wet Gas
GOC
Medium
API oil
Lo API oil

Plate 8.4 The effect of heavier oil with low light end concentrations
0 min/m 12 0.001 Chrom Gas % 100 0 Ch 3 0.1 1000
Wh Bh
C2 C1 TOTAL
C3
Reservoir Top
C1
iC4 C3 nC4
C2
C5’s contact
contac
t
This example illustrates the effect of heavier oils not possessing the light end components.
Note the compositional changes on entering the reservoir at 764m with the relative increase of
heavier components over light; there is no change in C1 over the background, and both C3
and nC4 increase over the C2. This has the effect of distorting the Wh and Bh ratios, with Wh
values of 70 to 100 certainly indicative of residual oil. However, this zone contains 14 API,
grading through 10 API oil.
Note, even though values are distorted, with a larger scale, the ratios clearly identify the gas-
oil contact on entering the reservoir, together with the contact points of the different API oils.

Plate 8.5 The effect of heavier oil on gas ratios
1000 Bh
Wh
0.01
3 Reservoir Top
Ch
0
100
nC4 C2 C1
Chrom C3
Gas % Total
C1
ic4, C5’s
C2
0.001 C3
Vertical Well Profile
This example is very similar to the one shown in Plate 8.4, in that a 14 API oil possesses a
lower concentration of the light end gases causing distortion of the gas ratios.
When this occurs, it is fairly evident that we are dealing with a heavier oil, so losing the
exactness of the ratios isn’t so important. What is important, and what we still have by
increasing the scales of the ratios, is good evaluation of relative fluid changes and exact
determination of contact points.


Section 9 FLUORESCENCE ANALYSIS
The presence of oil in drilled cuttings samples has historically been evaluated through
fluorescence. When crude oils are exposed to ultra-violet light, aromatic molecules absorb the
radiation and, in doing so, are excited to a higher energy state. The molecules return to their
original condition by releasing this energy through electromagnetic radiation. This is what is
known as fluorescence.
The fluorescence is assessed in terms of concentration, it’s colour and intensity, in order to
evaluate the oil type and production potential.
Invaluable information can be obtained by this test and by a further solvent test in terms of oil
density, water bearing likely hood, permeability and mobility. This information has been used
successfully over the years to identify and evaluate hydrocarbon bearing formations and to
compare with other data such as gas ratio analyses described previously.
However, there are limitations to this process, making it at best, a qualitative assessment: -
 Results are clearly subjective, not only in the consistency and accuracy to which the test
is performed but, also, to any deficiency in colour perception of the geologist. Many other
materials fluoresce and these have to be eliminated by the geologist and not mistaken as
oil fluorescence.
 It has further been recognized that only a small proportion of the fluorescence resulting
from the exposure to UV light is actually visible to the naked eye. Much of the emissions
actually fall in the ultra-violet range of the spectrum and so will go undetected by the
conventional technique, thus adding further to the tests’ subjectivity.
 Due to time constraints, complete testing will only be done on a handful of cuttings. The
main test will be confined to what is visible on the surface of the cuttings and to what
may leached through a solvent cut. This test is not, therefore, necessarily representative of
the full amount of oil in the formation.

The Quantitative Fluorescence Technique (QFT TM Texaco) was developed as a way to

eliminate the subjective nature of conventional fluorescence techniques that have been used
virtually unchanged since wellsite analysis and mud logging began.
QFTTM allows for the accurate measurement of the fluorescence and the relation of its
intensity to the amount of oil that is present within the drilled cuttings. Not only does this
provide for a more accurate, definitive assessment of fluorescence intensity and, therefore, oil
content, that can be databased and viewed alongside other parameters, but it may also identify
oil bearing zones that go undetected by conventional fluorescence.
However, by no means should UV fluorescence be dismissed as a valuable wellsite evaluation

tool. It is one, and before advancing with QFT TM, conventional fluorescence techniques and
cuttings analysis will be detailed.
9.1 Conventional fluorescence as a wellsite evaluation process
We have already seen how total and chromatographic gas analyses are an immediate
indication of the presence of hydrocarbons and how the further analysis of various gas ratios
can be used to predict more accurately the reservoir fluid present together with productivity
potential.
Conventional wellsite mud logging will use all of this data, together with fluorescence
analysis, to confirm hydrocarbon type and presence of water, and cuttings analysis to
determine oil staining and degree of porosity to provide an overall picture of the reservoir
being evaluated.
9.1.1 Sample Preparation
The cuttings should be washed and immediately viewed (volatile components will be lost as
the sample is sat waiting to be viewed – fluorescence should be the first property to be
checked in a new sample).
 Sample trays should be clean and free from contaminants (note that even
some types of tissue paper used for drying may fluoresce, making the
geologist’s job more difficult).
 The cuttings must be cleaned of any drilling fluid that may still be coating
the grains.
If an oil based mud is being used, samples of the base fluid, whether oil, diesel or base oil,
together with the actual mud sample, should be collected routinely so that their background

fluorescence can be compared to fluorescence emanating from the sample. Typically, diesel
and other base fluids exhibit only a dull brown fluorescence if at all. However, oil obviously
has a high solubility for hydrocarbons that originate from the formation. Oil will remain
dissolved within the drilling fluid unlike gases that will be liberated either immediately or
subsequently.
This additional component will add to the fluorescence of the drilling fluid and do so for the
remainder of the well and even move onto further wells should the mud be re-used. The
background fluorescence of the mud can therefore change, so that it is crucial that regular
samples be viewed in order to identify ‘fresh’ shows.
Firstly, view the sample quickly under the microscope for indications of oil staining, residual
deposits or even bubbling gas. Any cuttings with obvious staining should be separated and
viewed under the UV fluoroscope.
 Live oil is typically characterized by a greasy brown lustre; the volatile oil
will smoke and smell when held in a flame; the flame will typically turn
blue.
 The amount of oil staining should be characterized in terms of none, rare,

common, abundant etc, along with the nature of the occurrence such as
spotty, patchy, uniform; the colour and further fluorescence characteristics
should also be described.
 Dead or residual oil is typically characterized by a dark or black asphaltic

residue.
 The presence of solid hydrocarbons such as tars and waxes should be

recorded. These bituminous deposits, recognized by their black, often
opaque appearance, nodular or specked occurrence, brittle appearance but
plastic texture, may be indicative of residual oil deposits or may be an
indication of a potential source rock. Either way, their appearance is
important and should be noted.
Secondly, view the cuttings sample under ultra-violet light to determine any or all fluorescing
material.
Many contaminant materials or minerals will fluoresce in addition to hydrocarbons. The

geologist must therefore be very vigilant in identifying relevant oil fluorescence and
separating individual cuttings for further testing. Mineral fluorescence should be easily
identifiable by viewing the cuttings under the microscope, but if an error is made minerals
will give no solvent cut.

Minerals Carbonates such as dolomite, limestone and marl typically show a

yellow to brown fluorescence.
Anhydrite or gypsum give a grey blue fluorescence.
Contaminants pipe dope (gold, bluish white depending on composition)

diesel or base oil
mud additives
some rubbers and plastics
After identifying the hydrocarbon bearing cuttings, separate them and place into spot dishes
for more thorough examination and testing under UV light.
 During this separation, the cuttings should not be touched by hand so as to

prevent contamination.
 Before testing with solvent, the cuttings should preferably be dry since any
coating of water may prevent the solvent from penetrating the lithology
effectively. If the sample is tested wet, alcohol can be used with the solvent
to remove the water and allow the solvent to ‘get to work’.
9.1.2 Fluorescence Colour and Brightness
The most important things to note about the fluorescence are the colour and brightness
together with the quantity or distribution.
Colour enables an approximation to be made of the oil gravity whereas the brightness
(reduction or dulling) can be an indication of the presence of water.
A less bright, or duller fluorescence may be indication of a water bearing formation. If, for
example, a bright bluish fluorescence has been observed through a reservoir section, then
exhibits a duller intensity, it is likely that the well has passed through the oil/water contact.
In terms of fluorescence colour, an approximation can be made to the oil gravity.
 The lower the API gravity (higher density), the darker and less intense the
fluorescence.

 Very high gravity oils and condensates may not fluoresce at all in the visible
spectrum so that the addition of QFTTM can be very beneficial.

Typically observed fluorescence, in relation to the API degree, are listed below and illustrated
in Plate 9.1.
Oil Bright fluorescence, colours ranging with API gravity
Very low gravity red brown, low intensity, typically not visible
Low API gravity red brown to orange brown, low intensity
Medium API gravity cream to yellow, gold, green
High API gravity blue white, blue

sometimes may not be visible
note that fluorescence if often described as white

which is not a true colour. This is how a pale blue
(towards the medium end of the high API degree) is
perceived under ultra-violet light.
Condensate Bright, violet fluorescence, often speckled, violet

Often not visible since fluorescence is completely in the ultra-violet
Minor solvent cut showing the presence of liquid hydrocarbons.
9.1.3 Fluorescence Distribution
An estimation of the percentage of florescence observed in both the entire sample and in the
particular reservoir rock alone, should be made, along with the type of distribution.
Firstly, the distribution should be described in terms of rare, common or abundant and then
qualified by adjectives such as even, uniform, patchy, pin-point (typical of pipe dope) etc.
As well as the percentage of cuttings fluorescing in the complete sample, the geologist should
estimate the percentage of reservoir cuttings, alone, that exhibit fluorescence.
This is very difficult in practice but a very important distinction, especially when the zone is
first penetrated. It is meaningless and misleading to say that the sample has 10% fluorescence
if only 20% of the sample is made up of the reservoir rock. In this particular instance, 50% of
the reservoir rock is fluorescing, much more exciting news than the reported 10%!

9.1.4 Solvent Cut
Solvents, such as I-I-I Trichloroethane or I-I-I ID Orange, are used to yield information about
the fluid mobility and permeability.
The test is conducted very simply by adding a few drops of the solvent directly onto the
isolated cutting (while the sample is being viewed under the UV fluoroscope).
The solvent effectively leaches the cutting, taking the oil into solution and removing it from
the cutting. This may allow for better determination of the fluorescence colour since there is
no obstruction or interference from the cutting.
 Speed of the cut
The speed and nature of the cut reflects the oil solubility, permeability and overall fluid
mobility. A rough rule of thumb is that the faster the cut, the lighter the oil, since it is more
readily taken into solution and removed. A heavier, viscous oil will clearly move more
slowly.
Instant cut High gravity oils
Slow cut Low gravity oils
Permeability also has an important bearing in the speed of the cut. The poorer the
permeability, the slower the cut. Inter-related factors such as quality of permeability, oil
viscosity and solubility, leading to overall fluid mobility, will all contribute to the speed of
the cut.
Cut speed should be described as slow, moderately fast, fast, instantaneous.
 Nature of the cut
The nature of the cut is the way in which the oil is leached from the cutting and can be
observed by the pattern of the dis-coloured solvent (from the oil) spreading from the cutting.
Uniform blooming Good permeability and oil mobility.
Streaming Low mobility due to limited permeability and/or high

viscosity.

If no cut has been observed with the addition of solvent, then various procedures can be used
to try to ‘force’ the cut: -
Typically, the cutting is crushed to assist in freeing the oil. This also has the benefit that we
are ensuring that we see all the oil contained in the cutting. The crush cut should then be
described in the same way as the solvent cut.
If a wet sample was used: Use a solvent / alcohol combination in case water was
obstructing the solvent.
Repeat using a dry sample.
Add hydrochloric acid.
9.1.5 Residue
Observation of any residue remaining after the solvent tests is an important conclusion to the
procedure. After the solvent has rapidly evaporated, any oil that has been leached from the
cutting will remain behind as a residue in the sample Plate. This obviously provides an
opportunity to determine the true natural colour of the oil away from the background colour of
the cutting.
The natural colour (i.e. viewed under natural light), fluorescence colour, intensity and amount
(poor, fair, good) should all be included in the final show report, since this will be a final
evaluation of the oil density and quantity contained in the cutting.
9.1.6 Sampling the mud
The reason for, and benefits of, continually checking the fluorescence given by oil based
muds has already been discussed in that the drilling fluid, having high mutual solubility for
other oils, will retain oil released from a reservoir rock and therefore lead to additional and
changing fluorescence.
It is also worth mentioning that water based and other muds should be checked for any oil that
has been released from the cuttings by the normal liberated mechanism. In this case, the
reservoir oil will not dissolve in the mud but will remain ‘separate’ so that it can be sampled
and tested for fluorescence in the same way as oil retained in the drilled cuttings.
It may help the process by mixing the mud with clean water to separate and lift the oil, which
can then be skimmed off from the surface and checked for natural colour and fluorescence.

9.2 Quantitative Fluorescence Technique TM
QFTTM is a patented and licensed wellsite procedure developed by the Surface Logging Group
in the Exploration and Production Technology Department of Texaco. It is used to provide an
accurate and quantitative measurement of the fluorescence and relating this to the
concentration of oil that may be contained within a sample.
Conventional fluorescence techniques shouldn’t be dismissed as an evaluation tool, because it

provides immediate and rapid evaluation, but QFT TM does eliminate potential errors inherent
in the process: -
 Firstly, the error that can result from the subjective, descriptive nature of the
conventional process where, given the same sample, it is not unknown for two
geologists to submit two very different reports!
 Secondly, the fact that much of the fluorescence resulting from hydrocarbons falls
outside of the electro-magnetic range detected by the human eye. Not only does this
mean that any fluorescence that is visible is merely a fraction of the actual energy
emission and therefore not wholly representative but, it may also mean that some
hydrocarbon occurrences may go completely undetected, especially with very light
oils and condensates.
QFTTM is performed with a portable fluorometer that accurately measures the intensity of the
fluorescence produced by the oil in a given sample. The intensity is proportional to the
quantity of oil in the sample and can be plotted on a mudlog to demonstrate a depth based
profile of oil concentration.
This, alongside other parameters such as chromatographic gas curves, gas ratios, lithology,
ROP and porosity etc, will provide an excellent source of data from which to determine a
complete evaluation and profile of a well.
The simple procedure is as follows: -
 A washed, air dried sample of drilled cuttings or core is ground to a powder. Drying
should not be done at high temperature since volatiles will be lost.
 A fixed quantity (whether by weight or by volume) is taken and an organic solvent,

typically heptane, is added in order to extract any oil.

 After mixing and agitating the sample mixture, the solvent and any oil is filtered off.
 The solvent-oil mixture is then placed in the fluorometer to determine the fluorescence
intensity, indicative of the oil content of the sample.
Figure 9.1 shows a comparative analysis of QFT TM, total gas shows and cuttings fluorescence.
In this particular example of a medium gravity crude oil, gas shows and fluorescence were
good indicators by themselves, but the example does show the correlation between the two
techniques.
QFT units and Total Gas PPM

1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000
2500 QFT TM Total Gas
TOP OF OIL ZONE
Fluorescence
RESERVOIR BASE
DEPTH
(m) TOTAL GAS
responses of C1 –
wet zones
3000
Figure 9.1 Correlation of QFT with conventional logging parameters

The resulting QFT™ measurement is one of oil concentration within a given volume of rock.
The producing zones are therefore, typically, those showing the highest measurement above
background and therefore the main concentration of oil.
For one particular oil, this is certainly true. However, this quantitative result is dependant on
oil type since different oils will fluoresce at different levels for a given ultra-violet
wavelength. In other words, for a given volume of oil, a higher reading will be generated from
a heavier oil.
This technique certainly removes any inaccuracies through erroneous or subjective analysis,
and has proven to be a very accurate and reliable tool in the detection of hydrocarbon bearing
zones.
It’s use in oil-based mud systems has also proved reliable although there is always the
potential of fluorescence masking oil shows. In practice however, shows have been clearly
discernable over and above a background level, depicting the oil bearing zone much in the
same way as gas responses over and above a contamination background. Refined diesels and
base oils used in oil-based systems typically exhibit low intensity fluorescence so that the
occurrence of high intensity crude oils are readily distinguished.
Mineral fluorescence is not a factor in QFT™ since only the heptane solvent and removed oil
are tested by the fluorometer.
However, as with any testing of cuttings from a continually changing environment, there are
limitations to the process that the user has to be aware of.
As you will see, most of these limitations are exactly those that effect conventional
fluorescence and indeed chromatographic analysis!
 Since the fluorescence measurement is being related to a given volume of rock in

order to determine oil concentration, it has to be asked how representative are the
cuttings to the reservoir formation? The presence of varying amounts of cavings or
non-producing lithology will effect the accuracy of QFT™.
 How much oil has been retained by the cuttings? If the zone has been flushed ahead
of the bit, then the hydrocarbon content in the resulting cuttings is reduced. If the
formation is extremely permeable, much of the oil (especially light oil and
condensates) will have been liberated to drilling fluid and go undetected in the
cuttings.
 Over-washing of samples may lead to oil effectively being leached from the cuttings.

 Coal and similar hydrocarbons possess aromatics that will give QFT™ responses.
Obviously, these can be identified through cuttings analysis and gas responses.
 Mud contamination. Oil based muds, although exhibiting low fluorescence in a clean
condition, will retain and recycle hydrocarbons, leading to a continually increasing
background measurement of QFT™, much in the same way as chromatographic
background contamination. Similarly, mud contaminants such as pipe dope and
asphalt type additives will give QFT™ responses.
 Fluorescence intensity is not linear across the ‘liquid spectrum’. A given quantity of
low API crude oil will result in a significantly higher intensity than the same
concentration of high API crude or condensate. There may therefore be a question as
to whether a change in fluorescence measurement is caused by an increase in the
quantity of oil or as a result of a change in composition. Typically, however, when
drilling a particular reservoir section, it can be reasonably assumed that a peak in
fluorescence intensity reflects the maximum oil concentration.
 Obviously, the technique cannot be used in gas producing wells.
 QFTTM is a measure of quantity but gives no information as to production potential.
However, limitations aside, QFT TM is an accurate measurement of oil quantity within a given
sample and, as such, provides an important additional tool available for complete reservoir
evaluation.

Plate 9.1 Determination of oil API degree from fluorescence colour

Ultra-violet
50 API
Condensate
45 API
High Gravity Oil
35 API
Medium Gravity Oil
15 API
Low Gravity Oil 10 API


Section 10 CASE STUDIES AND APPLICATIONS
10.1 Geosteering Horizontal Wells using Gas Ratio signatures

P241
Cases 1 to 4
10.2 Case 5 Establishing Production Potential from Mud Logging Data P248
10.3 Case 6 Determination of Gas/Oil/Water Contacts P254
10.4 Case 7 Reservoir and Fluid Identification from Gas Ratio Analysis P257
10.5 Using Gas Ratios to Identify Miscible Floods P260
Cases 8 to 9
10.6 Prediction of Gas Zone Productivity with subsequent DST results

P264
Cases 10 to 11
10.7 Fracture Identification P269
10.8 Case 12 Prediction of a Tight, Unproductive Gas Zone P273
10.9 Case 13 Evidence and Effect of Flushing on Gas Responses and Ratios P275
10.10 Case 14 The Effect of Heavier Oils on Gas Ratio Analysis P278
10.11 Case 15 The Effect of Mud Viscosity in Gas Measurements P281
10.12 Case 16 Determination of Changing Oil Gravity through a Reservoir P284
10.13 Case 17 Prediction of the Approach to a Depleted Reservoir P286


10.1 Geosteering Horizontal Wells Using Gas Ratio Signatures
The advantage of drilling horizontal wells through reservoirs is clearly one of increasing the
amount of pay zone. The steering of wells has traditionally been achieved by the use of
Logging While Drilling (LWD), an effective but costly technique. Costs can be dramatically
decreased by the use of geosteering with gas ratios using the information obtained through
standard chromatographic gas analysis.
Cost reductions will be realized through: -
 Eliminating or reducing the requirement for LWD.
 Faster course correction. Gas ratios are calculated and evaluated on a real-time basis.
Geosteering with gas ratios means, therefore, that the only delay is that of the lag
time (time for the drilling fluid to be circulated from the bit to surface) before it can
be recognized that a course correction. With LWD, the delay is often considerably
longer depending on penetration rate and how far behind the bit the tool is.
For example, if the well is being drilled at a penetration rate of 10 m/hr and the LWD
tool is 20m behind the bit, it will take 2 hours before formation or fluid changes at
the bit are recognized at surface. By this time, the bit is already 20m out of the zone.
With a typical lag time of 1 hour, only halve of the time will be required before the
same change is identified through gas ratios (see Figure 10.1).
This means that a course correction can be made sooner, maximizing the well’s path
within the pay zone. Not only can the correction be made sooner, but time will be
saved since a lesser correction is required.
2 hours
correction time
1 hour
Top of Zone
LWD
Gas ratios
missed pay - ratios
missed pay - LWD
Figure 10.1 Illustration of increased pay and faster course corrections

through the use of gas ratio geosteering

The ratios that are used for this application are the Wetness, Balance and Character ratios
determined in the mid 1980’s by J.H.Haworth and M.Sellens, together with A.Whittaker
(AAPG Vol 69 No 8, Aug 1985) and R.L.Gurvis (SPE 12914, 1984).
The ratios are calculated and plotted real-time, providing an immediate vertical appraisal of
the formation fluids as the well is being drilled. The values, relationships and separation of
these ratio curves are used to determine the hydrocarbon fluid type. Changes in fluid are
easily recognizable so that changes in oil gravity and gas wetness can be determined, as well
as the actual gas/oil and oil/water contact points. Using the techniques and guidelines detailed
in Section 8.5 provides a valid and economic tool by which to steer horizontal wells.
As explained in Section 8.5, situations can arise when the relative proportions of light and
heavy hydrocarbons can vary from what would be considered a ‘normal’. It is therefore
preferable that the gas ratio signatures for given zones are determined prior to steering the
horizontal section. Ratios can be determined from offset data, or logged for the vertical pilot
hole when the reservoir is first penetrated, or they can be determined alongside initial LWD
directed wells. The gas ratio signature for the reservoir fluids can then be determined and
subsequently used to steer the lateral section of the well (Figure 10.2).
Wh
Total Chromat Ch
Bh
Gas
Gas
Oil
Water
Figure 10.2 Establishing ratios for geosteering

Case 1 Geosteering using gas ratios
Figure 10.3 shows the build and beginning of the lateral section of a well, with the contacts
determined on the basis of gas shows and ratios.
Wh Bh
Ch
Chrom Gas %
Vertical Profile
Reservoir Top
Basal Shale/Sand Transition Top of Shale
ROP
Figure 10.3 Gas Ratios against vertical well profile for Case 1
The log shows the entry into the reservoir and start of the lateral section of the well. The
reservoir top is determined at 1710m (1659 TVD) where all chromatographic gases show an
increase and where the wetness and balance ratios cross over. Prior to this, the balance ratio
exceeds the wetness, indicating a fairly heavy or wet gas. This pin-points the gas/oil contact,
above which, where the two curves run on top each other, there is a metre interval of wet gas
or oil with a high gas oil ratio.
The well is steered around to the horizontal with the intention of drilling laterally through the
oil zone. As the well passes vertically through the reservoir, the slight, gradual separation of
the wetness and balance ratios shows a medium to heavy oil with slightly decreasing API
gravity with depth. Throughout, the character ratio ranges between 0.5 and 1 confirming an
oil reservoir.

At 1739m (1662.1m TVD), the gas levels drop, the wetness and balance ratios show a distinct
separation, the character ratio increases dramatically and the penetration rate slows. The
changes in ratios are indicative of a heavy, residual oil indicating that the oil-water contact
has been passed. In this case, it is not strictly a contact since it coincides with a transitional
change into shale. The top of the shale is clear, where the wetness and balance ratios cross
back over to indicate normal formation gas.
Figure 10.4 shows a similar lateral section, with the wellbore re-entering the reservoir. Gas
levels start to increase, with wetness and balance ratios crossing over at 1800m (MD). For the
first 1/5 m, true vertical depth, the well bore is skirting the base of the reservoir. Good
separation of the wetness and balance curves, at 1817m (MD), show the entry into the good,
oil bearing sand or ‘sweet spot’. Gas levels, and curve separation, showing the medium
gravity API, are maintained while drilling horizontally through the pay zone.
Sweet Spot
Entry in Reservoir
Figure 10.4 Lateral section for Case 2


A similarly geosteered well is illustrated in Figure 10.5. Here, the top and base of a dipping
sandstone reservoir can be clearly distinguished from the gas ratios, allowing for effective
geosteering.
Vertical Profile
Reservoir Top Reservoir

Base
The entry point, or top, of the reservoir is evident where the wetness and balance ratios have
crossed over (gas/oil contact) and finally separated to show a medium gravity oil. The
separation of the curves is maintained through the lateral section until the base, illustrated by
the wide separation, or divergence of the curves (indicating water), together with the increase
in character ratio (indicating residual oil) is penetrated at 1906m (MD).
Note that shaly basal sections are frequently encountered. These are identified, first, from the
cuttings and ROP changes. They are confirmed by momentary drops in gas levels,
accompanied by a slight divergence of the wetness and balance ratios.

Vertical Profile
Reservoir
Top
The top of the reservoir is identified where the wetness and balance curves cross over,
indicating a change from normal formation gas to a light oil. The two curves then remain
closely separated through the build section, sometimes criss-crossing. This is indicative of a
light oil with high GOR or condensate type fluid. The higher character ratio value would tend
to predict a heavier oil, but the values are higher throughout, being influenced by the
background picked up from the oil-based mud being used.
In these situations, the character ratio’s are typically more effected from background
contamination since they are only representing C3 – C5 measurements. Wetness and balance
ratios are more responsive to changes in the major light end components.
Shaly basal sections are indicated, similar to the previous example, by cuttings and ROP and
confirmed by lower gas values and separation of the wetness and balance ratios.


10.2 Case 5 Establishing Production Potential from Mud Logging Data
A target sand was reached producing a good drilling break and good gas shows of C1 to C5.
The relatively low values are unimportant since a high density gel polymer mud was being
used to control sloughing shales. The gas response above background is significant. See
mudlog in Figure 10.7
 Sandstone Description
Quartzose, translucent, colourless to pale yellow brown, predominantly fine grained, very fine
in places, rarely medium to coarse, subrounded to rounded, subangular in part, poorly sorted,
generally unconsolidated and grain supported, minor part siliceous cement, friable, fair to
minor part good intergranular porosity.
 Cuttings Shows
Strong oil odour, occasional oil staining, rare oil bleed.

60 – 80 % of sand grains showing good, moderately bright, even yellow fluorescence.
Moderate to fast pale yellow streaming cut.
Bright yellow white fluorescence residue; pale brown visible residue.
 Gas Show
Associated drilling break from 13 to 5 min/m
Component Peak Value / Value ABG (%)
Methane 0.2867 0.2311

Ethane 0.0730 0.0631
Propane 0.0641 0.0633
I-Butane 0.0226 0.0223
N-Butane 0.0530 0.0503
I-Pentane 0.0296 0.0290
N-Pentane 0.0271 0.0266
The appearance is of a reservoir sand possessing reasonably good estimated porosity and good
potential. Wireline log analysis was hoped to confirm this, with production liner being run
and the zone further tested.
Unfortunately, final logging tools were unable to be run to bottom due to sloughing shales
further up the hole.

The zone, being only a couple of metres thick, was much thinner than expected, possibly
indicating that the flank of the reservoir structure had been penetrated.
The following question was asked of the mud loggers: -
‘Without the aid of wireline confirmation, does the mud logging data warrant the expense of
stabilizing the well in order to run liner and test or do we abandon the well?’
 Evaluation of cuttings and shows
The fluorescence is inconclusive with a medium gravity oil being suggested by the bright
yellow colour. The paler yellow streaming cut may suggest the presence of water, with the
streaming character indicating a reduced mobility due to either low permeability or higher
viscosity oil.
 Gas Show Evaluation
The show, at first glance, looks very significant with a high level above the established
background. Looking at the components, the increase of heavy gases is proportionally greater
than the lighter components, so is a definite suggestion of a low gravity oil.
 Balance/Wetness Ratio
A wetness ratio of 48.4 indicates, certainly a very low gravity oil, possibly residual. The wide
separation of the two ratio curves is typically an indication of being below the oil-water
contact, confirming the residual oil hypothesis.
However, in this situation, as explained in Section 8.5, when a zone immediately gives this
response, it is very difficult to be conclusive. Certainly, we could be looking at a residual
zone, but equally, we could simply be seeing a heavy oil. Whether or not there is some degree
of water saturation and whether it is still an economic zone would have to be determined by
testing.
 Oil Indicator
Not shown on the log, but a value of 0.8 also indicates residual oil.

ROPmin/m Wh + Bh
0 20 0.0001 Chrom Gas % 1.0  1 100 1 Ch 10
C5
C4
C
3
C2 C
1
Flor
Grain Size
Wh
B
h
Figure 10.7 Mudlog showing potential sand for Case 5
 Gas Ratio Plot

The plot shown in Figure 10.8 is showing a low gravity oil (although in the productive phase)
but the drop in the C1/C4 ratio, from the preceding C1/C3, is indicative of water.
Good permeability is also indicated from the very shallow gradient of the slope.
1000
NON-PRODUCTIVE
100
GAS
10
OIL
NON-PRODUCTIVE
1
C1/C2 C1/C3 C1/C4 C1/C5
Fig 10.8 Gas ratio plot for sand at 1090m, Case 5
Summing up the evidence from the mud logging data: -

 The sand has fair to good porosity (from the cuttings).
 The sand’s permeability is not conclusive since the streaming cut suggests some
restriction (although oil viscosity maybe influencing the mobility), whereas the pixler
ratio plot suggests good permeability.
 Gravity indicators are showing a range and possibly the presence of different fluid types.
A medium gravity oil is suggested by the fluorescence, whereas a lower gravity oil is
predicted by the ratios. The high wetness ratio may be an indication of residual oil.
 The presence of water is indicated by the paler solvent cut fluorescence and by the pixler
ratio plot and is also suggested by the wetness and balance ratios indicating a possible
residual zone.
Most of the evidence is indicating a low gravity, possibly residual oil. However, in this
situation, it is very hard to be conclusive as to whether it is a residual zone or whether we
have a heavy oil with some degree of water saturation.
There is also the evidence of the lighter, live oil, from the fluorescence, but still with the
indication of water.
Thinking, now, of the structure, the sand was much thinner than anticipated and possibly on
the flank of the structure. It was concluded that the evidence of water, together with the
evidence of medium gravity but predominantly residual oil, was enough to indicate that a
residual flank of the reservoir had, indeed, been penetrated.
With this amount of evidence, it was decided that the 2-3 metre sand did not warrant further
expense in order to test.
The decision, from the mud logging data, was to abandon the well
After one further night of reaming in a last attempt to clean the hole and run logs, the wireline
tools were actually run to bottom.

The gamma ray confirmed the shallow thickness of the sand with the resistivity log showing
no hydrocarbon response (Figure 10.9).
At the time, the non-response of the resistivity was taken as validation of the decision to
abandon the well, and it was subsequently plugged and abandoned.
However, on looking back at the logs, it is strange that there was no response at all from the
resistivity, since there was certainly plenty of indications that live as well as dead oil was
present! Good permeability indications leads you to believe that the zone was invaded during
the long period of hole cleaning before logs were finally run.
GAMMA RESISTIVITY
CURVES
Top Sand 1189.5m
Base Sand 1192.5m
Figure 10.9 Wireline log for sandstone in Case 5
10.3 Case 6 Determination of Gas/Oil/Water Contacts

Here, changes in penetration rate, gas character and ratios, clearly illustrate changes in
reservoir porosity and accurately establish the depths of the gas/oil and oil/water contacts
(Figure 10.10 and 10.12).
0 min/m 20 0.001 Chromat Gas % 100 0 Ch 5 1 100
Wh Bh
Dry Gas
Gas Cap
Drill
Break
GOC
Figure 10.10 Fluid changes and gas/oil/water contacts

Two distinct sand units are separated by a thin shale interval at 1741m. The upper sand unit
contains a moderately wet gas, whereas the lower primary unit contains a medium to high
gravity oil.

A drill break of 5 to 2 min/m, at 1750 picks out an increase in porosity and the top of the
reservoir, with a corresponding 75 fold increase in gas levels. Immediately above the
reservoir, high methane and little else, illustrated by the high balance ratio, is found.
At 1750m, gas wetness increases (increasing proportion of heavy gases), defining a gas cap,
until the wetness and balance ratios cross over at 1754m, determining the gas/oil contact.
The constant separation of the curves, thereafter, suggests the reservoir to have a productive
zone of high gravity oil (wetness ratio of 18-20, with balance ratio less than wetness).
gamma resistivity curves neutron porosity/density
GOC
Good
ø
OWC
?
Figure 10.11 Resistivity and Neutron Porosity log for Case 6

The wireline logs (Figure 10.11) confirms a change in porosity and reservoir fluid at 1752m,
with both neutron porosity and resistivity increasing. Good porosity is indicated between
1754 and 1759m where neutron porosity-density are close together. Resistivity levels out at
its higher end at 1754m, correlating with the gas/oil contact determined from the gas ratios. It
also correlates with the zone of good porosity at 1754m.

The oil/water contact, from the wireline, is picked at 1762m where the resistivity returns to
the base trend and porosity also, coincidentally, decreases. However, this depth is
inconclusive, since the resistivity response is very low and, realistically, the contact could be
anywhere over a 5-8m interval.
1000
NON-PRODUCTIVE
1752m
100 1754m
GAS 1764m
1766m
10
OIL
NON-PRODUCTIVE
1
C1/C2 C1/C3 C1/C4 C1/C5

Figure 10.12 Fluid changes determined from gas ratio plots
Gas ratio plots (Figure 10.12) confirm the gas/oil contact with the plot for 1752m showing
gas and that of 1754m productive, high gravity oil. The ratio plot also provides the best
determination of the oil/water contact, within a 2m range. The plot for 1764m still shows high
gravity oil whereas at 1766m, we now have a much heavier oil and a negative slope indicative
of water. Looking back to the mud log, although the gas ratios show little more than a ‘blip’,
the gas levels drop at 1764m, confirming the actual depth of the contact.

10.4 Case 7 Reservoir and Fluid Identification from Gas Ratio Analysis
Here is an example of where mud log responses provide excellent evaluation as compared to
poorer or erroneous responses from wireline parameters.
The zones of interest in this well were a series of discreet fluvial channel sands, known to be
exclusive of each other. Potentially, they could contain different petroleum fluids and even
see water bearing sands above oil bearing ones. The hydrocarbon content, perfectly illustrated
by repeated cross-overs of the wetness and balance ratios, identifies this sequence and shows
producing zones of gas and medium high to low gravity oil.
A high concentration of hydrocarbons were retained by the mud system, sustaining a high
background level and confusing trends, but the gas shows remain distinct and allow for
effective ratio analysis.
0 min/m 20 0.001 Chromatograph Gas % 100 0 Ch 5 1 100
Gas ratio plots, for this well, were not effective since they indicated gas and water
Bh bearing
Wh
sands throughout!
OIL
The mudlog is shown in Figure 10.13 and subsequent wireline logs in Figure 10.14.
Looking at the main zones of interest: -
 Sand at 2167m to 2171m
Medium to high gravity oil is indicated by the wetness and balance ratios, with probable good
porosity shown by the fast drilling rate.
GAS
The gamma ray confirms a good sand between 2167m and 2170.5m, with the neutron
porosity showing good porosity and permeability. The response from the resistivity is very
low, however, and proves not to be a good evaluation tool in this well. Mud invasion could
be one possible explanation for the lack of response, but here, it appears unlikely since there
is a good build up of filter cake indicated by the caliper log. OIL
 Sands between 2184 and 2189m
Again, these sands produced good gas shows with the ratio curves indicating productive,
moderately high gravity oil. Good penetration rates would suggest good porosity. The
gamma log shows a good clean sand, with reasonable filter cake build up between 2185 and
2189m showing. Again, though, these indications are not ‘backed up’ by any significant
response from the resistivity.
OIL
FLOWING

Figure 10.13 Reservoir identification from wetness and balance curves
 Sands at 2197-2199m
This sand resulted in a massive kick (gas 500x the background level) with oil flowing at the
shakers. A lower gravity oil (than previous sands) is indicated from the ratio curves. Gamma
does not indicate such a clean sand as seen in the previous zones. Wireline also shows the
sand to be tight (separation of porosity/density curves; no filter cake build up) and, again,
there is no response on the resistivity to indicate hydrocarbons. It is possible that the washed
out sands above this zone prevented accurate operation of the tool.

A final observation of the wireline data is that the gas bearing sand at 2181-82, clearly defined
by the gas response and ratios, is not picked out at all by the electrical log. The neutron curves
do not cross over to suggest the presence of gas. Again it’s possible that the washed out
nature of the sand, together with it being a thin zone, prevented accurate measurements.
Cake Gamma Resistivity Neutron porosity/density
Figure 10.14 Wireline logs for Case 7

10.5 Using Gas Ratios to Identify Miscible Floods
An important objective of all reservoir production is, obviously, to produce as much, if not
all, of the oil as possible.
After primary production has been completed, depleted reservoirs can undergo secondary
production by driving another fluid through the reservoir and displacing remaining oil
towards the production wells where it can be recovered.
Historically, secondary production has been achieved successfully with water-flooding, where
water is injected into the reservoir through specially drilled wells. The water is forced
through the reservoir rock and, because it is immiscible (does not mix) with oil, it pushes the
oil ahead of it towards the production wells.
However, although this process has allowed enhanced recovery from reservoirs, it is well
known that a significant amount of oil may still be left behind. This results from droplets of
oil forming, when the amount or saturation is low, due to capillary pressure. These droplets
may be larger than the actual pore throat size and cannot deform sufficiently enough to pass
through them (the pressure inside the droplet is greater than that imposed by the water). This
proportion of the oil remains behind as the water drive flows passed (still pushing the oil
ahead of the flood front). See Figure 10.15
grain
Water drive oil Pore throat
grain
Figure 10.15 Oil droplets left behind from a water-drive.
If a fluid that is miscible with oil is used, these oil droplets will not form so that, in theory, all
of the oil can be removed through tertiary recovery. In the two examples shown here, a
hydrocarbon solvent, composed principally of butane, was used as the miscible fluid. As is
normal practice, since these fluids are expensive, a slug of solvent is pumped into the
reservoir first, then chased or driven with gas.

Case 8 Identification of a Miscible Flood
In this case, a depleted reservoir had undergone secondary recovery through a water drive. For
further tertiary recovery, the reservoir had been injected a butane-based solvent which was
then driven with gas composed of all light end hydrocarbons.
The well in question was drilled horizontally (Figure 10.16) in order to determine the extent
of the flood bank and identify the fluid contacts (i.e gas-solvent-oil).
Wh
Bh
2
Ch
0
C1
C2
C3
C4’s C5’s
C1/C4
OIL
GAS SOLVENT
TVD PROFILE
Figure 10.16 Miscible Flood identification for Case 8

The Gas/Solvent contact, at 1878m MD, was determined from the following indications: -
 A slight increase in C4’s (and C5’s), over the other hydrocarbons that show very
little change or a slight decrease. This is further illustrated by changes in the various
ratios being calculated.
 A significant drop in the C1/C4 ratio highlights the increase in C4 on entering the
solvent. There are subsequent fluctuations, resulting from channeling in the sand, but
the ratio shows a decreasing trend as the well is drilled laterally.
 Initially, there is little change in the wetness and balance ratios, reflecting the
relatively small change in C4/C5 as compared to the constant level of lighter
hydrocarbons. As the well continues laterally, the curves show a gradual separation
as the C4/C5 content gradually increases from the heavier solvent.
 The character ratio increases from a very steady 0.2-0.25 (indicating gas) to around
0.4. This shows an increase in the proportions of C4’s and C5’s over C3, but with
the value remaining less than 0.5, the character tells us that we are not yet in the oil
bank. Again, some small fluctuations result from channeling, but overall, the value
remains very constant.
The Solvent/Oil contact was determined from the following: -
 All hydrocarbons show a slight increase on entering the oil zone but the significant
increase comes from the heavier hydrocarbons, C3 to C5. This is confirmed by the
associated changes in gas ratios.
 A further drop in the C1/C4 ratio shows the relative increase of C4 on entering the
oil.
 An increase in the character ratio, which by exceeding 0.5, is now indicating oil.
 Divergence of the wetness and balance ratio curves, showing decreasing gravity as
the oil zone is entered
Case 9 Identification of a Miscible Flood
Similar to case 8, to achieve tertiary recovery, a butane based solvent had been injected into a
depleted reservoir and chased by a wet gas. The object of the horizontal well was to determine
the contacts and extent of the miscible flood (Figure 10.17).
In this example, the solvent/oil contact is transitional over a 10m lateral interval (2m vertical
depth) and can be determined from the following information: -

100 Wh
0 Bh
3
Ch
0
C1
C2
C3
C4’s C5’s
TVD PROFILE
SOLVENT
OIL
Figure 10.17 Miscible Flood identification for Case 9
 All gases increase at the start of the transition, but finally entering the oil zone, there
is a further increase in the heavier hydrocarbons (C4 and C5) against no change (C3)
or decrease (C1 and C2) in the lighter hydrocarbons.
 A divergence of the wetness and balance ratios, showing oil, with Wh, being 30 –
35, indicating a medium to low gravity oil
 An increase in the Character ratio, from around 0.5 to 1, illustrating the increased
proportion of heavy hydrocarbons on passing from the solvent into the oil.

10.6 Prediction of Gas Zone Productivity with subsequent DST results
Case 10 Productive Gas Zone
The sand (Figure 10.18) encountered between 1027 and 1039m comprises 3 units separated
by shaly horizons as indicated by the decreases in the ROP and gas levels.
50 m/hr 0 ø 0.001 Chrom Gas % 100 1 Wr/Br 100
Very high Bh
showing dry gas,
gradually
decreasing as zone
is approached
C3 C2 C1
C5 Possible productive
C4’s gas bearing sands
Figure 10.18 Mud log for Case 10
With the high balance and low wetness ratios, it is clear that the gas response of C1 though
C5 is indicating a gas bearing zone, but the question is whether or not it is a productive gas.
The balance ratio is hovering around the 100 value, strictly the dividing point between
productive and non-productive gas.

Looking at the relative changes, the balance ratio above the zone is extremely high, gradually
fallen from over 1000 as C2 and then C3 slowly increasing prior to the zone of interest. The
relative change is therefore considerable.
Looking more closely at the zone of interest, it is actually the shaly intervals, where the gas
levels drop, that give balance ratios of just over the 100 mark. The sand sections are actually
yielding values of around 70-80, certainly a moderately dry but productive gas.
Throughout, the wetness ratio of around 4 to 5 confirms the gas type.
Now looking at the gas ratio plot (Figure 10.19), for the gas response at 1035m, a productive,
moderately dry to wet gas is indicated with poor to reasonably fair permeability.
1000
1035 GAS
NON-PRODUCTIVE DST SAMPLE
100
GAS
10
OIL
NON-PRODUCTIVE
1
C1/C2 C1/C3 C1/C4 C1/C5

Figure 10.19 Gas Ratio Plot for Case 10

The zone was perforated and tested between 1027 and 1039m, to include all 3 sand units. Gas
flowed to surface, with very minor amounts of water and a reservoir pressure of 1421psi
(8.07ppg emw).
A gas sample was collected and tested for composition. The resulting chromatogram and
compositional breakdown is shown in Figure 10.20.
Figure 10.20 Chromatogram for DST gas sample – Case 10
As can be seen, all components C1 to C5 are recorded, although the sample is primarily
methane (80.4% with total hydrocarbons of 84.7%).
This is very similar to the gas response seen when the zone was drilled, with methane being
recorded at 7.08% from a total hydrocarbon value of 7.38%. As can be seen in Figure 10.19,
the gas ratio plot for the DST gas sample is very similar to the plot for 1035m, with the DST
showing a slightly heavier gas.

Case 11 Non-productive gas zone
The zones of interest in this example are the 4 sand units between 1468 and 1488m. Here, the
gas response of C1-C5 is not particularly significant in comparison to the increased ROP. For
example, for the best response at 1473m, the ROP increase is from 12 to 30 m/hr (x 2 ½) with
a corresponding total gas response of 5.485%, 4.593% above the background of 0.892% (x 5).
50 m/hr 0 ø 0.001 Chrom Gas % 100 1 Wr/Br 100
C3
C2
C1
C4’s
Productive Gas ?
Figure 10.21 Mudlog for Case 11
Nevertheless, there is an increase in gas volume and all of the light hydrocarbons are present.
This lead to the zone being tested regardless of subsequent evaluation.
Looking at the wetness and balance ratios, we are dealing with a very similar gas to example
10.6.a, in that the balance ratio of 70-100 is indicating a moderately dry to dry gas.

Looking at the gas curves, there is a very significant increase in both C4’s as compared to the
other heavier hydrocarbons (total C4’s 0.0311% abg, C3 0.0044% abg and total C5’s 0.062%
abg). The interpretation of this can be readily seen on the gas ratio plot (Figure 10.22), in that
the large C4 content over and above C3 produces the negative slope indicative of the presence
of water.
1000
NON-PRODUCTIVE
100
GAS
10
OIL
NON-PRODUCTIVE
1
C1/C2 C1/C3 C1/C4 C1/C5
Figure 10.22 Gas ratio plot for Case 11
A heavier gas is predicted by the ratio plot, but the steep slopes between the ratios are also
suggesting that the zone has low permeability.
So, without a significant gas volume increase and with the indications of water and low
permeability, the advise from the mud loggers was that the zone did not warrant testing.
However, a DST was performed between 1468 and 1493m, showing a pressure of 2129psi
(8.36ppg emw). Flow was difficult to achieve, and although gas initially flowed, it soon
watered out to produce only water. The zone was subsequently abandoned, confirming the
evaluations determined from the gas and ratio data.

10.7 Fracture Identification
The identification of fractures through gas responses is an extremely important application,

since they are very difficult to identify from wireline logs.
There are a number of situations benefiting from the accurate determination of fractures,
including: -
 ‘fracture porosity’ or enhanced permeability for reservoir fluids

 possible production mechanism from source rocks
 geothermal fractures
 well safety in identifying fractures fed by high pressure, low volume gases (such as found
in the foothills of Alberta, Canada).
Total Chromatograph
C1
Total Gas Detector
F
10 minutes
F
F
F
Figure 10.23 Fracture identification from real-time gas response

For exact depth correlation, a continual total gas sensor or high-speed chromatograph is
essential, so that the peak is distinct and accurately correlated to the lagged depth. It is clear,
from section 7.4, that a chromatograph that only samples every few minutes would be of very
little use in such an application. Figure 10.23 illustrates how the 30 second sampling time of
the micro-TCD chromatograph provides a virtually continual real-time gas measurement,
detecting small, closely concentrated fractures much in the same fashion of the continual total
gas recording.
The first step in identifying a fracture is when it is penetrated. It will typically be recognized
by an increased, sometimes erratic penetration rate, and, more obviously, by high and erratic
rotary torque. Typically, the gas increase will be associated with a proportional increase in
the lighter gases, especially methane, with a corresponding change in the gas ratios reflecting
this bias in the movement of light end fluids.
0 min/m 60 Drill Lag 0.001 Chrom Gas % 100 0 Ch 31 100

Depth Depth
Wh Bh
C2 C1
C3
Figure 10.24 Example of fracture gas

In the example shown in Figure 10.24, an increase in the penetration rate (from 24 min/m to
12min/m) while drilling limestone was accompanied by an increase in erratic torque. This
was observed on the drill floor and the mud logger was alerted to the change. The possibility
of a fracture was duly noted on the real-time log.
The resulting gas reached a peak of nearly 10% compared to the background level of 0.1%.
All hydrocarbon components are present, (C4 and C5 levels are below the scale of the chart,
but their presence is confirmed by the fact that a character ratio is calculable) although the
principal composition is methane. The bias towards the light ends is illustrated by the gas
ratios, with wetness ratio falling to close to zero and balance ratio increasing significantly to
over 2000.
A further example of fractures and gas responses is shown in Figure 10.25. This particular
case, shown from real-time data, is one of a series of fractures encountered through
intercalated sands and silts. This clearly shows the high and erratic torque (and resulting effect
on the rotary speed) and increased ROP as the fracture is being penetrated. The degree of
these changes depends on the size of the fracture, it’s orientation to the wellbore and in
particularly, the type of guage infil. The significant gas response is seen one lag time later,
composed essentially of methane with a minor amount of ethane.
A further example of fractures in shown in Figure 10.32. This example is a heavily fractured
quartzite sandstone, which was cored and better illustrates the initial drill-breaks that typically
result when fractures are encountered. In case no core was retrieved, the gas identification of
fractures was critical in order to determine the main zones of concentrated fractures which
would then be ‘frac’d’ in order to test the zone.
As is explained in the text for this example, the gas ratios do show an increase in light ends
with each fracture gas response, but the overall analysis is hampered by a low viscosity mud
system.

RPM
ROP m/hr
Torque ftlbs
Total Gas PPM
Time (minutes)
Figure 10.25 Torque, ROP and gas response from a fracture

10.8 Case 12 Prediction of a Tight, Unproductive Gas Zone
This case illustrates the advantage of chromatographic gas analysis over total gas analysis
when it comes to evaluation shows and determining fluid type and production potential.
The sandstone at 1641m (Figure 10.26) was marked by a drilling break from approximately
12 min/m to 6 min/m (x2). The increase in total hydrocarbons (summed from the
chromatographic components), however, was more than 15-20 times the background level
with a peak of 7.8% over a background of 0.4-0.5%. This certainly shows a significant
increase in gas volume due to increased porosity and/or gas saturation.
0 min/m 20 0.001 Chrom Gas % 100 0 Ch 31 100
Bh Wh
BG 0.4%
Peak 7.8%
Figure 10.26 Dry, unproductive gas zone for Case 12
At first sight, the wellsite geologist considered the zone on the basis of the drilling break and
on the response of the total gas detector, which, as with the chromatographic, was significant.
However, without considering the advice based on the chromatographic data, it was decided
that the zone should be tested.

On investigating the chromatographic gas response, the principle increase is in just the C1
content. There is just a small increase in C2 and C3 and virtually no change in the background
level of C4 and C5 carried by the mud. This is confirmed by the wetness and balance ratios.
Very light, dry, unproductive gas is indicated by the balance ratio being in excess of 200 and
wetness ratio less than ½.
The gas ratio plot (Figure 10.27) confirms this with a C1/C2 ratio of 186 (i.e. greater than 65,
therefore well into the unproductive gas zone) and C1/C3 ratio of close to 600, the steepness
of the slope suggesting low permeability.
It was therefore the mudloggers suggestion that the zone did not warrant testing.
1000
NON-PRODUCTIVE
100
GAS
10
OIL
NON-PRODUCTIVE
C1/C2 C1/C3 C1/C4 C1/C5
Figure 10.27 Prediction of unproductive gas for Case 12
The zone was nevertheless tested at the request of the geologist, with only limited water
production being achieved! This example illustrates the importance of using all available data.
Wet zones can give significant gas responses from the methane content, but this cannot be
determined from a total gas response. If chromatographic data is available, it has to be used,
and in the case of gas zones, it is quite typical that if the heavier components are not evident,
the zone is unlikely to be productive.

10.9 Case 13 Evidence and Effect of Flushing on gas responses and ratios
In this example (Figure 10.28), a case of poor well planning led to permeable sandstones, the
zones of interest, being drilled with a significantly overbalanced mud system. The resultant
flushing meant poor gas responses and the resulting ratio analysis being unreliable.
50 m/hr 0 0.001 Chrom Gas % 100 0 Ch 3 1 100
No flushing
Flushing ?
Flushing ?
Bh Wh
Extreme
Flushing ?
Figure 10.28 Evidence of flushing for example Case 13

A mud density of 1175 kg/m3, with a normal formation pressure gradient of 1035 kg/m3
emw, was used in an attempt to control sloughing shales further up in the borehole (mud
density 9.8ppg over formation pressure 8.6ppg emw). Rather than set casing, isolate the shale
and reduce the mud weight before drilling into the sands, a long hole section was drilled with
the overbalance.
With this degree of overbalance, sands with any permeability are certainly going to be at risk
of flushing and subsequent flushing.
The first two sandstones (2183m and 2190.5m) show a delayed gas response with 2 to 3
metres being drilled before the gas showed a corresponding increase. Initially, if the lag time
is correct, this is a possible indication of flushing, but equally, could be an indication of fluid
or permeability changes at the top of the zone. It is very difficult to be definitive without
further data. Certainly, with the overbalance and assumed permeability, flushing has to be a
possibility and any resulting ratio analysis would have to be viewed with caution.
Another piece of evidence that points to flushing is the type of gas responses with the sands
above and below the zones of interest. Here, the gas responses correlate exactly with the ROP
changes and tops derived from the cuttings. With these sands, we can reasonably assume that
the permeability is lower, or certainly, that there is less or none vertical permeability that
would allow flushing to occur.
With the wetness ratio approaching 70 and balance ratio less than 1, the only conclusion is
one of heavy, probably residual oil being present in the first two sands. This was, in fact,
verified by subsequent testing when only water flowed to surface.
The ratio plots (Figure 10.29) for the two sands confirm these findings, being either side of
the productive/non-productive division and both showing the negative slope between C1/C3
and C1/C4 to indicate water.
The third sandstone unit, at 2199.5m, shows why any ratio analysis performed, when flushing
is evident, has to be viewed with caution.
This sandstone produced exactly the same response from testing, with only water being
produced.
The gas response and ratios, however, suggest that a much lighter oil is present. The gas
response itself is lower, almost a none response, and this alone can give you two possibilities,
that the zone is of no interest or has been subject to more severe flushing.
With lower values and only lighter components being seen from sand 3, the resulting ratio
analysis, with converging wetness and balance curves, suggests a lighter reservoir fluid in
comparison to the first 2 sands.

This is confirmed by the gas ratio plot (Figure 10.29), which actually suggests a fairly high
gravity oil. Not much more can be determined from this plot, since it is only partially
complete. However, in the original research for these ratios, any negative slope generally
results in a non-productive fluid.
1000
NON-PRODUCTIVE
100
GAS
10 3
OIL
2
1 NON-PRODUCTIVE
C1/C2 C1/C3 C1/C4 C1/C5
Figure 10.29 Gas Ratio plots for Case 13
Flushing is concluded here because of the delayed and reduced responses and the various fluid
types being predicted, whereas all zones tested alike with only water being produced.
Determining whether zones have been flushed, on the basis of gas response and ratios alone,
is very difficult. When formation recovery occurs so that wireline logs determine a zone not
seen when drilled, then flushing is very easy to conclude.
If wireline logs are also effected by flushing and subsequent invasion, then there is no data to
work with, unless a zone is tested; but if mud logging and wireline data suggest no zone, why
would it be tested.
In this case, wireline was poor, but the zones were tested on the basis of the first two gas
responses, regardless of the ratio analysis.

Partial
flushing
10.10 Case 14 The Effect of Heavier Oils on Gas Ratio Analysis
Here, the sandstone at 2107m (Figure 10.30) produced a significant gas response of all
hydrocarbons from C1 through C5. This lead to the zone being tested, even though wireline
logs failed to show a zone of any potential.
0 min/m 25 0.001 Chrom Gas % 100 0 Ch 3 1 Br/Wr 100
C1
C1
C1
CG 14.4/0.8/7min
Slow ‘Drop-Off’
showing production
Figure 10.30 Log for Case 14

In addition, the sandstone shows good permeability and pressure support, through production,
indicated by the following: -
 Connection gases at 2108m 14.4% over a background of 0.8%

2137m 9.44% over a background of 0.9%
 Continued feed-in of gas, as shown by the slow drop off of gas levels after
passing through the sand.
These factors, together with the initial response, led to the zone being tested. The zone
produced close to 600bpd of 25 API oil.
However, the separation of the wetness and balance curves suggest, if anything, residual oil,
so on the ratios alone, the evaluation of the zone would have been erroneous. Bear in mind
though, that this zone was tested purely on the chromatographic gas response and would have
been missed by wireline analysis.
The reason for the disparity in the gas ratios is the actual composition of the gas seen.
Although, at API 25, this particular example is not a heavy oil, it shares a quite common
characteristic in that it possesses a relatively low proportion of methane (see also Plates 8.4
and 8.5). This will obviously lead to extremes in the values of any ratios that include C1, as
illustrated by the gas ratio plot (Figure 10.31) where an extra log cycle has had to be included
in order for the plot to be on scale.
In many cases of heavier viscous oils, owing to dis-proportionate values of heavier end gases,
or rather, low methane content, ratio analysis has led to extremes of high wetness and low
balance ratios suggesting residual oil, whereas flow and production has been subsequently
achieved. This is certainly the case here, where the zone was producing at the time of drilling.
Looking closely at the chromatographic gas curves, we can see better what’s happening in this
example.
 Above 2090m, before reaching the first sand, only C1 and C2 are present (as given by
zero Ch) and the balance ratio exceeds the wetness ratio, indicating gas.
 The first sand, at 2091m, gives a good gas response, but notice that there is only a small
increase in C1 when compared to the increases in C2/C3, which are now greater than C1,
and the increases in C4/C5, now only slightly less than the C1.
 The abnormally low C1 generates the extreme values of wetness and balance ratios
(which have crossed over to indicate oil), but notice also, that the character ratio is not

affected, since it only considers C3 to C5. The sand produces a character ratio greater than
0.5, therefore indicating oil.
100
GAS
10
OIL
1
NON-PRODUCTIVE
C1/C2 C1/C3 C1/C4 C1/C5
Figure 10.31 Gas Ratio plot for Case 14
 As drilling proceeded, this sand produces as evidenced by the drop-off character of the
gases. Note that C1 produces preferentially, in that it drops off more slowly than the
heavier gases. Although less than 0.001%, small amounts of C3 to C5 are present, as
evidenced by the character ratio which is now less than 0.5, indicating gas.
 The wetness and balance ratios do converge through this interval, showing the decreasing
density of the composition, but the dis-proportionate amount of heavies to C1 still
produce an erroneous evaluation, in that the curves are still indicating oil.
 The main sand zone follows very similar lines to the first; a good gas response but only a
relatively small increase in C1 compared to the other components, leading to the extreme
wetness and balance but more realistic character ratio, now indicating oil again.
10.11 Case 15 The Effect of Mud Viscosity on Gas Measurements

In this example, a tight quartzite sandstone was cored to identify the location and
concentration of fractures. In case core recovery was poor, chromatographic analysis was also
being used to identify the fractures.
Figure 10.32 shows the location of the fractures through drillbreaks, gas responses and ratio
indication. These were confirmed when the core was recovered to surface.
10 m/hr 0 0.001 Chrom Gas % 1.0 1 Bh/Wh 100 0 Ch 3
nC5 iC5 nC4 iC4 C3 C2 C1
F
F
Figure 10.32 Mud log for Case 15 indicating fractures

As expected, when the fractures are encountered, the gas ratios show a lighter gas response
with clear increases in the balance ratio and decreases in the wetness ratios.
Looking at the ratios, the wetness ratio throughout the sand zone is between 50 and 60 which
would certainly indicate a very low gravity, most likely non-productive, oil. The ratios from
the fracture response (which are going to be biased towards the light end) show values
between 30 and 40, still a low gravity oil.
Fluorescence, from oil seen in the cuttings, was bright yellow indicating a medium gravity
oil.
The zone was subsequently fractured and tested, producing 1500 bpd of 30 API oil
The reason for the discrepancy in the ratio evaluation is one of mud treatment. Due to the
hard, abrasive nature of the sandstone, high torque was of great concern possibly leading to
the core barrel twisting off.
To minimize the risk of this happening, it was decided to reduce the mud viscosity to a
minimum to obtain good lubrication. This was achieved by adding a significant volume of
glycol to the gel polymer mud.
This was immediately recognized as a problem to gas evaluation, but the coring operation was
obviously the greatest concern.
The effect of the low viscosity mud was two fold: -
 Firstly, less retention of light end hydrocarbons at surface. An open flowline only added
to the proportion of light end gases lost to the atmosphere.
 Secondly, increased efficiency of the gas trap, so that a greater proportion of heavier end
hydrocarbons were extracted.
So, at the same time, less light end gas and more heavy end gas was being detected. This can
be seen from the chromatographic curves themselves with the high responses of C3 through to
C5 as compared to the reduced response of C2, but particularly C1.
This is reflected in the wetness and balance and ratios and also in the gas ratio plot shown in
Figure 10.33, where the fractures at 1955 and 1977m are both interpreted as heavy oil and
water.
Note that the character ratio is not effected. The proportions of C3 through to C5 are all
similarly by the increased efficiency and extraction, so that the character ratio is generally just
exceeding 0.5 throughout.

NON-PRODUCTIVE
100
GAS
1955m
10
OIL 1977m
1
NON-PRODUCTIVE
C1/C2 C1/C3 C1/C4 C1/C5
Figure 10.33 Ratio plot for the fractures in Case 15
10.12 Case 16 Determination of Changing Oil Gravity through a Reservoir

In this example, the oil gravity is known to decrease with depth. The contact points, however,
are often difficult to determine from wireline logs due to formation invasion and poor quality
data.
Changing gravity and contact points can clearly be seen from the ratio curves (Figure 10.34).
WET
28 API
15-20 API
8-15
API
Figure 10.34 Api gravity change with depth, Case 16
The zone of interest for this gradational change is between 14540ft and 15490ft, and this
interval is enlarged in Figure 10.35.

Bh Wh C1/C2
Between 14540 and 14547ft, the Wh and Bh
14500fthave crossed and in this region are
curves
diagnostic of the 28 API crude oil. The C1/C2
ratio is 12. This 7m pay zone produces 7500
bpd.
At 14547ft, the curves diverge, with Wh

showing around 18, indicating decreasing
14550ftThe C1/C2 value has decreased to 10.
gravity.
This 26m zone from 14547 to 14573ft contains
crude oil between 15 and 20 API.
At 14573ft, the curves diverge further signifying

the contact point between a further decrease in
gravity. Wh is now 30 and the C1/C2 ratio 5.
The base of the reservoir, from 14573 to 14589ft
14600ft8 API crude oil.
contains
Figure 10.35 Reservoir section

For Case 16
The changing trends of all the ratios clearly show the changing gravity of the oil through this
reservoir section, together with the contact points.
What is further illustrated from this example is the principle of regional ratio calibration.
Here, we have the exact ratio trends and values correlating with known oil gravity for this
particular reservoir. With more data to confirm this correlation, the ratios are effectively
calibrated and can be used with precise accuracy for subsequent wells.
10.13 Case 17 Prediction of the Approach to Depleted Reservoir
This depleted reservoir has historically been subject to lost circulation and to poor wireline
evaluation due to fluid invasion. The gas ratio curves show a subtle change on the approach

to the reservoir enabling the mudweight to be lowered before entering it (Figure 10.36). This
obviously minimizes the risk of lost circulation and formation damage due to invasion, and
allows for subsequent wireline data to be obtained.
The wetness and balance cross over before entering the sand (indicating an imperfect seal)
where they show a sharp separation to indicate a low gravity oil. The gas curves show
excellent correlation with the wireline logs (note gas and resistivity response with the
occurrence of oil).
The reservoir produces an initial 500 bpd, increasing to 2000 bpd after fracture stimulation.
ROP Gamma Resist’ Gas Wh Ch
Bh Approach
Entry
Oil Shows
Figure 10.36 Gas and wireline correlation in a depleted oil reservoir

APPENDIX References
1 Mud Logging Handbook , Alun Whittaker, Prentice-Hall 1991
2 Mud Logging Principles and Interpretations, Exlog, IHRDC 1985
3 Mud Logging, J.G. Bond, IHRDC 1986
4 Petroleum Development Geology, Parke A. Dickey, Pennwell Books 1986
5 Liberated, Produced, Recycled or Contamination?, Richard.F. Mercer, SPWLA 15th

Annual Logging Symposium, June 2-5, 1974
6 Surface Techniques to Measure Oil Concentration while Drilling, Patrick L. Delaune,

Texaco EPTD, SPWLA 33rd Annual Logging Symposium, June 14-17, 1992
7 The Application of Fluorescence Techniques for Mudlogging Analysis of Oil Drilled

with Oil-Based Muds, M.V. Reyes, Texaco EPTD, SPE 25355, 1993
8 A New Quantitative Technique for Surface Gas Measurements, Alan C. Wright, Scott
A. Hanson, Patrick L. Delaune, Texaco EPTD, SPWLA 34 th Annual Logging
Symposium, June 13-16, 1993
9 Interpretation of Hydrocarbon Shows using Light (C1-C5) Hydrocarbon Gases from

Mud Log Data, J.H. Haworth, M. Sellens, A. Whittaker, AAPG V69 No8, August
1985
10 Reservoir Characterization by Analysis of Light Hydrocarbon Shows, J.H. Haworth,

M.P. Sellens, R.L. Gurvis, SPE 12914, 1984
11 Well-Site Formation Evaluation by Analysis of Hydrocarbon Ratios, Gregg H. Ferrie,

B.O. Pixler, Stuart Allen, Petroleum Society of CIM, No 81-32-20, 1981
12 Formation Evaluation by Analysis of Hydrocarbon Ratios, B.O. Pixler, SPE 2254,

1969
13 Estimation of Gas/Oil Ratios and Detection of Unusual Formation Fluids from Mud
Logging Gas Data, Alan C. Wright, Texaco EPTD, SPWLA 37 th Annual Logging
Symposium, June 16-19, 1996
14 Properties of Petroleum Reservoir Fluids, Emil J. Burcik
15 Lange’s Handbook of Chemistry, 14th Edition, John A. Dean, 1992

Gas Analysis Hanbook

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Gas Analysis Hanbook

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Gas Analysis Hanbook

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TM

Written by the Training Department of DATALOG

Datalog, 3030 9th St SE, Calgary, Alberta, Canada T2G 3B9

SECTION 2 HYDROCARBON COMPOSITION AND CLASSIFICATION 9

2.1 Petroleum Composition and Classification...........................................................................9

2.2 Saturated Hydrocarbons or Alkanes....................................................................................10

2.3 Unsaturated Hydrocarbons or Aromatics...........................................................................14

2.4 API Gravity Classification....................................................................................................16

SECTION 3 SAMPLING, DETECTION AND MEASUREMENT 17

3.1 Extracting Gas from the Drilling Fluid...............................................................................17

3.2 Gas Detection and Recording................................................................................................29

3.3 Gas Chromatography.............................................................................................................42

3.4 Units of Measurement............................................................................................................47

SECTION 4 SURFACE GAS EVALUATION 49

4.1 Sources of Gas at Surface......................................................................................................50

4.2 Changes in Phase....................................................................................................................53

4.3 Related Terminology..............................................................................................................63

SECTION 5 ORIGINS OF GAS 65

 DATALOG 1999 Hydrocarbon Evaluation and Interpretation 1

5.1 Classification of Gas Sources................................................................................................65

5.2 Liberated Gas.........................................................................................................................66

5.3 Produced Gas..........................................................................................................................69

5.4 Recycled Gas...........................................................................................................................73

5.5 Contamination Gas.................................................................................................................78

SECTION 6 QUANTITY AND COMPOSITION OF RECORDED GAS 85

6.1 Formation Considerations.....................................................................................................85

6.2 Hole Depth...............................................................................................................................90

6.3 Drilling Considerations..........................................................................................................91

6.4 Fluid Invasion and Flushing................................................................................................103

6.5 Mud Type and Rheology......................................................................................................115

6.6 Surface Considerations........................................................................................................119

SECTION 7 EVALUATION OF LIBERATED AND PRODUCED GAS 129

7.1 Basic Definitions...................................................................................................................129

 DATALOG 1999 Hydrocarbon Evaluation and Interpretation 2

7.2 Background Gas...................................................................................................................129

7.3 Interpretation of Background Gas.....................................................................................137

7.4 Show Evaluation...................................................................................................................140

7.5 Gas Normalization................................................................................................................147

7.6 Evaluation of Produced Gas................................................................................................156

7.7 Connection Gas.....................................................................................................................161

7.8 Trip Gas.................................................................................................................................175

7.9 Kelly Gas...............................................................................................................................186

SECTION 8 CHROMATOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS 193

8.1 Gas Ratio Analysis................................................................................................................193

8.3 Wetness, Balance and Character Ratio Analysis..............................................................205

8.4 Oil Indicator..........................................................................................................................214

8.5 Limitations to Gas Ratio Effectiveness..............................................................................216

SECTION 9 FLUORESCENCE ANALYSIS 225

9.1 Conventional fluorescence as a wellsite evaluation process............................................226

 DATALOG 1999 Hydrocarbon Evaluation and Interpretation 3

9.1.1 Sample Preparation........................................................................................................226

9.2 Quantitative Fluorescence Technique TM............................................................................232

SECTION 10 CASE STUDIES AND APPLICATIONS 239

10.1 Geosteering Horizontal Wells Using Gas Ratio Signatures.............................................241

10.2 Case 5 Establishing Production Potential from Mud Logging Data............................248

10.3 Case 6 Determination of Gas/Oil/Water Contacts........................................................254

10.5 Using Gas Ratios to Identify Miscible Floods...................................................................260

10.6 Prediction of Gas Zone Productivity with subsequent DST results................................264

10.7 Fracture Identification.........................................................................................................269

10.8 Case 12 Prediction of a Tight, Unproductive Gas Zone................................................273