SPE 64650
Advanced Dual Probe Formation Tester with Transient, Harmonic, and Pulsed
Time-Delay Testing Methods Determines Permeability, Skin, and Anisotropy
Mark A. Proett, SPE, Wilson C. Chin, SPE, and Batakrishna Mandal, SPE, Halliburton Energy Services
Copyright 2000, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE International Oil and Gas Conference
and Exhibition in China held in Beijing, China, 7–10 November 2000.
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, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes 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 where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
Three new pressure-transient testing methods are employed to
determine horizontal and vertical permeability using a dual
probe formation tester. Real-time interpretation during
acquisition of pressure data, is the focus of all three new
pressure-testing techniques. In the first, a new spherical flow
model with anisotropy, storage, and skin is developed from
first principles for dual probe analysis. Historically, pressure
transient solutions are presented as Laplace transforms and
approximated in the time domain using numerical techniques.
Typically, early, intermediate and late time periods are
identified using derivative plots; but very often, the selection
of appropriate data results in confusion. Here, the Laplace
transform is inverted to yield a single, exact, closed form,
analytical, time domain solution valid for all times, making
real-time parameter matching possible with high accuracy.
The second technique uses an oscillatory displacement
source at the piston face, and the phase delay of the pressure
pulse between the probes is used to determine permeability
and anisotropic index. This technique is particularly useful
when the second monitoring probe signal is weak (as in high
permeability zones) or where there is large spacing between
the probes. Pulse timing can usually be detected more
accurately than its magnitude, thus extending the range of
permeability and anisotropic measurements. This
methodology, which is based on a derived relationship
between wave phase and permeability, was developed by
mathematical analogy with resistivity determination methods
used in induction logging.
In the above method, it is often possible to encounter
“phase wrapping” for excessively tight formations, leaving an
indeterminate permeability. To circumvent this problem, in the
third method, a short, abrupt “pulse” having a well-defined
“center frequency” is produced at the piston face, and its travel
time is measured until arrival at the receiver probes. The
harmonic, closed form expression is then used to translate this
travel time to permeability. This new method is analogous to
sonic wave models; although, of course, “waveforms” are
often smeared due to the diffusive nature of the problem.
Simulation results using a detailed finite element, dual
probe model are compared against the above analytical
methods to assess the effects of near wellbore parameters such
as mudcake effectiveness, probe, and packer size. Field-test
results are shown to demonstrate the successful
implementation of these new testing methods. The three
methods described above provide a practical level of
redundancy in permeability prediction. Also, monitoring
permeability and anisotropy changes while sampling are
shown to be beneficial in identifying fluid type changes.
Introduction
Wireline formation testing (WFT) tools were introduced in the
mid-1950’s primarily as sampling tools; but the ability to
measure permeability was also recognized very early. In fact, a
1954 patent filed by Henri-Georges Doll was for a wireline
formation tester using multiple probes to measure permeability
and anisotropy.1 In 1966, Moran and Finklea published one of
the first articles introducing pressure transient models used for
single probe WFT interpretation that also considered
anisotropy.2 The next advance in transient analytical models
considered wellbore or flow-line storage, which can
significantly slow the pressure transient in low permeability
formations. A Laplace space solution for spherical flow that
included flow-line storage was published by Brigham, et al.,
1980.3 In 1985, Joseph and Kederitz published a Laplace
space spherical solution that considered both storage and skin.4
Skin is a measure of wellbore damage that can have a
significant influence on WFT permeability measurements.
With the introduction of multiple probe formation testers in the
early 1990’s, several new models were introduced to
2 M. A. PROETT, W. C. CHIN AND B. MANDAL.
determine formation permeability and anisotropy bringing the
pursuit of using WFTs for formation evaluation full circle.5
Independent models exist for multiple probes, flow-line
storage, and skin damage; but a single comprehensive model
that considers all of these factors would simplify
interpretation. This paper builds on previous work to develop a
comprehensive model. Most of the previous models were
developed as Laplace space solutions, which require numerical
inversion. This requirement makes these solutions awkward to
use and complicates regression analysis. In this paper, a closed
form, analytic solution in the time domain is developed. This
new model is compared with numerical simulations that mimic
the idealized analytical model for verification. Also,
observations are made concerning numerical simulations that
closely match the geometry of a dual probe formation tester.
A new harmonic testing method is developed from first
principles that can be used to determine permeability from a
single probed tool. The solution also enables dual probed tools
to determine anisotropy much like the traditional transient
methods. While most formation testers do not have the
capability of generating sinusoidal waveforms, a pulse test
method demonstrates how the time delay between the pulses
can be used to estimate permeability and anisotropy.
These new testing and interpretation techniques can take
full advantage of new formation tester capabilities recently
deployed. This new tool design is introduced first with a short
description of its functions and capabilities. The dual probe
simulations illustrate how its design parameters were derived
to take full advantage of the newly introduced testing
techniques. And, finally, log examples demonstrate the
applications of the new testing tool.
Reservoir Description Tool
The reservoir description tool (RDT†) is actually a testing
system composed of seven tool sections that can be deployed
in a number of configurations to fit a testing or sampling
requirement. Fig. 1 illustrates the tool sections and their
general specifications and Fig. 2 shows how the tool sections
can be configured for different applications. The power
telemetry section (PTS) conditions power for the RDT tool
sections. Each section has its own process-control system and
can function independently, enabling the RDT to be combined
with other logging systems such as Magnetic Resonant Image
Logging (MRIL†) or High-Resolution Array Induction
(HRAI†) logging systems. The other RDT tool sections have a
common intra-tool flow line to transport fluids to any RDT
tool section.
The hydraulic power section (HPS) converts electrical
power to hydraulic power for the dual probe section (DPS). Up
to two DPSs can be powered by the HPS if needed. Major
components of the DPS include two closely spaced probes
(7.25-in. spacing), setting rams, and a 100-cm3-pretest piston
pump. Each probe has a high-resolution temperature
compensated strain-gauge pressure transducer that can be
† Property of Halliburton Company
SPE 64650
isolated with a shut-in valve to monitor the probe pressures
independently. The pretest piston pump also has a high-
resolution, strain-gauge, pressure transducer that can be
isolated from the intra-tool flow line and probes. A
resistance/capacitance cell is located near the probes to
monitor fluid properties immediately after entering either
probe.
The quartz gauge section (QGS) is normally positioned
directly below the DPS so that it has direct access to the DPS
isolated flow line. The QGS houses the Halliburton Memory
Recorder (HMR†) quartz gauge carrier used extensively in
well test applications. This quartz gauge was the first to have
the pressure resonator, temperature compensation, and
reference crystals packaged as a single unit with each adjacent
crystal in direct contact. The complete assembly (pressure
crystal, temperature sensor, and reference crystal) is very
small; about, 2.25-in. (5.06 cm) long and 0.75-in. (1.69 cm)
diameter. The gauge carrier has a small, 1.27-in. (3.80-cm)
outside diameter (OD) pressure housing that directly contacts
the borehole fluids. Thermal stabilization time is minimized
because of the carrier’s small thermal mass. Though the
gauges are temperature compensated, it is still desirable to
reach thermal stabilization as quickly as possible to maximize
resolution and accuracy.
More than one QGS can be run for redundancy or for
additional fluid measurement applications. The HMR quartz
gauge is available in 17,000-psi and 20,000-psi, 350OF
versions and is calibrated from atmospheric pressure (14.7 psi)
to its maximum rating.
The flow-control pump-out section (FPS) contains the
same type of electro-hydraulic motor as the HPS; but it is
housed in a section with the double acting piston pump. Two
high-resolution, strain-gauge pressure transducers measure the
inlet and outlet pump pressures. The FPS can pump over
1.0 gal/min at 500 psi with a maximum 4,000-psi pressure
differential. This system has more than a 50% greater pumping
capacity than earlier systems over its entire operating range
(0.63 gal/min is typical). The double-acting piston can be
easily changed and replaced with a unit that has twice the
hydraulic ratio with an 8,000-psi potential and 0.5 gal/min
maximum flow rate. This higher capacity enables sampling in
highly overbalanced conditions (> 4,000 psi) typically
encountered in depleted zones. Flow line fluids can be pumped
either up or down (up-down mode) with all of the flow line
fluid being directed through the pump.
Both the multi-chamber section (MCS) and the chamber
valve section (CVS) contain expulsion ports. The expulsion
ports are positioned so the sampled fluid must pass the
chamber valves before exiting into the wellbore. This passage
eliminates stagnant flowline fluids so that they do not
contaminate new samples. The chamber valves are motor
driven and can be operated while the FPS is pumping. The
MCS has three 1,000-cm3 chambers in each section and
multiple MCS sections can be configured in the RDT string.
The 1,000-cm3 chambers can be detached immediately after
SPE 64650 ADVANCED DUAL PROBE FORMATION TESTER WITH TRANSIENT, HARMONIC AND PULSED TIME-DELAY TESTING METHODS 3

they pass the rotary table. The CVS is used in conjunction with the skin effect under consideration arises from mudcake or
two standard 1- to 5- gallon sample chambers currently in invasion damage, and also, that the permeability of the skin is
service for existing testers. The Zero Shock† sampling mode is much less than that of the formation. When these assumptions
standard for all chambers, but conventional sampling modes apply, formation properties affect skin or cake growth only
can also be used (atmospheric and fluid cushioned). minutely; that is, the permeability of the formation, despite its
anisotropic character, can be neglected in determining
Anisotropic Spherical Flow with Storage and Skin mudcake growth or in characterizing skin.
In the conventional well test literature, the use of skin Thus, the cake does not “see” the formation, even when kz
originated from the heat transfer “contact resistance” concept and kr are very different. It is therefore appropriate to assume a
used by Carslaw and Jaeger6 and was introduced to well skin permeability ks that is isotropic in nature, even when the
testing by Ramey7 using models similar to underlying formation is anisotropic. We consistently assume a
∂P skin thickness δ that is uniform already; again, since rock
Ps = P − Srs ................................................................. (1) properties are unimportant to leading order, there is no reason
∂r
for δ not to be anything but constant around the ellipsoidal
where rs is the source radius and S is a dimensionless skin skin-to-formation interface shown in Fig. 4.
coefficient. Simply stated, the wellbore pressure (referred to in We now generalize the approach used in deriving
this paper as the source pressure Ps) is reduced or increased “Ps=P-Srs∂p/∂r.” Within our layer of thin skin, the total
from the reservoir pressure P near the surface of the wellbore volume flow rate through the ellipsoidal surface interface can
sandface by a constant Srs times the sandface flowrate ∂P/∂r. be represented as the product of the normal Darcy velocity
This is formally stated in Eq. 1 and has become the standard “ (ks /µ) {(P-Ps )/δ} ” and the total surface area “ σ.” This
skin definition used in the development of well test analysis volume flow rate must be equal to the total integral of normal
techniques.8 velocity “q • n” over dS taken in the formation, where dS
In Fig. 3, a thin skin layer of thickness δ is shown to the represents an incremental surface area of σ.
left of the sand formation. The flow velocity through this layer,
per Darcy’s law, is simply (ks /µ)(P - Ps )/δ, where ks is the k s  p − ps 
 σ = ∫σ q • n dS ............................................. ( 4)
permeability of the skin layer; this must be equal to the fluid µ δ 
velocity (kf /µ)∂P/∂r obtained in the adjacent formation.
The integral in Eq. 4 was computed earlier.10 We found
Equating the two expressions shows that
that the right side of Eq. 4 is the volume flow rate, or Q ,
k f ∂P
Ps = P − δ ............................................................. (2) taken through the ellipsoidal surface
k s ∂r
rs2  ∂p 
Q (t ) = ∫ q • n dS = 4π
kz kr
µ   ......................... (5)
Hence, we may write Eq. 1 where S is identically σ kf  ∂r  s
δ kf where
S= .......................................................................... (3)
rs k s
k f = 3 k r2 k z ....................................................................... (6)
The foregoing derivation is useful for two reasons. First, it
provides a direct relationship connecting S to skin thickness
δ and damaged zone permeability ks. Second, it states that x2 y2 z2
r = kf + + .................................................. (7)
Ps=P-Srs(∂P/∂r) is much, much more than an empirical kr kr k z
phenomenological model describing skin effects, with an
assumed dependence on spatial derivative because it actually
x s2 y s2 z s2
appears as the consequence of mass conservation. The rs = k f + + ................................................ (8)
underlying principle can, in effect, be extended to handle more kr kr k z
complicated problems.
We will consider the general problem for anisotropic that is,
spherical flow with flowline storage and formation skin k s  p − ps  2 k f  ∂p 
effects. We will describe how exact, closed form, analytical  σ = 4πrs   ...................................... (9)
µ δ  µ  ∂r  s
solutions can be obtained, building on the mathematical
foundation developed earlier. In order to develop the model, Thus, we obtain
we will first extend the skin model described to include
multidimensional anisotropic flows. 4πrs2δ k f  ∂p 
ps = p −   ............................................ (10)
σ k s  ∂r  rs
Skin Model in Anisotropic Media. Before we proceed, let
us state the underlying physical assumptions. We assume that
4 M. A. PROETT, W. C. CHIN AND B. MANDAL. SPE 64650

which generalizes the pw= p−(δkr /ks )∂p/∂r obtained for linear into a spherically symmetric form.10 If the same scalings are
isotropic flows. Now, recall that in earlier work, near field applied to Eq. 17, we straightforwardly obtain
boundary conditions were applied on the surface of the
ellipsoidal source defined in Eq. 8.10 Closed form expressions ∂ 2 pd 2 ∂p d ∂p
+ = d ................................................ (18)
for the surface area σ used in Eq. 10 are available in the ∂rd2 rd ∂rd ∂t d
mathematics reference literature and depend on the relative
values of vertical and horizontal permeabilities. p( r → ∞ ,t )= 0 ........................................................... (19)
If, as in the usual case, the permeabilities satisfy kr > kz , so
that the ellipsoid represents an oblate spheroid, it can be p(r,0) = 0 ...................................................................... (20)
shown that
σ = 4πrs2ζ ....................................................................... (11) ∂p d ∂p ∂ 2 pd
- c d d + S d cd = F (t d ) ............................... (21)
∂rd ∂t d ∂t d ∂rd
where
The desired simplification is obtained by introducing the
1 1 λ 1+ 1− λ  following dimensionless variables
ζ =3  + ln   .......................... (12)
λ  2 4 1 − λ  1 − 1 − λ 
 kf
r x2 y2 z2
rd = = + + .................................... (22)
rs rs kr k r k z
kz
λ= .............................................................................. (13)
kr
t kf
td = ................................................................ (23)
On the other hand, if the permeabilities satisfy kz > kr , so φcrs2 µ
that the ellipsoid represents a prolate spheroid, it can be shown
that
 4π rs k f 
pd =   ( p(r , t ) − Po ) ..................................... (24)

1  1 λ arcsin( 1 − 1 / λ )   Qo µ 
ζ = 
+

.............................. (14)
3
λ 2 2 1 −1/ λ 
1 VC
In the limit kr → kz , the dimensionless quantities (1-λ) and cd = .............................................................. (25)
4π φ rs3c
(1-1/λ) approach zero, use of L’Hospital’s Rule shows that the
areas in Eqs. 12 and 14 reduce to 1 making Eq. 11 equal to the
S
surface area of a sphere 4πrs2 anticipated for isotropic flows. Sd = ......................................................................... (26)
ζ
General boundary value problem formulation. If we now The above formulation for anisotropic flow with storage
return to earlier work and review the basic formulation, it is and skin is now identical to the formulation for isotropic flow
clear that only one boundary condition change is required to with storage and skin considered earlier.11 The solution to the
model skin.11 If we rewrite the boundary condition in the form boundary value problem for Eqs. A-18 through A-28 and is
k f  ∂p  presented as a closed form in Appendix A (see Eqs. A-11
∂p
4πrs2   − VC = Q0 F (t ) ................................ (15) through A-15).
µ  ∂r  s ∂t

it is clear that ∂p/∂t must be replaced by ∂ps /∂t, in order to Dual Probe Anisotropy Solution. Consider a dual probe
differentiate between the pressure inside the sandface and that formation tester with a source probe and a vertical probe. The
in the well. Doing so, we obtained the extended law source-probe transient pressure can be determined using
Eqs. 22, 24 and A-15:
k f  ∂p  ∂p
4πrs2   − VC s = Q0 F (t ) .............................. (16)  (1 + S d ) µ Qo τ s  p ds (c d , S d , t d ) 
µ  ∂r  s ∂r ( )
∆Pp r p , t = 
 k 4π r

 (1 + S d ) 
........ (27)
 f p 
Combining Equations 3, 10, 11 and 16, we obtain
The geometric shape factor τs is introduced to make
k f  ∂p   ∂p S ∂ 2 p  corrections to the source radius rs when compared to detailed
4πrs2   − VC  + rs = Q0 F (t )
µ  ∂r  s  ∂t ζ ∂t∂r  finite element analysis shown in the next section. The physical
source is actually a disk area on the side of a cylindrical
.................................................................................. (17)
borehole. Finite element analysis, shown in the next section,
In previous work dimensionless variables were used to demonstrates that even with these geometric changes in the
transform the anisotropic Cartesian boundary value equations source, the flow regime quickly transforms the spherical or
elliptical shape and can be accurately described using Eq. 27.
SPE 64650 ADVANCED DUAL PROBE FORMATION TESTER WITH TRANSIENT, HARMONIC AND PULSED TIME-DELAY TESTING METHODS
The vertical probe is located along the z axis where x=0,
y=0 and the dimensionless rd can determined using Eqs. 6
and 22:
1 movement induces Darcy flow and creates pressure pulses that
r z kf z  kr 3
rdz = = =   ........................................ (28)
rs rs kz rs  kz  pressure wave resulting from Darcy flow, there is a time delay
The vertical probe pressure transient is determined by
combining Eqs. 24, 28 and A-11:
Q τ µ 
∆Pz (z , t ) =  o z {rdz pd (rdz , cd , S d , t d )} ......................... (29)
 4π z k r 
By taking the ratio of Eqs. 29 and 27, the anisotropy can be
determined:
{ }
3
k z  (1 + S d )∆Pz τ s z  3 previous publications for isotropic spherical flow.10, 13 In this
λ= =   (1+ S )prds p(c d (,rS d,,ct d ,)S , t )
kr  ∆Ps τ z rs  d d dz d d d d
.................................................................................. (30)
In Eqs. 27, 29 and 30, the left-hand brackets contain the
steady-state response (i.e., t → ∞) and the right hand brackets
contain the transient response. It is significant to note that the
steady-state horizontal permeability measured from the
vertical probe is not affected by skin while the spherical,
vertical permeability and anisotropy are.
Numerical Simulation Verifications. A detailed finite
element model was developed that closely resembles the
elliptical model shown in Fig. 4. The results of these
simulations are shown in Fig. 5 along with the analytical
solution. The top set of curves (red and blue) are for the source
pd (i.e., rd=1) transients. The red curves are for an isotropic
formation with a skin of 0 and 9. Notice that the steady-state pd
for a skin of 0 is 1.0 while a skin of 9 increases the steady-state
pd to 10. These red curves represent previously published
solutions and the new solutions with anisotropy varying from
0.1 to 0.001 are shown with the blue curves. The anisotropy
curves tend to approach the isotropic curve as the anisotropy
increases (i.e., smaller kz/kr). In fact, the skin effects are
reduced with smaller values of anisotropy.
The curves shown near the bottom of Fig. 5 (brown and
green curves) are for a second location in the model where
rd=10 that is similar to the distance between probes in a dual
probe formation tester. Again, the curves with a skin of 0 and
9 border the curves with anisotropy. Also, increased
anisotropy (i.e., smaller kz/kr) reduces the skin effect.
Corresponding derivative curves are shown in Fig. 6 for
the simulations and analytic solution. The derivative curves
show similar characteristics where anisotropy tends to reduce
the skin effect. Another significant observation from Figs. 5
and 6 is the delay in time of the source pressure curves from
the monitoring curves. This observation suggests that the time
delay between the source and sink probes can be used for
interpretation. This technique is developed in the next section.
5
Harmonic and Pressure-Pulse Time-Delay Testing
Sinusoidal displacements can be generated using the DPS
or FPS pistons at low frequencies (i.e., 0.1-10 Hz). This
propagate into the formation. Considering the diffusive
∆ts between the source signal (piston displacement) and the
pressure pulse generated at a source radius rs. As this pressure
wave expands from the source into the formation, a second
time delay can be measured in the formation at a distance r
from the source. The vertical probe can be used to make this
measurement.
Dual Probe Anisotropy Solution. The basic relationships
for the amplitude and time delays have been developed in
paper, Appendix B develops the basic Darcy flow equations
for harmonic pulse testing considering anisotropic flow with
storage from first principles (see Eqs. B-19 through B-26).
This time delay between the source pulse and receiver
pulse can be used to determine vertical permeability using Eq.
B-24 in the Appendix B.
( ) ...................................................... (31)
µφcf r 2
kz = z − τs
4π∆t z2 s
Additionally, the source pulse is delayed in time from the
displacement of the pump piston. This time delay ∆ts can be
used to determine the spherical permeability using Eq. B-20.
( )
2
rs2 µφcπf 2 2V tan( 2π∆t s ) 
kf = 1−
tan( 2π∆t s ) 
1
1+ − 1
τ s2 4 rs3φπ (tan( 2π∆t s ) −1) 2

.............................................................................. (32)
Numerical Simulation Verifications. The detailed finite
element model was used to simulate the harmonic pressure
testing method. The results are shown in Fig. 7 for a 100-md
formation with 1.0, 0.1, and 0.01 kz/kr anisotropies. The
vertical probe is located 10 cm above the origin of the 1-cm
source probe. Waveforms are normalized in amplitude so the
phase-time delay is emphasized. Notice that the source piston
has a triangular shape that approximates a sine wave and the
source pressure wave is delayed in time by ts=0.101 sec, a time
delay that can be verified using Eq. B-20. The time delays
from this source pulse to the vertical probe waves are 0.031,
0.070 and 0.155 sec. for the 1.0, 0.1, and 0.01 kz/kr anisotropy
examples. These vertical probe time delays can be verified
using Eq. B-24.
Using the pulse delay-time can be more accurate than using
the amplitude ratio measurement because periodic time
changes can be determined even when the signal is noisy. The
signal-to-noise ratio increases with a reduced vertical-probe
pressure differential. Therefore, it is possible to extend the
range of permeability estimates with this method by employing
standard signal-processing techniques.
6 M. A. PROETT, W. C. CHIN AND B. MANDAL.
Dual-probe, Finite-Element Simulations
A Near-Wellbore, Finite-Element Simulator (NEWS†) for a
dual-probe version of NEWS was recently introduced. This
new version of NEWS uses a spherical grid to map the critical
areas, with nodal points spanning the boundary of the probe
and packer element.10 For example, both probes are mapped
with six external nodal points per quadrant. The full mesh can
extend up to 1,000 wellbore diameters or 106 times the size of
the smallest node spacing. A small version of the NEWS mesh
is shown in Fig. 8 with the location of the dual-probes
highlighted in a white box and enlarged.
Dual -Probe, Pressure -Tranisent Simulations. Pressure-
test simulations have been performed over a wide range of
operating conditions to verify Eqs. 27 through 30. In
particular, the sensitivity the skin has on the vertical probe
measurement of horizontal permeability was studied. As
expected, when the skin layer was relatively small (i.e.,
δ=1cm) the model predicts the simulated behavior quite
closely. When the skin layer is increased to one wellbore
diameter (i.e., δ=10cm) the results still closely match the
analytic model over a broad range. The greatest divergence
occurs for the isotropic case while increased anisotropy (i.e.,
smaller kz / kr) closely matches the model even for this
relatively thick skin case. Fortunately, filter cake damage
depends primarily on the filtrate solids invasion depth. Recent
experimental studies show that typical solid invasion depths
are less than 1 inch.14
Flow-control, Pump-out Simulation. Fig. 9 shows a
simulated pump-out sequence that has the same formation
properties as the previous pressure-test simulation. This pretest
establishes hydraulic communication with both probes, and
spherical permeability is determined using the steady-state
components of Eq. 27 without skin. The pressure contours
near the probe are shown on the left side of Fig. 10. One probe
is used in the pumping sequence so that horizontal and
spherical permeability and anisotropy can be monitored
throughout the pumping sequence using Eqs. 29 and 30 above.
The pressure differential is determined from the difference
between formation pressure measured at the start of the
sequence and the pumping pressure. Real-time pressures and
flow rates are measured every 0.25 seconds and used to update
the permeability calculations.
Pressure Pulsed Time-Delay Analysis. A convenient
method of employing the harmonic analysis testing technique
in the RDT is to analyze the pressure pulses generated while
pumping a sample. At the end of each pump stroke, the pump
reverses direction, which results in pressure pulses and spikes
in the permeability curves. The pulses are sharp because of the
fast turnaround times of the pump piston.
A single pump pulse is shown in a plot insert on Fig. 9 with
the pressure-pulse magnitudes normalized on two scales. Fig. 9
shows that a 1,873-psi pumping differential is returned within
SPE 64650
311 psi of formation pressure with each pump reversal creating
a 1,562-psi pressure pulse. The pressure of the second probe
has a 28 psi pressure differential that pulses 18-psi when the
pump reverses. The pump stroke reversals cause interruptions
in the flow rate, creating the pressure pulse. As shown in
Fig. 9, the pump rate is slowed to a stop and increased again
during a 0.5 second interval.
While the frequency of the pump pulse is 1 Hz, the source
probe and vertical probe pulse frequencies tend to smear to a
lower frequency of about 0.7 Hz. The time delay of ∆ts=0.72
seconds shown in Fig. 9 corresponds to a spherical
permeability of 46 md using Eq. B-20 in Appendix B.
Note that the vertical probe pressure pulse is delayed in
time from the sink-probe pressure pulse (i.e., ∆tv=0.11 sec).
Using Eq. B-24, this time delay corresponds to a permeability
of 10 md at 0.7 Hz, which matches the vertical permeability of
the simulation.
Field-Test Log Examples
Commercial field-testing of the RDT started in south Texas
and the Gulf of Mexico coastal regions. The following
examples were taken from the initial logging runs.
Flow-Control Pump-Out. The pump-out example shown
in Fig. 11 was performed by flowing through two probes to
reduce the sandface flow rate. Two pretests were performed at
2 cm3/s in order to establish hydraulic communication. A
moderate formation mobility of 80-100 md is shown on the
real-time mobility log during the pretest buildups.
A bubble-point test procedure was conducted. Here, a
pretest chamber isolates the flow line fluid while a 0.1 cm3/s
pretest piston rate was maintained. From the PVT plot slope
change, a 255-psi bubble-point was measured. The pumpout
flow rate was started at 10 cm3/s. The rate was increased to 15
and 20 cm3/s, and associated flow rates were varied from 10 to
20 cm3/s (0.32 gal/min) for 10 minutes. Throughout the
pumping sequence, there was a gradual increase in mobility
from 120 to 140 md/cp.
Results showed that the fluid resistivity changed from 0.50
ohm-m to 0.25 ohm-m. This reduction indicated a change in
fluid type.
Both the mobility and resistivity eventually stabilized
indicating that skin area around the wellbore had cleaned up. A
fluid sample was then taken by pumping into a 1,000-cm3
sample chamber. When the sample chamber was filled,
pressure on the sample was increased to 500 psi over
hydrostatic before the chamber valve was closed. Then, the
sample was recovered under pressure to the surface, where the
near-in situ characteristics of the formation fluid could be fully
evaluated.
Dual-Probe Anisotropy with Skin. Two pressure pulses
are shown from a pressure test sequence in Fig. 12. The first
pulse was created with two probes, and the second was
performed through one probe. On the first pressure test, the
SPE 64650 ADVANCED DUAL PROBE FORMATION TESTER WITH TRANSIENT, HARMONIC AND PULSED TIME-DELAY TESTING METHODS 7

flow rate was maintained at 2 cm3/s, and the pressure tended to Nomenclature
increase as the drawdown progressed. The increase suggests σ = incremental surface area of an ellipse (cm3)
that the formation was cleaning up during the test. On the c =total compressibility (1/psi)
second pressure test, the flow rate was increased to 4 cm3/s; C =storage compressibility (1/psi)
and the second probe was used to determine horizontal f =pulse frequency (Hz)
permeability and anisotropy using Eqs. 29 and 30 assuming a ks =skin permeability (md)
skin of S=0. As shown in the permeability plots in Fig. 12, the kf =formation spherical permeability (md)
first and second pressure tests yield the same spherical kz =vertical permeability (md)
permeability using Eq. 27 (kf=33 md). The horizontal kr =horizontal permeability (md)
permeability and anisotropy show variability from slight z =vertical probe spacing length (cm)
changes in the vertical probe’s buildup pressure but stabilize at p = pressure (psi)
the end of the drawdown (kr=57 md, λ = 0.2). Notice that the pd =dimensionless pressure
vertical probe experienced a 9-psi pressure drop compared to a P(t) =measured pressure (psi)
318-psi drop at the sink probe. Pi =initial formation pressure (psi)
A plot insert in Fig. 12 shows a FasTest derivative plot ∆Pp =probe pressure differential (psi)
curve fit that determined a skin of 0.7. Using this skin value in ∆Pz =vertical probe pressure differential (psi)
Eqs. 29 and 30, the spherical permeability and anisotropy are Q(t) =volume flow rate (cm3/s)
corrected to kf=56 md and λ = 0.95 respectively. Qo =drawdown flow rate (cm3/s)
r =spherical coordinate(cm)
Conclusions rd =dimensionless radius
A new, multi-probe wireline formation testing system has rs =spherical source radius (cm)
been introduced. This system provides improved pressure rs1 =source 1 probe radius (cm)
testing and sampling capability through its use of a digital rs2 =source 2 probe radius (cm)
control feedback system. S =storage constant
A new spherical, anisotropic flow model with storage and Sd =dimensionless storage constant
skin has been developed from first principles for the analysis t = time (sec)
of data obtained from a multi-probe formation tester. td =dimensionless time
Real-time, spherical and horizontal permeability and V =storage volume (cm3)
anisotropy analysis and monitoring are possible with this ∆tPhase =pulse time delay (s)
mathematical model. αPhase =phase angle (radians)
This new model shows that the horizontal permeability is x,y,z =Cartesian coordinates (cm)
determined primarily from the vertical probe steady-state µ =formation fluid viscosity (cp)
pressure drop (i.e., t→∞) during a drawdown, and this result is φ =formation porosity
independent of skin. λ =anisotropy (kz/kr)
Conversely, skin reduces the sandface pressure at the sink τs =source probe geometric shape factor
probe and is needed to correct the spherical permeability and τz =vertical probe geometric shape factor
anisotropy estimates. This reduction in sandface pressure also
limits the pressure differential at the vertical probe, References
particularly with increased anisotropy (i.e., kz / kr < 1.0) or 1. Doll, Henri-Georges: “Methods and Apparatus for Determining
increased probe spacing. Hydraulic Characteristics of Formations Traversed by a
A new pressure-pulse test analysis technique has also been Borehole,” U.S. Patent No. 2,747,401 (29 May 1956).
introduced. It has the potential to extend the range of real-time 2. Moran, J. H., and Finklea, E. E.: “Theoretical Analysis of
formation evaluation options. By using time delays between Pressure Phenomena Associated with the Wireline Formation
pressure pulses, anisotropy, horizontal permeability and Tester,” presented at the 36th Annual Fall Meeting of SPE, Oct,
vertical permeability can be determined. 8-11, 1962, Journal of Petroleum Technology, August, (1962).
3. Brigham, W. E., Peden, J. M., Ng, K. F., and O’Neill, N.: “The
Real-world Log examples have been analyzed to
Analysis of Spherical Flow with Wellbore Storage,” paper SPE
demonstrate how technical innovations introduced with a new 9294, presented at the 55th SPE Annual Technical Conference
whirling formation testing system are used with the and Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, 21-24, Sept. (1980).
analytical/interpretive methods described in the paper. The 4. Joseph, J. A., and Koederitz, L. F.: “Unsteady-State Spherical
results show that an operator can evaluate horizontal and Flow With Storage and Skin,” paper SPE 12950, presented at the
vertical permeabilities, permeability anisotropy, skin cleanup, 59th Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition , Houston, Texas,
and properties of the reservoir hydrocarbons. Sept. 1984.
5. Goode, P. A., and Thambaynayagam, R. K. M.: “Analytic
Models for a Multiple Probe Formation Tester,” paper SPE
20737, presented at the 65th Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition , New Orleans, Lousisiana, 23-26 Sept. (1990).
8 M. A. PROETT, W. C. CHIN AND B. MANDAL. SPE 64650

6. Carslaw, H. S. and Jaeger, J. C., Conduction of Heat in Solids,

− Fˆ ( z )e(1− rd ) z
Oxford University Press, 1959 pˆ (rd , z ) = ..... (A-4)
7. Ramey, H.J., Jr, and Agarwal, R.G.: “Annulus Unloading Rates  3  1 + Sd  z 1 
Sd rd c d  z 2 +  z+
 +
Influenced by Wellbore Storage and Skin Effect,” SPE Engineers  Sd c d Sd c d 
  Sd 
Journal, Oct. 1972.
8. Raghavan, R.: Well Test Analysis, PTR Prentice Hall, For the buildup case, the flow rate is constant with q(t)=qo
Englewood Cliff, New Jersey, (1993) pp. 69-70. which makes F(t ) ≡ 1 . Because the Laplace transform of “1” is
9. Waid, M. C., Proett, M. A., Chen, C. C., and Ford, W. T.:
“Improved Models for Interpreting the Pressure Response of (1/z), Eq. A-4 becomes
Formation Testers,” paper SPE 22754, presented at the 66th
− e(1− rd ) z
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, pˆ (rd , z ) = ... (A-5)
Texas, October 1991.  3  1 + Sd  z 1 
Sd rd c d z  z 2 +  z+
 +
10. Proett, M. A., and Chin, W. C.: “New Dual-Probe Wireline  
Formation Testing and Sampling Tool Enables Real-Time   Sd  S d cd S d cd 

Permeability and Anisotropy Measurements,” paper SPE 59701 Now using partial fractions, Eq. A-5 can be further simplified
presented at the SPE Permian Basin Oil and Gas Recovery
 x e − (rd −1) 
Conference held in Midland, Texas, 21–23 March 2000.
−1 3 z
11. Proett, M. A., and Chin, W. C.: “New Exact Spherical Flow pˆ (rd , z ) = ∑  yn z ( z − xn ) 
 ...................... (A-6)
Solution With Storage and Skin for Early-Time Interpretation S d rd cd n =1 
 n
With Applications to Wireline Formation and Early-Evaluation
Drillstem Testing,” paper SPE 49140 presented at the 1998 SPE where
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans,
Louisiana, 27–30 September 1998. y1 = x1 ( x1 − x2 )( x1 − x3 ) ............................................ (A-7)
12. Proett, M. A., Gilbert, G. N., Chin, W. C. and Monroe, M. L.:
"New Wireline Formation Testing Tool with Advanced y 2 = x2 ( x2 − x1 )( x2 − x3 ) .......................................... (A-8)
Sampling Technology," paper SPE 56711 presented at the 1999
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, y3 = x3 ( x3 − x1 )( x3 − x2 ) ........................................... (A-9)
Texas, 3–6 October 1999.
13. Chin, W. C., and Proett, M. A.: “Formation Evaluation Using and the constants x1, x2 and x3 are the roots of the cubic
Phase Shift Periodic Pressure Pulse Testing,” U.S. Patent equation
No. 5,672,819 (30 September 1997).
14. Sharma, M, M., and Zain, Z. M.: “Model simplifies filter cake  1 + Sd  2 x 1
lift-off pressure determination,” Oil and Gas Journal, 1 Nov. x 3 +   x + + = 0 ........................ (A-10)
1999.  Sd  Sd c d Sd c d
15. Churchill, R. V.: Complex Variables and Applications,
McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, N.Y., Second
Eq. A-6 can be exactly inverted into the time domain as
Edition, (1960) pp. 265-266. follows
pd (rd , t d ) =
Appendix A – Spherical Storage and Skin Solution
   1− r  
The function F (td ) is defined as a dimensionless rate   erfc d  − 
1 13
  2 td  
∑   (− (1− r )x + x 2 t )  1− r 

q(t d ) = q o F (td ) ............................................................ (A-1) S d rd cd n =1  y n
e d n n d
erfc d − xn t d  
where qo is a constant volume rate of flow in units of L3/T.    2 td  
Using the Laplace transform
∞ .............................................................................. (A-11)
pˆ (rd , z) = ∫ e − zt d p(rd , td )dtd ...................................... (A-2) Evaluating Eq. A-11 at r=rs (i.e., rd=1 ) yields
0
 1
( ) 
3
∑  y n 1 − e x t erfc − x n t d 
Now the storage and skin boundary Eq. 21 from the main text 1 2
p d (t d ) = n d
can be transformed with respect to time to produce the Laplace S d cd n =1 

space solution
.............................................................................. (A-12)
− Fˆ ( z )e (1−rd ) z
The roots of the cubic equation (i.e., xn) can have two
pˆ (rd , z ) = ......................... (A-3)
rd ((1 + S d cd z )(1 + z ) + cd z ) complex conjugate terms. Because they are complex
conjugates the “principle of reflection” proves that Eqs. A-11
that can be recast as and A-12 always evaluates to a real pressure.15
Eqs. A-11 and A-12 comprise the exact transient spherical
flow solution for pressures in the reservoir with storage and
SPE 64650 ADVANCED DUAL PROBE FORMATION TESTER WITH TRANSIENT, HARMONIC AND PULSED TIME-DELAY TESTING METHODS 9

skin valid for all times. The actual measured source pressure  ∂P   ∂P 
Q(t ) = brs2   − Vc 
pds can now be determined from Eq. 3 in dimensionless form  ∂r  rs  ∂t  rs
.................................... (B-4)
∂p (r , t )
pds (t d ) = pd (t d ) − S d d d d ............................. (A-13) where
∂rd
4π k f
The pressure derivative can be determined from Eq. A-11 at b= .................................................................. (B-5)
r=rs (i.e., rd=1 ) µ

∂pd (rd = 1, t d )
1
y  n(
1 − e x n2 t d erfc − x t  
d
 
) The far field boundary condition is
−1  n3
P(r → ∞ ,t) = 0 ....................................................... (B-6)
= ∑  
∂rd S d cd n =1 

x
(
− n e x n t d erfc − xn t d 
yn
2


) Generally an additional initial condition is required in transient
flow analysis, but this is not needed in the dynamically
steady-state problem considered here, which assumes an
............................................................................. (A-14)
oscillatory flow rate where QO is a real constant
Combining equations A-12, A-13 and A-14 yields the
dimensionless source pressure Q(t ) = Qo e iω t ............................................................. (B-7)

( )e ( )
3 The following separation of variables is consistently assumed
 1 1 − 1 + erfc − x n t d  
p ds =
1+ S d
∑  yn

xn S d
1+ S d
xn2t d

for the pressure wave
n =1 
S d cd

P(r , t ) = g (r )e iω t ........................................................ (B-8)

............................................................................. (A-15)
so that Eq. B-1 now becomes an ordinary differential equation;

Appendix B - Analysis of Harmonic Pulse Test d 2 g 2 dg iω φµc

+ − g = 0 ....................................... (B-9)
The solution for the pulse-time delay (phase shift) between the d r 2 r dr kf
source piston movement, which induces formation Darcy flow
at the source radius and the resulting pressure wave measured Then the general solution for g(r) and p(r,t) admitting outward
at any point in the formation, is developed using a general traveling waves is
formulation for spherical flow. Ce − ar (1+ i )
Consider the transient, compressible, anisotropic spherical g (r ) =
equations. The governing partial differential equation for r ...................................................... (B-10)
spherical liquid flows has the form
Ce − ar (1+i ) i ω t
∂ 2p 2 ∂ p φµc ∂ p P(r , t ) = e ........................................ (B-11)
+ = ............................................... (B-1) r
∂ r2 r ∂r kf ∂t
where
For an anisotropic system, the r and kf parameters can be
interpreted as φcµω
a= .............................................................. (B-12)
2k f
x2 y2 z2
r = kf + + ............................................... (B-2)
kr k r k z Substituting Eq. B-7 and B-10 into B-4 and solving for the
complex integration constant C

k f = 3 k r2 k z ................................................................... (B-3) − Qo e ars (1+ i )

C= ................................ (B-13)
  ω Vc  
Now we can study the spherically symmetric flow pro- abrs 1 + ar + i 1 + 2  
1
 s  abrs  
duced from a "ellipsoidal source" of radius rs to an infinite
reservoir. Let P(r,t) represent the fluid pressure, where r and t Using the constant C in the geometric component of the
are radial and time coordinates. Also, let Po denote the solution (Eq. B-13) yields
amplitude of the source pressure pulse, while φ, µ, c, and kf,
r 
respectively, refer to rock porosity, fluid viscosity, rock-matrix − Qo  s  e − a ( r − rs ) e −ia ( r − rs )
compressibility, and equivalent spherical source permeability. r 
g (r ) = .......................... (B-14)
 
abrs2 1 + ar1 + i 1 + ωVc2  
The total prescribed flow rate Q(t) is satisfied by the
flowline storage boundary condition for a spherical source (see  s  abrs  
Eq. 16)
10 M. A. PROETT, W. C. CHIN AND B. MANDAL. SPE 64650

Putting Eq. B-14 in polar form The pulse delay time can be determined from B-20 as

follows
 1+ ωVc  
  abr 2  
−i  a ( r − rs ) + arctan s 

r  − a ( r − rs )


 1+ 1  
 ars    1+ 2π f 2Vc 
arctan abr1 s  .................................. (B-21)
− Qo  s  e    1
e ∆t s =
g (r ) =
r  2π  1+ 
2  ars 
  
2
 1 ωVc
abrs2 1 +  + 1 +  Now consider the amplitude and phase due to Darcy flow in
 ar   2 
 s   abrs  the formation between the source and monitoring probes
..........................................................................(B-15) r 
Az = As  s e −a ( r −rs )
Now a phase angle can be determined z ................................................. (B-22)
 1+ ωVc2 
 abr  θ z = a(r − rs ) ............................................................ (B-23)
θ = a(r − rs ) + arctan 1 s  ..................................(B-16)
 1+ ar 
 s  and the pulse time delay follows
From Eq. B-14 the amplitude of g(r) is determined a(r − rs )
∆t z = ......................................................... (B-24)
2π
r  − a ( r − rs )
− Qo  s  e Eqs B-22 and B-23 are identical to the results presented in an
r 
A= .....................(B-17) earlier paper for a homogeneous formation.12 If we consider
2
 
2 how anisotropy is introduced using Eq. B-2 and B-3 with the
 1  ωVc
abrs2 1 +  + 1 + 
   2  second probe positioned vertically with respect to the wellbore
 ars   abrs  (i.e., along the z axis where x = 0 and y = 0), then the
parameters in B-22 and B-23 become
Now Eq. B-8 can be expressed in the general form of
amplitude and phase ks
r = rz = z
− iθ iω t
P(r , t ) = Ae e = A cos(ω t − θ ) .........................(B-18) kz
.......................................................... (B-25)
The negative amplitude in Eq. B-18 is due to the boundary
condition (i.e., Eq. B-4) where the flow rate (Qo) represents φµcω
arz = z
production from the formation resulting in a negative pressure 2k z
......................................................... (B-26)
or a reduction from the initial formation pressure. The negative
phase angle implies a phase delay between the flow rate This new result demonstrates that the amplitude and phase for
oscillation and the pressure wave. the vertical permeability, kz, is directly related to the vertical
An interesting observation is that the amplitude and phase permeability.
functions (i.e., Eqs. B-16 and B-16) can be divided into two Now the total amplitude and phase from B-16 and B-16 at
components that separate the contributions of the source piston the vertical probe relative to the source piston can be
with flowline storage from the Darcy flow in the formation expressed as
between the probes. These amplitude and phase components
A = As Az
can now be used to determine anisotropy. .................................................................. (B-27)
The amplitude and phase components of the source piston
to source pressure pulse can be used to determine the spherical θ = θ s + θ z ................................................................ (B-28)
permeability
−Qo ∆t phase = ∆t s + ∆t z
As = ....................(B-19) ................................................... (B-29)
2
  
2
 1 ωVc SI Metric Conversion Factors
abrs2 1 +  + 1 + 
  abr 2  cp x 3.7* E - 03 = Pa•s
 ars   s  mL x 1.0* E + 00 = cm3
ft x 2.831 685 E - 02 = m3
 1 + ωVc2  in x 2.54* E + 01 = mm
 abrs 
θ s = arctan  ................................................(B-20)
md x 9.869 233 E - 04 = m3
 1 + ar1s psi x 6.894 757 E + 00 = kPa
 
Conversion factors are exact.
SPE 64650 ADVANCED DUAL PROBE FORMATION TESTER WITH TRANSIENT, HARMONIC AND PULSED TIME-DELAY TESTING METHODS 11

RDT - General Specifications

PTS
• Temperature 350 F
• Pressure 20,000 psi
• Nominal Diameter 4 ¾"
HPS • Maximum Diameter at Dual Probe 5”
• Min/Max Hole size 6-18”

PTS - Power Telemetry Section

DPS
HPS - Hydraulic Power Section

DPS - Dual Probe Section

• Pretest Volume 0.1-100 cm3
• Pretest Rate 0.1 - 15 cm3/sec
QGS • Vertical Probe Spacing 7.25"(18.4 cm)
• Real-time Pretest Control Rate or Pressure
• Snorkel Cleaning With each set
• Pretests per Packer set Unlimited
• Fluid Resistivity .01-100 (ohm-m)
FPS
QGS - Quartz Gauge Section
• Normal and Extended Ranges 17-20 Kpsi
• Repeatability 1 psi
• Resolution 0.01 psi
• Accuracy ±[1psi +0.01% of Reading ]

MCS FPS - Flow-control Pump-out Section

• Pumping @ 500 psi 1.00 GPM
• Dual Pressure Range 4000-8000 psi
• Real-time Pump Control Rate or Pressure

MCS - Multi Chamber Section

CVS • PVT sample control Zero Shock
• DOT - transportable chambers 3,6,9, ...
• Chamber volume 1000cc
• H2S- Compatible 20,000psi

CVS - Chamber Valve Section

• PVT sample control Zero Shock
• Chambers controlled 2
• Chamber volume 1-5 gal.
• H2S- Compatible available 20,000psi

Fig. 1—Specifications of RDT tool sections.

Zero Shock PVT Formation Fluid Dual Probe Pressure Gradient Extended Range
Bottom Hole Sampling Properties Monitoring Anisotropy Monitoring Testing Pressure Sampling

PTS PTS PTS PTS PTS

HPS HPS QGS HPS

MCS
HPS
DPS DPS DPS

MCS DPS

QGS QGS QGS

QGS
FPS FPS
FPS DPS
4 kpsi
FPS
HPS
QGS FPS
8 kpsi
DPS
MCS CVS

MCS

Fig. 2—Configurations and applications of RDTs.

12 M. A. PROETT, W. C. CHIN AND B. MANDAL. SPE 64650

ks - skin permeability kf - formation permeability

dP
dr

skin thickness - δ

sandface - rs pressure increases with r

P
Ps
k s  P − Ps  k f dP
  Flow rate =
µ δ  µ dr
Equating flow rates at the sandface :
dP δ kf
Ps = P − Srs , where : S =
dr rs k s
Fig. 3—Skin definition.

ks - Skin
δ

P
Ps z

kz
z
Anisotropic Rock Formation x kr
y
kr
Fig. 4— Ellipsoidal anisotropic flow and 3D mesh of high accuracy, finite element, verification model.
SPE 64650 ADVANCED DUAL PROBE FORMATION TESTER WITH TRANSIENT, HARMONIC AND PULSED TIME-DELAY TESTING METHODS 13

S=9, λ =1.0
10
S=9, λ =0.1

r d =1 S=9, λ =0.01

S=9, λ =0.001
pd* rd

S=0, λ =1
1

r d =10
S=9, λ =0.01

S=9, λ =0.001 S=9, λ =0.1

S=9, λ =1.0
S=9, λ =1.0
0.1
1 10 td 100 1000 10000
Fig. 5 — Dimensionless pressure pd*rd vs. time td,  exact spherical flow equation, o simulations with skin layer, c =10, δ=0.1r
d d.

100
S=9, λ =1.0
r d =1
S=9, λ =0.1
10
S=9, λ =0.01

S=9, λ =0.001
(dp/dt) d

1
S=0, λ =1
1.5
td

r d =10
0.1 S=9, λ =0.01
S=9, λ =0.001
S=9, λ =0.1

S=0, λ =1.0
S=9, λ =1.0
0.01
1 10 100 td 1000 10000
Fig. 6— Spherical derivative td1.5 dpd/dtd vs. time td ,  exact spherical flow equation.
14 M. A. PROETT, W. C. CHIN AND B. MANDAL. SPE 64650

8 1

Flow Rate (cm /sec)

Pressure (psi)

3
0 0

-4

-8 -1
Time
(sec)

1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7

8 1
1.0 0.1 0.01 k z /k r Vertical Probe

Source Probe
4

Flow Rate (cm /sec)

Pressure (psi)

Source Flow Rate

3
0 0

t z =0.155 sec

-4 t z =0.070sec
t z =0.031 sec

t s =0.101 sec
-8 -1
Time
(sec)

1.45 1.46 1.47 1.48 1.49 1.5 1.51 1.52 1.53 1.54 1.55

Fig. 7 — Harmonic testing simulation for a formation with with a 100-md horizontal permeability and 1.0, 0.1, and 0.01 kz/kr anisotropy values
(parameters are: f=10 Hz, rs=1 cm, rd=10 cm, V=1000 cm4, c=10-6, φ=0.10, µ=1.0.)

z
y x

Fig. 8—Near-Wellbore, Finite-Element Simulator (NEWS)

SPE 64650 ADVANCED DUAL PROBE FORMATION TESTER WITH TRANSIENT, HARMONIC AND PULSED TIME-DELAY TESTING METHODS 15

10500

0
Flow Rate (cm3/s)
10000

40
Flow Rate (cm3/s)
Pressure (psi)
9500

80
Vertical Probe (psi)
9000

120
Pretest with Source Probe (psi)
Both Probes
8500

160
8000

200
(sec)
Time
0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450
1000

10
Horizontal Permeability (mdarcy) Harmonic Phase Delay

10000

0
Flow Rate (cm3/s) Vertical Probe (psi)
100

1
Permeability (mdarcy)

Anisotropy (kv/kh)
Vertical Probe (psi)

Flow Rate (cm3/s)

Spherical Permeability (mdarcy)
Source Probe (psi)

0.1
10

0.01
∆ ts ∆ tv
1

Anisotropy (kv/kh)
9970

30
209.5

209.6

209.7

209.8

209.9

210.0

210.1

210.2

210.3

210.4

210.5

0.001
0.1

Fig. 9 — RDT simulated log, pretest, test, and pumping sequence, 100-md horizontal permeability and 0.1 kz/kr .

Fig. 10— Pressure contours for the first drawdown with two probes and the second drawdown with one source probe, 100-md horizontal
permeability, 0.1 kz/kr, and 10-psi color contour bands.
16 M. A. PROETT, W. C. CHIN AND B. MANDAL. SPE 64650
2500

0
Outlet Pressure Sample Pressure
2000

5
Flow Rate (cm3/s)
Pressure (psi)
1500

10
Pretest Rate
1000

15
Quartz Pressure
500

20
254.9 Bubble point (psi) Pumpout Flow Rate (cm3/s)

25
0
0
Time

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1100
(sec)
1000

100
Pumpout Mobility (mdarcy/cp)
Pretest Mobility (mdarcy/cp)
Mobility (mdarcy/cp)

Resistivity (ohm-m)
100

10
10

1
Resistivity (ohm-m)

0.1
1

Fig. 11—Example of an RDT FPS pumping and sampling log with bubble-point detection, fluid resistivity, and real-time permeability.
6150

0
6050

First Drawdown with Both Probes Flow Rate (cm 3/s)

4
Pressure (psi)

Rate (cm /s)

5950

100

8
3
Skin S = 0.7
10 λs = 0.95
Vertical Probe Pressure Pulse (9 psi)
5850

t 2.5 dp/dr

12
kfs = 56 md
1
Source Probe Pressure Pulse (318 psi)
5750

16
Spherical Derivative Plot
0.1
0.1 1 Buildup Time (sec) 10
5650

20
240

250

260

270

280

290

300

310

320

330

340

350

360
Time
(sec)
1000

100

Horizontal Permeability (mdarcy)

Permeability (mdarcy)
100

10
Anisotropy (kv/kh )
10

Anisotropy (kv/kh )
0.1
1

Spherical Permeability (mdarcy)

0.01
0.1

Fig. 12—RDT pressure testing log example with real-time mobility and anisotropy interpretation.