Mud-Gas Extractor and Detector Comparison
- Mathew Rowe (Halliburton) | David Muirhead (University of Aberdeen)
- Document ID
- Society of Petroleum Engineers
- SPE Kingdom of Saudi Arabia Annual Technical Symposium and Exhibition, 24-27 April, Dammam, Saudi Arabia
- Publication Date
- Document Type
- Conference Paper
- 2017. Society of Petroleum Engineers
- 3 in the last 30 days
- 146 since 2007
- Show more detail
- View rights & permissions
|SPE Member Price:||USD 9.50|
|SPE Non-Member Price:||USD 28.00|
Although many gas extractors and detectors currently exist, there is no significant comparison between the data quality that they produce. Most advances in mud-gas interpretation and deployable new technologies were driven by service companies' needs to provide operators with the highest standards of data and interpretation while using their most cost-effective systems for mud-gas analysis. This led to rapid growth in the mud logging sector for providing more scientifically rigorous services at the rigsite. Each new method provided a suite of applications and, more importantly, limitations; a comparison study was performed to gather this information.
The comparison study focused on quantitative gas measurement (QGM), constant volume (CV), and constant volume and temperature (CVT) extractors with gas chromatographs (GC) and mass spectrometers (MSs). These systems were compared by operating them simultaneously at the rigsite.
The CVT system with MS outperformed all other systems. The QGM and CV gas extractors lacked the consistency observed in the CVT system, and the QGM and CV extractors failed to consistently extract C3+ components from the drilling fluid. The MS on the QGM and CV systems added limited value resulting from using atmospheric air as the carrier gas and the lack of a constant temperature. Although the installation of the CVT is more costly and time consuming, these issues are offset by the additional information and consistency provided by the CVT.
Comparing the three extraction systems with two different gas detectors helped determine the best solution on a cost and necessary information basis.
With increased costs associated with drilling a well, more accurate geochemical data is expected, which helps reduce drilling costs through optimization of downhole sampling using logging while drilling (LWD) and wireline. To produce this better understanding of the reservoir, the oilfield sciences have developed a broader understanding of gas extraction and detection from drilling fluids. This has led to the development of more complex extraction methods, from the traditional agitated extractor with uncontrolled fluid flow rates and temperatures to complex temperature, pressure, and flow-controlled extraction methods with automated controls. For analytical analysis, the need for more accurate data with greater speciation has driven the development of more complex field-deployable analytical instrumentation, resulting in a shift from a basic total hydrocarbon analyzer to complex MSs. The development of more complex equipment has resulted in increased equipment costs and the need to justify the cost of surface equipment with the replacement of downhole equipment.
|File Size||1 MB||Number of Pages||12|