SPE 141840

Challenges of Wireline Formation Testing and Fluid Sampling in Tight, Low

Permeability Gas Reservoirs: Case Study from Saudi Arabia
Felix Abu Omokaro and Nedhal M. Musharfi, Saudi Aramco, Wael Soliman, Marvin Rourke and Mahmoud Eid,
Halliburton

Copyright 2011, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Middle East Oil and Gas Show and Conference held in Manama, Bahrain, 25-28 September 2011.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have not been
reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to
reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
Saudi Aramco’s operations cover a wide range of environments, some of which are multilayer gas
reservoirs, consisting of thinly-laminated shaly sands. Evaluations based on conventional log data often
prove to be inconclusive. Wireline formation testers are routine sources of reservoir pressure and fluid
samples that address uncertainties in these formation evaluations.
In general, low permeability reservoirs pose numerous challenges for obtaining successful pressure
measurements and fluid samples, including supercharging effects and “tight” tests, where no pressure
measurements or samples can be obtained. In some cases, tight reservoir permeability prevents an
adequate and competent mud cake buildup, which can prevent sealing of the conventional rubber probe
type pads. In this paper, the authors share the different approaches employed under some of these
challenging conditions in getting representative pressures and samples. Proper selection of tool
configuration and appropriate pad and packer design were key success factors.
In the paper, we highlight how to use pre-job modeling to improve pressure testing and fluid
sampling. . In our examples, pre-job modeling were done to predict the expected rates and drawdowns.
We used dual ports within the straddle packer testing interval, which permits the segregation of gas and
the filtrate. This allowed the formation fluid to be sampled faster than a single-port packer design or
probe type tool. We also demonstrate how a combination of pad type probes and dual packer helped to
enhance the success rate and reduced our pumping time during sampling.
This paper reviews cases of testing in tight gas reservoirs. It also demonstrates how we improved the
success rate of our pressure testing and sampling by combining modern wireline formation testing
(WFT) functionalities and effective pre-job planning. This approach is helping us meet the challenge of
obtaining representative pressures and fluid samples in low permeability formations.

Introduction
Wireline formation testing (WFT) and sampling tools have been in the industry since the late 1940s. The
early tools were simple devices with a single probe that established formation fluid flow. Multiple
probes, pumps and fluid sensors were added later as the technology was advancing. The numerous
possibilities available today have been discussed at different technical forums. Some of the known
hardware includes multiple probes, dual packers, single and dual ports sampling technique. With all
these options available, having a successful formation pressure and fluid sampling operation is
becoming both art and science.
2 SPE 141840

In this paper, we will show how we used the characteristic features of the current generation of
pressure and sampling tools to enhance our success rate. This includes the ability to modularize the tool
and the ability of the tool to pump reservoir fluids downhole. Another success factor we employed is the
selection of appropriate tool configurations and the choice of probe type in combination with the dual
packer. We also used the dual ports functionality between the straddle packer to segregate immiscible
fluids, such as gas and filtrates. This allows clean formation fluid to be obtained and sampled faster
compared to either a single port packer design or probe type tool. This is a useful feature in tight
reservoirs where flow rates for pumping are generally quite low and cleanup times could be very long.

The Challenges
Formation testing in any tight reservoirs is always challenging, due to the fact that to acquire a
representative reservoir pressure, usually an acceptable mobility of greater than 1 mD/cp is required, and
even more mobility is required in case of sampling, which is not the case in tight reservoirs. In our
operations, we have a number of such challenging conditions where we have combined technique and
available technology to enhance our formation testing and sampling. Following a review of some of the
historical data of pressure testing and fluid sampling in tight gas environments, the need to combine the
modern tool technology and operation technique was discussed and a case study was developed. Two
instances of this case study are presented in this paper. There are a number of factors that were found to
be responsible for the challenges we encountered while testing and sampling in gas reservoirs. Some of
the challenges include, but not limited to the following:

Reservoir Heterogeneity: Pressure testing and sampling in reservoirs with high heterogeneity poses
a high challenge as the reservoir permeability changes within very short intervals, such that taking a
representative pressure and samples with a probe type tool could prove very difficult. The available
option to improve the degree of success with a probe tool is usually to move the tool up or down within
two ft of the desired depth or to use the dual probe type, which will double the chances of success in
finding a sweet spot for a valid test. We have used this method many times in our pressure test job.
Figure 1 demonstrates an example where the WFT moved 1 ft down, and the test result was valid where
the original depth was tight.

Formation Damage (Skin): Experience has shown that most wells have a different average
permeability near the wellbore, compared to the average permeability in the virgin zone. This
permeability alteration is caused by a number of different processes during drilling, completion,
production and stimulation of the well. This phenomenon is generally referred to as “skin” or formation
damage. The commonly known factors responsible for skin are high overbalance and invasion of drilling
fluids during drilling operation. Skin exhibits resistance to flow in the vicinity of the wellbore, which in
turn manifests in very low mobility, during formation testing and sampling, which could result in a
“Tight” test.

Supercharging: In low permeability reservoirs, supercharging often causes an erroneously high-

pressure response in a probe type tool. The dual packer could help to minimize this effect due to its
capacity to pump out a large volume of fluid. The phenomenon is an indication of the influence of the
wellbore on the formation pressure.
In Fig. 2a, supercharge results from radial filtrate flow from the borehole into the formation through
the permeable filter cake. Pressure near the borehole must exceed static formation pressure to
accommodate flow. Figure 2b shows the pressure profile across the borehole, filter cake, and formation.
Where the filter cake has high permeability relative to the formation, pressure next to the borehole is
significantly higher than static formation pressure. Pressure is measured at the borehole wall; therefore,
the static test pressure is higher than the static formation pressure. Supercharge increases with increasing
mud overbalance as well as increasing filter cake permeability.
SPE 141840 3

Pre-test Operation: A typical WFT monitors formation pressures while drawing a sample of fluid
from the formation into a hydraulically sealed chamber (drawdown). After the sample is drawn the
pressure increases and is monitored until it stabilizes (buildup) much like a miniature well test. Ideally,
this buildup lasts several minutes so that many short duration tests can be taken to fully characterize a
zone of interest. A typical pre-test plot shown in Fig. 3; however, when testing tight sands, the buildup
time could take a long time, in the order of an hour. Additionally, tight formations are typically the most
affected by supercharging, with the buildup pressure exceeding the actual formation pressure by a
considerable margin as previously explained.
A simple equation of drawdown mobility is expressed as:

Eqn. 1
∆

This equation describes the interplay of the parameters between the tool and the sand face. For a
known mobility, to minimize the drawdown, we need to keep the flow rate low and increase the probe
radius, and to increase the flow rate and keep the minimum drawdown; we equally need to increase the
probe size. This principle guides the optimization of the probe selection for set parameters.

Case Study
Following our review and past experience in pressure testing and sampling in tight carbonate and shaly
sand reservoirs, it was established that a limitation exists in the use of the conventional pad probe
devices in tight reservoirs. As a result of this limitation with the conventional pad probe types, under this
environment, the decision was made to run a combination of the pad probe and the straddle packer. The
success rate was tremendous, such that we were able to sample at below 0.1 mD/cp as well as obtain
representative fluid gradients.
In this section we shall discuss two examples of how we used job planning and the dual port
sampling technique to achieve success in a situation that would have been impossible.

Dual Port Segregation Technique Theory: In areas of low mobility, heterogeneous, or fractured
reservoirs, straddle packers are often preferable for fluid sampling because, in carbonates, thinly bedded
sands, and naturally fractured reservoirs, fluids can flow from small zones that are difficult to test and
sample with a probe. Using a straddle packer section (SPS), a one meter interval of formation is
hydraulically isolated, which increases the chances of covering small reservoir features. Accounting for
fluid flow from all directions into a one meter length packed off interval, the cross-sectional flow area
ratio between the straddle packer and single probe configuration is approximately 3,000:1. Within the
one meter annulus interval, there are two fluid inlets located approximately 17” apart and denoted as
upper and lower ports. This configuration is advantageous when a density contrast exists between
immiscible reservoir fluids and the filtrate. The denser fluid gravitates to the bottom of the interval and
the lighter fluid floats to the top (Palmer et al., 2009). Consequently, when sampling from only the upper
port, the flow into the tool will favor the lighter fluid and will favor the denser fluid when sampling from
only the lower port. Figure 4 illustrates the SPS dual port type. The sampling case study work presented
here was performed using both ports for clean out and upper port only for clean reservoir fluid with
support from the fluid ID sensors.

Example 1: Well-XYZ1. This well was drilled as a development vertical well with water based mud
and overbalance of ~2,440 psi, Fig. 5. The objective of the job was to obtain representative reservoir
pressure, identify reservoir fluids and determine fluid contacts. Operationally, we were limited to a
maximum test time of five hours at each station to minimize the risk of getting stuck. A pre-job
simulation was done to optimize the usage of the SPS, Fig. 6. All simulation results are tabulated in
Table 1. From the simulation results, it was clear that at the predicted downhole conditions, it was
4 SPE 141840

almost impossible to sample such a reservoir with any other probe than the SPS. Therefore, we ran a tool
configuration comprising the dual probe and the straddle packer. It should be noted that the simulation
above did not take into consideration the utilization of the dual port fluid segregation technique, which
we will discuss in detail.
Using the normal pad type probes, the measured pressures were not representative due to low
mobility. Most of the tested points across the reservoir of interest were affected by either supercharging
due to high overbalance or that the mobility is too low to get any valid formation pressure, Table 2.
Figure 7 shows a summary of the pump out operation at depth xx425 ft. The first gas sign started
breaking through after pumping 33 liters using both ports open (contamination ~ 60%). The SPS was
switched to upper port to check clean formation fluid properties, then the SPS was switched to pump
through the lower port, only to clean out all mud filtrate and to segregate enough gas volume (lighter
phase at the top of the SPS interval volume).
Finally the SPS was switched to the upper port only, to sample a 100% clean gas sample. The total
volume flushed to get such a clean sample was 107 liters in about two hours. After collecting the clean
reservoir fluid sample, the remaining time was utilized for pressure buildup and to perform a MiniDST
to obtain valuable reservoir parameters, such as skin, K, Kh, Pi, etc. The results obtained from the
MiniDST test are summarized in Fig. 8.
This technique was repeated three times, collecting three 100% clean gas samples and one formation
water sample. The result of this WFT and sampling enhanced the reservoir characterization by
conducting a MiniDST with the straddle packer.

Example 2: Well-5B. In this example, the challenge was different, though the objective was similar to
Example 1. The challenges in this well were to collect a representative reservoir fluid sample in a tight
shale sand reservoir, Fig. 9, and to determine the reservoir pressure.
The required operating procedure for WFT is that the tool could remain stationary for not more than
5 hours. Even with the packer type probes, it is still considered a challenge to obtain a fluid sample
within the required time frame since the inflation and deflation sequences for the packers takes about an
hour, thereby leaving us with only 4 hours to meet our objectives.
Pre-job simulation was performed after the preliminary evaluation of the open hole logs. Parameters
from the open hole logs’ evaluation were used in the simulation. The simulation results gave an
indication of the parameters to be used during the sampling operation as well as which probe/technique
to be used, to increase the change of success. The simulation results are tabulated in Table 3 and shown
in Fig. 10.
From the simulation results, it was very obvious that the straddle packer dual port probe type is the
best solution in this well. The simulation results shows a sampling time of ~ 9 hours, excluding the
inflation and deflation time for the packer, which should take another hour.
The dual port segregation technique within the dual packer was employed to minimize the sampling
time to less than 4 hours.
The sampling depth at xx606 ft was tested using the conventional dual probe; the result was tight as
expected.
Figure 11 shows the summary of the pump out operation at a depth of xx606 ft. The first gas sign
started showing up after flushing 35 liters. Three pressure-volume-temperature samples (N2 charged
bottles) were collected. The first bottle was collected after flushing 58 liters, the second bottle after
flushing 72 liters, while the third bottle was filled after pumping out 78 liters. All bottles were collected
from the upper port and lab analysis showed that the three samples of the same quality with only 2%
contamination. The total sampling time was 4¼ hours, including the inflation time.
The sampling operation was followed by pressure buildup for other reservoir parameters
characterization, such as Pi, K, Kh, Kv/Kh, etc. The pressure buildup results are shown in Fig. 12.
SPE 141840 5

Conclusions
• The key to the success of our WFT and sampling operation in these examples is our involvement
in the job planning and the real time monitoring. Unlike most other wireline operations, fluid
testing and sampling requires real time involvement and communication with the tool. This has
been known to improve the success rate of testing and sampling significantly.
• Pre-job modeling allowed for the optimum probe configuration, so that the total time on station
was minimized.
• A combination of a multiple probe tool and dual packers has significantly improved the success
rate in our formation testing and fluid sampling operations.
• The use of the dual port sampling technique with the straddle packer reduced the pump out time
significantly while sampling in tight gas.

Nomenclature
Mdd = Drawdown Mobility, mD/cp.
ΔPdd = Drawdown Pressure (below formation pressure), psi.
q = Flow rate, cc/sec.
τp = Probe flow coefficient.
rp = Probe radius, inches.
C = Drawdown Mobility equation constant.
Pi = Initial reservoir pressure, psi
K = Absolute permeability, mD.
Kv = Vertical permeability, mD.
Kh = Horizontal permeability, mD.

Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank the management teams of Saudi Aramco and Halliburton Energy Services for
granting the permission to develop and publish the content of this paper. We also express our
appreciation to the respective technical review group whose input has helped to produce the final
document.

References
Contreiras, K.D., Van-Dunem, F., Weinheber, P., Gisolf, A. and Rueda, M.: “Improved Techniques for
Acquiring Pressure and Fluid data in a Challenging Offshore Carbonate Environment,” IPTC paper
12108, presented at International Petroleum Conference, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 3-5 December 2008.

El Zefzaf, T., El Fattah, M.A., Proett, M.A., Engelman, B. and Bassiouny, A.: “Formation Testing and
Sampling Using an Oval Pad in Al Hamd Field, Egypt,” SPE paper 102366, presented at the SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, 24-27 September 2006.

Palmer, R., Silva, A., Hajari, A.A., Van Zuilekom, T., Engelman, B. and Rabbat, A.: “Advances in
Sampling Methods Using a New Dual Port Straddle Packer Pump Out Tester in One of Saudi Aramco’s
Oil Fields,” SPE paper 126046, presented at the SPE Saudi Arabia Section Technical Symposium and
Exhibition, al-Khobar, Saudi Arabia, 9-11 May 2009.

Proett, M.A. and Chin, W.C.: “Supercharge Pressure Compensation Using a New Wireline Testing
Method and Newly Developed Early Time Spherical Flow Model,” SPE paper 36524, presented at the
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver, Colorado, 6-9 October 1996.
6 SPE 141840

Smith, C.R., Tracy, G.W. and Farrar, R.L.: Applied Reservoir Engineering II, February 2008.

Weinheber, P., Gisolf, A., Jackson, R.R. and De Santo, I.: “Optimizing Hardware Options for Maximum
Flexibility and Improved Success in Wireline Formation Testing, Sampling and Downhole Fluid
Analysis Operation,” SPE paper 119713, presented at the 32nd Annual SPE Conference, Abuja, Nigeria,
4-6 August 2008.
SPE 141840 7

Test

Depth X909.06 ft X908.04 ft

Mobility 0.048 1.7

Comment Tight test still building up (most likely supercharged) Good test

Test Time 18 min 8 min

Stop Pressure 2,952.5 psi 2,945.2 psi

Fig. 1: Showing the difference between tight test and valid test, although the depth difference between the two points was 1
ft.

Fig. 3: Typical pre-Test operation.

Fig. 2: Supercharging effect.

8 SPE 141840

Fig. 4: SPS dual port type.

Fig. 5: Case study #1 open hole log analysis.

SPE 141840 9

TM
Table 1: Case study #1 RDT job planning input variables and estimated results

TM
Fig. 6: RDT Tester simulation figures for case study #1 showing the comparison between different
probe types at the given reservoir parameters.

Table 2. Pressure/mobility test results

10 SPE 141840

Fig. 7: Plot on the right is showing the pump-out events including the fluid ID maps and results. The plot on the left is showing the fluid density
and resistivity clean out vs. the total flushed out volume and SPS ports positions.

Fig. 8: The MiniDST results from case study #1 at xx425 ft.

SPE 141840 11

Fig. 9: Case study #2 open hole log analysis.

12 SPE 141840

TM
Table 3: Case study #2 RDT job planning input variables and estimated results

TM
Fig. 10: RDT Tester simulation figures for case study #2 showing the comparison between different probe types at the
given reservoir parameters.
SPE 141840 13

Fig. 11: Plot is showing the pump out events including the fluid ID maps and results for case study #2.

Fig. 12: The MiniDST results from case study #2.