GAS WHILE DRILLING (GWD); A REAL TIME GEOLOGIC AND

RESERVOIR INTERPRETATION TOOL

G.Beda, R.Quagliaroli ENI Agip Div., Milano, Italy;
G.Segalini, B.Barraud, A.Mitchell ELF EP, Pau, France

ABSTRACT

1. INTRODUCTION

The acquisition of gas in mud data while drilling

for geological surveillance and safety is an almost
universal practice. This source of data is only rarely
used for formation evaluation due to the widely
accepted presumption that they are unreliable and
unrepresentative. Recent developments in the mud
logging industry to improve gas data acquisition
and analysis has led to the availability of better
quality data.
Within a joint ELF/ENI-Agip Division research
program, a new interpretation method has been
developed following the comprehensive analysis
and interpretation of gas data from a wide range of
wells covering different types of geological,
petroleum and drilling environments.
The results, validated by correlation and
comparison with other data such as logs, well tests,
PVTs etc, enable us to characterise:
lithological changes
porosity variations and permeability barriers
gas/oil and hydrocarbon/water contacts
vertical changes in fluid over a thick monolayer pay zone
The comparison between surface gas data and PVT
data clearly confirms the consistency between the
gas show and the corresponding reservoir fluid
composition.
The near real time availability, at no extra
acquisition cost, of such data has led to:
the optimisation of future well operations
(logging, testing, ....)
a better integration of while drilling data to the
well evaluation process
a significant improvement both in early
formation evaluation and reservoir studies
especially for the following applications where
traditional log analysis often remains
inconclusive:
very low porosity reservoirs
thin beds
low resistivity pay
light hydrocarbons

The measurement of drilling gas data (gas shows) is

standard practice during the drilling of Exploration
and Development wells.
Continuous gas monitoring sometimes enables us to
indicate, in general terms, the presence of
hydrocarbon bearing intervals but rarely to define
the fluid types (oil, condensate and/or gas, water).
Gas data are at present largely under-utilised
because they are considered unreliable and not fully
representative of the formation fluids.
There are many reasons for this. On the one hand,
poorly established correlations between reservoir
fluids and shows at surface. On the other hand, the
influence on recorded data of numerous parameters
such as formation pressure, mud weight and type,
gas trap position in the shaker ditch, mud out
temperatures, etc. One reason may be the very low
cost of such data, often equated with low value.
At present the analyses performed on gas shows are
generally restricted to the use of Pixler and/or
Geoservices diagrams (or equivalent), Wetness,
2, 4, 5, 7,
Balance, Character and Gas Normalisation.
8

Taking advantage of recent improvements in gas

acquisition technology a new method for the
analysis and interpretation of gas while drilling has
been established. The subsequent characterisation
of the reservoirs and fluids present in the well
demonstrates the major potential of gas shows.
2 METHOD
2.1 Data Acquisition
The measurement of gas shows in the circulating
drilling mud was introduced in the early days of
mud logging (ML) with two objectives. Firstly as a
safety device to indicate well behaviour to drillers
and secondly as an indicator of hydrocarbon
bearing zones.
The ML gas system is composed of three parts:
a "GAS TRAP" to extract gas from the mud
stream situated somewhere between bell nipple
and shaker box (often in the latter)
lines, pumps and filters enabling the transport of
a dry gas sample to the ML unit
a detection system in the ML unit

For many years the formation evaluation aspect was

limited to the combustion of the gas extracted from
the mud using a catalytic filament. This gave what
we all know as TOTAL GAS (TG). An attempt was
made to differentiate hydrocarbon types by
installing two filaments at different voltages
leading to two measurements, TG and
PETROLEUM VAPORS. The latter was equivalent
to TG without the methane content.
This robust, but very qualitative method was
greatly improved by the gradual introduction of gas
chromatographs to the well site enabling the
definition of alkane gas components in the C1 to C5
range in a 5 minute cycle. The door was beginning
to open towards formation fluid characterisation
from gas in mud measurements.
Since the early 70's ML companies and operator's
alike began to look at the potential of gas in mud
analysis. It was quickly understood that the factors
linking gas in mud to the true formation fluid
content were complex. Early attempts at fluid
characterisation could be apparently successful on
one well and completely false on the next due to
differences in the environment of the measurement.
Perturbing aspects included mud type, well balance,
drilling practices, reservoir characteristics but,
above all, the acquisition techniques employed.
In the 80's the introduction on a wide scale by the
ML companies of flame ionisation detectors (FID)
in a new breed of chromatographs led to a
significant improvement in the quality of gas
3
measurements at the wellsite.
These were
followed by the use of FID for the TG measurement
itself. The TG measurement could now be
correlated with the C1-C5 readings from the
chromatograph.
If significant advances had taken place on the
analytical side, little or nothing had been done to
improve the source of sample quality and validity the GAS TRAP. Until very recently the standard
gas traps used by ML companies were, in general,
incapable of producing a comparable gas reading
for an identical formation from well to well.
Interpretation was hazardous due to the instability
of TG and changes in the ratios between the
different C1-C5 components. These variations were
essentially due to problems linked to the mud level
in the trap, the position of the trap, agitator motor
speed and even wind in the atmosphere around the
trap, all producing changes in trap efficiency.
Work carried out by Texaco in the early 90's led to
a significant improvement in basic trap design with
the introduction of the QGM (Quantitative Gas
Measurement) trap which was a major step in
6
reducing the effect of environmental changes. This
was attained by modifying the structure and
components of the standard trap. The QGM trap has
the advantage of being available from all ML
companies. An alternative proposition from
Geoservices was to replace the trap generally

situated in the shaker box by a pumping system

supplying the trap with a constant volume of mud
sucked from a probe situated close in the flowline,
1
to the bell nipple.
The improved efficiency of these traps means that
the gas sample delivered to the ML unit is
increasingly representative of the true gas content
of the mud and therefore of the gas associated with
the formation fluid.
Finally, over the last few years, several ML
companies
have
introduced
fast
gas
chromatographs with improved resolution (C1-C5
in less than one minute), improved C1/C2
separation, and, above all, improved reliability and
repeatability. High speed chromatographs using a
thermal conductivity detector have also appeared
on the market but were not tested within this
project.
The work described here relies on the systematic
use of either a QGM or a constant volume trap
linked to FID Total gas detector and
chromatograph. The results can only be improved
by the use of the above mentioned new generation
of chromatographs. Choice of this kind of
equipment implies a high level of verification,
calibration and quality control.
2.2 Gas data quality control and processing
Before describing the method, we have to stress the
point that the acquisition of good and reliable data
is one of the weak points in our daily geological
activity. Gas data can be significantly affected by
the acquisition environment and it is important,
before any interpretation, that the well site
geologist checks if changes have occurred in the
mud system, in drilling conditions, etc.
Concertation between the company representative
and the ML contractor is important to reduce the
risk of interpretation errors.
This illustrates why the gas data Quality Control
(QC) should be done at the well site where
operational conditions can be fully detailed. It is
often difficult, when the interpretation is done at the
office, to be sure that a change can be linked to a
formation or fluid change and not simply to an
operational artefact.
The
TG/C
vs.
depth
plot
where
C=C1+C2+C3+C4+C5 is the main output used to
verify that the gas acquisition has been correctly
carried out.
With an FID TG detector this ratio will be equal to
1 if only C1 is present. It will be greater than 1 if
the gas show contains heavy components (fig.1).
A more useful output for QC when heavy
components are present is the TG /Ccor vs. depth
plot where the Ccor is the value corrected for the
FID response of the individual components:
Ccor = C1+2xC2+3xC3+4x(i+nC4)+5x(i+nC5)

Reliable data can be qualified as being close to 1

(+/- 20%). Gas data whose value on this plot is
significantly less than 1 is unreliable. In figs. 1 and
2, the interval around 1400 m shows, for both
ratios, a value greater than 1. This can be explained
by the presence of heavy components (C6, C7..)
measured by the TG detector but not recorded by
the chromatograph.
The production test performed in this interval
produced light oil.
The TG/Ccor ratio could therefore also be used as
semi-quantitative heavy gas richness indicator.
In this well the gas acquisition is good
(homogeneous data and values close to 1).
Following QC of the gas data, the next step is to
present the data in a way that facilitates
interpretation. Generally, the ML unit output, even
when it contains several different gas ratio logs,
remains raw data. The method used in this project
consisted in applying techniques often used in
wireline log analysis to gas data. The techniques
include:
eliminating and/or correcting poor quality data
using multiple ratio logs and crossplots in order
to define the most discriminating ratio for a
particular problem
normalising TG to eliminate "environmental"
effects such as drill rate, mud flow and borehole
diameter (NTG)
using "cut-offs" to eliminate shaly or tight
zones
using various techniques to improve the signal
to noise ratio (changing sampling rates,
averages etc.)
Tests on a very large number of wells have led to a
simplified catalogue of ratio logs and crossplots and
their applications (Fig. 3). However this list is by
no means exhaustive and the interpreter should not
hesitate to multiply the different ways of displaying
the data. Using up to date computing techniques
this can be easily obtained from most ML
companies.
3 GAS RATIO LOG AND CROSSPLOT
INTERPRETATION
Following the QC of the data and the preparation of
the various ratio logs and crossplots the processes
of analysis and interpretation can begin. These
processes
should
respect
the
following
"philosophy":
interpret ratios vs depth (their changes, not their
absolute values) along the whole well profile
always cross check results with other ratios and
crossplots
accept no ties with fixed interpretative models
integrate the gas data with all available well
data

maintain a critical approach

A plot of ratios vs depth creates a gas log which can
be directly compared with FEWD and wireline
logs. The other data available from mud logging
such as lithology, drilling rate, calcimetry and
fluorescence are also fundamental to the
interpretation process.
This process can be subdivided into two relatively
distinct steps allowing operators to treat the same
data at two different levels of analysis.
The first, called basic interpretation, should be
essentially performed at the well site in real time to
support well operations.
The second step, advanced interpretation, is
usually carried out in the office where more
information (general studies, regional data) and the
integration with different professionals and
approaches is possible. In addition, lack of time and
operational pressure will often limit the
intervention of well site personnel.
3.1 Basic interpretation
Lithological aspects
The size of a gas show can be directly related to the
rock's porosity, lithology and fluid content. Trend
breaks and gas composition changes and their
evolution, can be, in many cases be related to
lithology changes. The ratios used for this purpose
are mainly the C1/C and TG/C. Other ratios such
as (C4+C5)/C1 and C1/C3 or C2/C3 vs. depth are
also useful for identifying the main changes.
In the fig.4, the arrows on the C1/C ratio log
indicate the main lithology changes which have
been confirmed by wireline log interpretation and
petrographic analysis.
The sharp breaks on the trend, reflecting the
variations of gas composition, are directly related to
lithology changes.
Fluid contacts
Within a reservoir, a sharp change in the ratio
followed by a stabilisation at a significantly
different value generally means the presence of a
possible fluid contact (OWC, GOC, GWC....).
Whether the value is higher or lower than the
previous section will obviously depend on the type
of fluid contact and the ratio used.
To determine if the change is related to a
hydrocarbon/water contact, it is necessary to
integrate the ratio with the evolution of the TG or
NTG (figs. 5 and 6). If the TG/NTG strongly
decreases, it means, in most cases, the passage of a
hydrocarbon/water contact.
Furthermore, fluorescence information will reduce
uncertainties.
Fluid evolution with depth:

The C1/SC ratio log is also used in the examples of

figures 7 and 8 to illustrate how gas shows may or
may not indicate a gradual fluid change within a
reservoir. Figure 7 shows a clear trend indicating a
variation in fluid composition with depth. In fact,
due to the combined effects of pressure;
temperature and gravity (thermogravitational
equilibrium), the fluids in any continuous reservoir
will tend to become heavier with depth. In such a
case the gas information should lead to a specific
fluid sampling programme as one fluid sample will
not be enough to characterise the reservoir fluid.
Figure 8 shows the opposite case where no fluid
evolution is apparent from the C1-C5 components.
The variations observed are strongly dependant on
the type and composition of hydrocarbon present.

Cap rock efficiency:

Figure 9 is an example of the use of gas shows to
indicate the efficiency of a cap rock. In this case the
C1/SC ratio is plotted against depth in an oil
bearing reservoir. A gradual increase in C1 with
respect to the heavier components from the OWC
to the top of the reservoir is observed. This
lightening trend continues roughly 30 m. into the
shaly cap rock indicating that the seal is only partial
in this section. The true cap rock is situated 30 m.
above the reservoir top.
In fig.10 a log of the same ratio from another well
clearly indicates that the cap rock above the
reservoir and the shale separating the two reservoirs
both have satisfactory sealing efficiencies.
Knowledge of cap rock efficiency is only partial at
best and the information procured from gas shows
will lead to a better understanding of the petroleum
system.
Biodegradation:
The ratio of iC5/nC5 is a good indicator of
biodegradation. This ratio is generally superior to 1
for biodegraded oils. Figure 11 shows a sharp
increase in the value of this ratio on entering the
reservoir. Laboratory analysis of the oils confirmed
that they were biodegraded. In this case the
reservoir was one of several over a large interval.
This information would obviously influence both
the test programme and the detailed lab
measurements to be carried out on the fluids.

3.2 Advanced

interpretation

Despite the progress described in this paper in the

domain of gas show analysis, it is still hazardous to
attempt to precisely predict the nature of the
hydrocarbon encountered. One of the main reasons

for this is that gas shows are representative of the

gas associated with the hydrocarbon and not of the
hydrocarbon itself. The gas associated with an oil
may be dry or rich from case to case. Without other
data such as fluorescence or wireline logs
hydrocarbon type prediction remains difficult.
Gas shows do, however, give an excellent image of
the way the fluids change with depth thus allowing
a qualitative evaluation. This data source can be
extremely precious, notably in the case of
multilayered reservoirs.
Following calibration using test or WFT (wireline
formation test) results it may even be possible to
attain a quantitative evaluation.
Well A
The well consists of shaly sand sequence with good
reservoir characteristics. Seven oil bearing zones
have been identified by formation evaluation and
three of them have been successfully tested.
In fig.12 the C1/C ratio shows the presence of C1
only in the upper part suggesting the existence of
good seal above the reservoir (to the depth of
1700).
Furthermore, below this depth the sharp peaks to
the left (decreasing values of C1/C) identify the
presence of heavy alkanes (most likely hydrocarbon
bearing levels).
Figure 13 shows the main lithology changes
confirmed by petrographic and stratigraphic study.
The arrows on the plot indicate the main lithology
changes.
In figs. 14 and 15 the shaly zones have been
eliminated using a cut off on the TG log and only
the hydrocarbon bearing zones are shown. On both
figures the two different ratios show the existence
of two separate trends. The evolution of the upper
three zones could be explained by the variation of
the GOR with depth proved by the two production
tests performed on zones 22 and 8.
In the lower part of the well, only the lowermost
zone has been tested. In this section an evolution of
the GOR can be inferred from the behaviour of the
ratios as shown in fig.16.
The two main intervals show an opposite trend
leading us to think that the oil of the two groups is
different.
In the crossplot in fig. 16, the two main zones are
more clearly differentiated and characterised The
explanation for this behaviour came from
geochemistry which proved the existence of two oil
groups with different degrees of maturity, migration
pathways and migration times.
Figure 16 also shows the C1/C3 vs C2/C3 values
obtained from recombined PVT samples. The PVT
points from zones 22 and 8 overlay the gas show
values of the same zones confirming the validity of
the approach and proving the potential of gas while
drilling for reservoir characterisation.

Well B
The example well crossed a thick deltaic sand-shale
series, identifying more than 50 reservoir levels.
These reservoirs contain dry gas, condensate gas
and oil. Tests were carried out on 5 reservoirs and
cased-hole WFTs on another 5.
From this data only it was clearly impossible to
define the fluid in all the reservoir levels. The
thinness of the reservoirs and the minor changes
from one fluid to another did not allow an approach
to fluid typing using classic well log analysis.
Gas shows proved to be an indispensable asset for
evaluating fluid type and quality as a complement
to the thermodynamic study. Two gas ratios were
selected to enable an initial qualitative
interpretation. After calibration using the test and
WFT results it was possible to attribute a
condensate content to every gas bearing level.
On figure 17 the C1/SC and C2/C3 ratios are shown
for the 51 reservoir levels drilled. The values of
these ratios represent an arithmetic mean of the gas
shows recorded while crossing the level in
question. Comparison of these ratios with the Gas
Oil Ratios (GOR) from the test and WFT results
enabled the definition of three fluid groups:
a first group concerns "dry gas" with C1/SC>90
and C2/C3>3
a second group concerns gas rich in condensate
with C1/SC between 83 and 90 and C2/C3
between 1.5 and 3
the final group identifies the oil layers with
C1/SC<82 and C2/C3<1.5.
Each group has a corresponding GOR:
dry gas > 10,000 m3/m3
condensate rich gas around 4,000 m3/m3
oil around 150 m3/m3
Qualitatively we observe:
the deeper reservoirs (31-51) contain dry gas
with significantly lighter components between
levels 36 and 42
the shallower reservoirs (1-30) are mainly
condensate rich with a few oil levels and a
decrease in condensate content from levels 5 to
10
level 15 is an oil bearing level not identified
from classic wireline log analysis
One of the most important criteria for the
development of this field was a knowledge of the
Gross Heating Value (GHV) and, thus, the
commercial value of the gas. The GHV is
determined by analysis of the gas to be sold and
the GHV of each individual component.
Gas sold is already processed to remove the heavy
constituents and the remaining gas is essentially
made up of C1 to C5. Mud gas shows are also

limited to these 7 components (including iC4 and

iC5). It was therefore decided to try and correlate
the GHV calculated for gas from a processed DST
sample with the GHV calculated from gas shows
(figure 18). This correlation enabled the attribution
of a GHV value to each reservoir and the estimation
of the commercial value of each gas.
Gas while drilling is clearly a rich potential source
of information concerning fluid changes and
quality. Associated with thermodynamic studies, a
quantitative approach to condensate content and
economic value becomes possible.
Well C
Gas shows can be used to identify tight beds which
may behave as potential dynamic barriers during
production.
As a general rule major gas shows indicate fluid
variations and minor shows indicate lithology,
supposing well equilibrium is constant. The
transition from reservoir facies to tight facies or
shale often leads to an increase in the heavier
components of the show. Simultaneous analysis of
two logs against depth ,TG or C1/S(C1 to C5) and
(C4+C5)/S(C1 to C5), enables, within a continuous
reservoir section, the identification of zones
containing little or no hydrocarbons. Barrier
identification can be carried out when the gas show
is no longer characteristic of the fluid. This method
cannot be applied in the water bearing zone of the
field in question because gas behaviour in aquifers
is very similar to that in the tight zones.
Case history:
The case presented corresponds to a development
well on a gas/light oil field with a thick sandy
carbonate reservoir. The study covered several
wells in the same field and the results were
compared with the geological model of the
reservoir.
The method used is qualitative. On the left hand
side of figure 19 the overall fluid evolution with
depth is indicated by a base line on the
C4+C5/S(C1 to C5) ratio log. If this ratio is above
0.03 then the zone is considered to be a barrier
(confidence=100%). Any values significantly to the
right of the baseline but not reaching the defined
cut-off are considered uncertain barriers
(confidence = 50%).
On the right hand side a density-neutron log is
shown for comparison. In the central section of the
figure we represent the permeability barriers from
the gas interpretation, from wireline log porosity
cut-off and barriers proven in the overall reservoir
model. The definition of tight beds from logs was
based on a cut-off of 8% porosity.
On the same figure, on a scale from -100 to +100
bars, we have indicated the difference between

initial reservoir pressure and the MDT results of the

development well in question.

thin bed evaluation

geosteering using gas while drilling

Interpretation and application to the model

Fluid variations
contacts and transition zones
vertical fluid evolution
identification of thermodynamic units
biodegradation

On the whole, a good correlation exists between the

tight beds identified from gas shows and the
permeability barriers defined in the model .
In the upper, gas bearing, section of the reservoir
the porosity log cut-off indicates several potential
barriers whereas gas shows show a reduced number
of uncertain barriers. The overall reservoir model
correlates more closely with the gas shows than
with the log cut-off. Barriers defined from wireline
logs appear, in this gas zone, too pessimistic.
The MDT results illustrate the pressure effects of
the production process, increase in pressure in the
gas zone due to gas injection, and depletion in
certain levels of the oil zone. These results also
clearly indicate where the most important
permeability barriers are situated. Here again gas
show interpretation gives a better overall fit than
classic log interpretation. Even the small change in
depleted pressure at 3870 can be identified.
The gas analysis provided barriers in conformity
with the fluid flow in porous media. These barriers
indicate the reservoir to be less heterogeneous than
the porosity cut-off method suggested. Therefore
the values of the vertical permeabilities should be
reviewed and increased, as the kv used in the model
are deducted from a porosity-permeability
relationship.
A review of the reservoir model following the gas
show interpretation on a large number of wells
throughout the field has led to the suppression of
many barriers indicated by logs in the gas zone and
to the limiting of the extension of certain barriers in
the oil zone.
This example clearly illustrates that gas show
interpretation can make significant contributions to
reservoir model definition and to the understanding
of reservoir behaviour.
4. CONCLUSIONS
The method described in this paper brings together
know-how from a wide variety of disciplines such
as
well
geology,
reservoir
engineering,
thermodynamics, geochemistry and sedimentology.
It enables the definition, for each well studied, of
two well profiles. One reflects lithology variations,
the other fluid variations.
Repeatable applications for the interpretation of
both profiles have been identified.
Lithology variations
cap rock and reservoir quality
tight zones
Low Resistivity Sands

This information, obtained in near real time and at

no extra acquisition cost, enables the optimisation
of future logging and testing programs and will
significantly reduce uncertainties in geologic and
reservoir models.
The data, both raw and as ratios, is easily available
from the wellsite in formats that allow a rapid
integration with wireline logs and other data into
the global interpretation process.
Although major improvements have been made in
the acquisition and interpretation domains there
remain a number of uncertainties linked to the
drilling environment and the effects of dissolution
and adsorption / disorption. Therefore, as is true for
most data acquisition techniques, there is room for
improving the environmental corrections to the
data. As with the great majority of well data, the
gas log cannot be interpreted alone and requires an
integration with all well data available.
However, in many cases, where traditional wireline
log interpretation leaves doubts about the presence
of reservoirs or their fluid content, gas log
interpretation may reduce the uncertainty. This is
particularly true in the case of:
very low porosity reservoirs
thin and multilayer reservoirs
Low Resistivity Pay
light hydrocarbons (especially when associated
with the previous three)
The contribution of gas show interpretation to the
complete reservoir interpretation should lead to a
better estimation of the volume of hydrocarbons in
place.
At any stage in the currently accelerating
Exploration/Production cycle, adding value to the
earliest and most cost-effective data at our disposal
is essential. Gas while drilling is an excellent
candidate to help us do just that.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors wish to thank the management of ELF
EP and ENI-Agip Div., and their different operating
subsidiaries for permission to publish this paper and
the data it contains resulting from a joint research
project into mud gas interpretation. We would also
like to extend our appreciation to Alain Louis , ELF
EP, Carlo Carugo and Dario Manfroi, ENI-Agip
Div, and the other members of the joint ELF/ENI-

Agip "Well Data Acquisitions" project for their

helpful ideas, reviews and encouragement.

REFERENCES
1 - De Pazzis L.L.,Delahaye T.R.,Besson L.J. and
Lombez J.P, New Gas Logging System Improves
Gas Shows Analysis and Interpretation, 1989, SPE
Annual Conference, SPE 19605
2 - Haworth, J.H., Sellens, M. and Whittaker A. ,
Interpretation of Hydrocarbon Shows Using Light
(C1-C5)Hydrocarbon Gases from Mud Log
Data,.1985, AAPG Bull.V.69, No.8, p.1305-1310.
3 - Mercer, R.F., The Use of Flame Ionisation
Detection in Oil Exploration, 1968, 2nd CWLS
Formation Evaluation Symposium.
4 - Pixler, B.O. , Formation Evaluation by Analysis
of Hydrocarbon Ratios, 1968, 43rd Annual Meeting
SPE, Houston, n.2254.
5 - Wright. A.C. , Estimation of Gas/Oil Ratios and
Detection of Unusual Formation Fluids from Mud
Logging Gas Data., 1996, SPWLA 37th Annual
Logging Symposium.

Africa in Operations Geology and Formation

Evaluation.
Grard Segalini is currently a member of ELF EP's
fluid study group in Pau, FRANCE. He is a
graduate reservoir engineer from the ENSPM in
Paris and for several years was an operations
reservoir engineer in ELF's West African
subsidiaries.
Bernard Barraud graduated with prospecting
geologist's diploma from the Henri Loritz School in
Nancy, FRANCE. His career with ELF has covered
periods in wellsite geology, prospect definition and
sedimentology. He is currently applying the
methods described here on behalf of ELF's
operating subsidiaries. He is based in Pau,
FRANCE.
Alan Mitchell is currently senior well geologist in
the well construction technology network of ELF
EP in Pau, FRANCE. After graduating from the
University of Nottingham, UK, he worked for 5
years in mud logging and pore pressure evaluation
before moving to ELF as a well site geologist.
Since obtaining his diploma as an engineer in
geology from the ENSPM in Paris he has been
continuously involved in well geology operations
and know-how development.

6 - Wright A.C.,Hanson S. A. and DeLaune P. L.,

A New Quantitative Technique for Surface Gas
Measurements, 1993, SPWLA 34th Annual
Logging Symposium.
7 - Whittaker, Alun, Mud Logging Handbook,
1991, Prentice Hall
8 - Whittaker A. and Sellens G., Advances in Mud
Logging - 2, Analysis uses alkane ratios from
chromatography, 1987, Oil & Gas Journal, May
18th, pp 42- 49.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Giulio Beda works at present in Surface Logging
Development in ENI-Agip Operations Geology
Department in Italy. After graduating in mining
technology he joined Agip in 1975 where he has
worked in various assignments in operations and
reservoir geology, formation evaluation mainly in
Western and North Africa.
Roberto Quagliaroli is at present Leader for Surface
Logging Development in ENI-Agip Operations
Geology Dpt. in Italy. After graduating in geology
from the University of Parma in 1975 he worked
for Geoservices, Halliburton and Pergemine. He
joined Agip in 1980 where he has worked in
various assignments in North Sea, West and North

TG/Ccor

DEPTH (m)

TG/C

200

200

400

400

600

600

800

800

1000

1000

1200

1200

1400

1400

1600

1600

1800

1800

2000

2000

2200

2200

2400

2400

2600

2600
0

Fig. 1 TG/C vs depth plot

Fig. 2 TG/Ccor vs depth plot

Fig. 3 Typical gas ratio log and crossplot applications

Fig.4 In this example, the arrows indicate the main lithology changes. Good correlations are observed between
the C1/C ratio log and the wire line logs.

Fig. 5 TG vs depth log showing reservoir

boundaries and contacts

Fig.7 Example of fluid evolution with depth within

a mono-layer reservoir

Fig.6 C1/C vs depth with reservoir boundaries and

contacts (same data as fig.6)

Fig. 8 Example with stable C1-C5 composition

throughout the reservoir

10

Fig. 9 Example of poor sealing capacity of the cap

rock

Fig. 10 Example of good sealing capacity of the cap

rock and the interbedded shale
iC5/nC5

1975

2000

DEPTH

2025

2050
RESERVOIR

2075

2100
0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

Fig. 11 Example of biograded oil bearing reservoir

11

WELL A

400

400

600

600

800

800

1000

1000

1200

1200

1400

1400

1600
1800
2000
2200
2400

DEPTH

HYDROCARBON BEARING ZONES

DEPTH

WELL A

1600
1800
2000
2200
2400

2600

2600

2800

2800

10

20

30

40 50
C1/C

60

70

80

90

100

Fig. 12 C1/C ratio vs depth with, the anomalies

indicate the presence of hydrocarbon bearing zones

4
5
TG/ C

10

Fig. 13 TG/C ratio, the arrows indicate the main

lithological changes.

WELL A
1600
PT 3 ZONE 22
OIL
GOR 20 SCF/STB
41.3 API

1700

1800
PT 2

ZONE 8
OIL
GOR 200 SCF/STB
40 API

DEPTH

1900

2000
ZONE 22
ZONE 50
ZONE 8
ZONE 10
ZONE 30
ZONE 60
ZONE M10

2100

2200

2300
PT 1

ZONE 60
OIL 3
GOR 70 SCF/STB
40.8 API

2400

2500
0

4
TG/ C

10

Fig. 15 C1/C ratio, two opposite trends are present

Fig. 14 TG/C ratio vs depth, only the hydrocarbon

bearing zones have been plotted using a cut off on
TG

12

WELL A
2.5

2.0

ZONE 22
ZONE 50
ZONE 8
ZONE 10
ZONE 30
ZONE 60
ZONE M10
ZONE 22 PVT PT 3
ZONE 8 PVT PT 2

C2/C3

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0
0

2.5

7.5

10

12.5

15

17.5

20

22.5

25

C1/C3

Fig. 16 C1/C3 vs C2/C3 plot, a very good correlation has been established between gas shows and PVT data

% C1

Condensate rich gas

C2/C3
C2/C3

Dry gas

94

14

92

12

90

10

88

86

84

82

2
0

80
9 10 11 11 13 15 16 18 19 19 24 31 32 34 35 38 39 41 43 46 49 50 51

10191

11000

12362

11000
12900
10250

148

4500

134

4389

Levels
GOR
(m3/m3)

Fig.17 Multi-layered reservoir evaluation

13

GHV calculated from gas show analysis

MJ/m3
44
(level 14)
43

commercial specification
42
(level 1)

41

(level 35-36)
(level 50)
40

(level 42-43)

39
39

40

41

42

43

44

MJ/m3

GHV calculated from processed DST samples

Fig.18 Gross Heating Value correlations

NOTE THAT FIGS 17 AND 18 MAY BE MODIFIED.

FIG. 19 IS BEING PREPARED.
Fig.19 Comparison between permeability barriers indicated by gas shows and by wireline logs

14