Supercharge, Invasion, and Mudcake

Growth in Downhole Applications 1st

Edition Wilson C. Chin
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmeta.com/product/supercharge-invasion-and-mudcake-growth-in-downh
ole-applications-1st-edition-wilson-c-chin/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Cambridge IGCSE and O Level History Workbook 2C - Depth

Study: the United States, 1919-41 2nd Edition Benjamin
Harrison

https://ebookmeta.com/product/cambridge-igcse-and-o-level-
history-workbook-2c-depth-study-the-united-states-1919-41-2nd-
edition-benjamin-harrison/

Cybersecurity Duane C Wilson

https://ebookmeta.com/product/cybersecurity-duane-c-wilson/

Cybersecurity 1st Edition Duane C. Wilson

https://ebookmeta.com/product/cybersecurity-1st-edition-duane-c-
wilson/

Solving Identity Management in Modern Applications

Yvonne Wilson

https://ebookmeta.com/product/solving-identity-management-in-
modern-applications-yvonne-wilson/
Rockwell s Lady 1st Edition A C Wilson

https://ebookmeta.com/product/rockwell-s-lady-1st-edition-a-c-
wilson/

Growth and Decline of American Industry Case studies in

the Industrial History of the USA 1st Edition John F.
Wilson (Editor)

https://ebookmeta.com/product/growth-and-decline-of-american-
industry-case-studies-in-the-industrial-history-of-the-usa-1st-
edition-john-f-wilson-editor/

Care Climate and Debt Transdisciplinary Problems and

Possibilities 1st Edition Benjamin C Wilson Editor

https://ebookmeta.com/product/care-climate-and-debt-
transdisciplinary-problems-and-possibilities-1st-edition-
benjamin-c-wilson-editor/

Plant Growth Responses for Smart Agriculture: Prospects

and Applications 1st Edition T. Girija (Editor)

https://ebookmeta.com/product/plant-growth-responses-for-smart-
agriculture-prospects-and-applications-1st-edition-t-girija-
editor/

The Collected Works of Venerable Master Chin Kung

Venerable Master Chin Kung

https://ebookmeta.com/product/the-collected-works-of-venerable-
master-chin-kung-venerable-master-chin-kung/
 Supercharge, Invasion
and Mudcake Growth in
Downhole Applications
 Scrivener Publishing
100 Cummings Center, Suite 541J
Beverly, MA 01915-6106

Handbook of Petroleum Engineering Series

Series Editor: Wilson C. Chin

Scope: Covering every aspect of petroleum engineering, this new series sets the standard in best
practices for the petroleum engineer. This is a must-have for any petroleum engineer in today's
changing industry.

About the Series Editor:

Wilson Chin earned his PhD from M.I.T. and his M.Sc. from Caltech. He has authored over twenty
books with Wiley-Scrivener and other major scientific publishers, has more than four dozen domestic
and international patents to his credit, and has published over one hundred journal articles, in the areas
of reservoir engineering, formation testing, well logging, measurement while drilling, and drilling and
cementing rheology.

Submission to the series:

Phil Carmical, Publisher
Scrivener Publishing
(512)203-2236
pcarmical@scrivenerpublishing.com

Publishers at Scrivener
Martin Scrivener (martin@scrivenerpublishing.com)
Phillip Carmical (pcarmical@scrivenerpublishing.com)
 Supercharge, Invasion
and Mudcake Growth in
Downhole Applications

by
Tao Lu, Xiaofei Qin,
Yongren Feng, Yanmin Zhou

and
Wilson Chin
This edition first published 2021 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030, USA
and Scrivener Publishing LLC, 100 Cummings Center, Suite 541J, Beverly, MA 01915, USA
© 2021 Scrivener Publishing LLC
For more information about Scrivener publications please visit www.scrivenerpublishing.com.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or
transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or other-
wise, except as permitted by law. Advice on how to obtain permission to reuse material from this title
is available at http://www.wiley.com/go/permissions.

Wiley Global Headquarters

111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030, USA

For details of our global editorial offices, customer services, and more information about Wiley prod-
ucts visit us at www.wiley.com.

Limit of Liability/Disclaimer of Warranty

While the publisher and authors have used their best efforts in preparing this work, they make no rep­
resentations or warranties with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this work and
specifically disclaim all warranties, including without limitation any implied warranties of merchant-­
ability or fitness for a particular purpose. No warranty may be created or extended by sales representa­
tives, written sales materials, or promotional statements for this work. The fact that an organization,
website, or product is referred to in this work as a citation and/or potential source of further informa­
tion does not mean that the publisher and authors endorse the information or services the organiza­
tion, website, or product may provide or recommendations it may make. This work is sold with the
understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering professional services. The advice and
strategies contained herein may not be suitable for your situation. You should consult with a specialist
where appropriate. Neither the publisher nor authors shall be liable for any loss of profit or any other
commercial damages, including but not limited to special, incidental, consequential, or other damages.
Further, readers should be aware that websites listed in this work may have changed or disappeared
between when this work was written and when it is read.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

ISBN 978-1-119-28332-4

Cover image: Downhole Logging, Aleksei Zakirov | Dreamstime.com

Cover design by Kris Hackerott

Set in size of 11pt and Minion Pro by Manila Typesetting Company, Makati, Philippines

Printed in the USA

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
 Contents

Prefacexiii
Acknowledgementsxvii
1 Pressure Transient Analysis and Sampling in Formation
Testing1
Pressure transient analysis challenges 1
Background development 3
1.1 Conventional Formation Testing Concepts 5
1.2 Prototypes, Tools and Systems 6
1.2.1 Enhanced Formation Dynamic Tester (EFDT®) 9
1.2.2 Basic Reservoir Characteristic Tester (BASIC-RCT™) 13
1.2.3 Enhancing and enabling technologies 15
Stuck tool alleviation 16
Field facilities 17
1.3 Recent Formation Testing Developments 17
1.4 References 20
2. Spherical Source Models for Forward and Inverse
Formulations21
2.1 Basic Approaches, Interpretation Issues and Modeling
Hierarchies23
Early steady flow model 23
Simple drawdown-buildup models 23
Analytical drawdown-buildup solution 25
Phase delay analysis 26
Modeling hierarchies 28
2.2 Basic Single-Phase Flow Forward and Inverse Algorithms 36
2.2.1 Module FT-00 36
2.2.2 Module FT-01 37
2.2.3 Module FT-03 38
2.2.4 Forward model application, Module FT-00 39

v
vi Contents

2.2.5 Inverse model application, Module FT-01 41

2.2.6 Effects of dip angle 43
2.2.7 Inverse “pulse interaction” approach using FT-00 46
2.2.8 FT-03 model overcomes source-sink limitations 49
2.2.9 Module FT-04, phase delay analysis, introductory
for now 52
2.2.10 Drawdown-buildup, Module FT-PTA-DDBU 55
2.2.11 Real pumping, Module FT-06 59
2.3 Advanced Forward and Inverse Algorithms 61
2.3.1 Advanced drawdown and buildup methods
Basic steady model 61
Validating our method 63
2.3.2 Calibration results and transient pressure curves 65
2.3.3 Mobility and pore pressure using first
drawdown data 67
2.3.3.1 Run No. 1. Flowline volume 200 cc 68
2.3.3.2 Run No. 2. Flowline volume 500 cc 69
2.3.3.3 Run No. 3. Flowline volume 1,000 cc 71
2.3.3.4 Run No. 4. Flowline volume 2,000 cc 73
2.3.4 Mobility and pore pressure from last buildup data 74
2.3.4.1 Run No. 5. Flowline volume 200 cc 74
2.3.4.2 Run No. 6. Flowline volume 500 cc 76
2.3.4.3 Run No. 7. Flowline volume 1,000 cc 77
2.3.4.4 Run No. 8. Flowline volume 2,000 cc 78
2.3.4.5 Run No. 9. Time-varying flowline
volume inputs from FT-07 79
2.3.5 Phase delay and amplitude attenuation,
anisotropic media with dip – detailed theory,
model and numerical results 81
2.3.5.1 Basic mathematical results 82
Isotropic model 82
Anisotropic extensions 82
Vertical well limit 83
Horizontal well limit 83
Formulas for vertical and horizontal wells 83
Deviated well equations 84
Deviated well interpretation for both kh
and kv 85
Two-observation-probe models 86
2.3.5.2 Numerical examples and typical results 88
Example 1. Parameter estimates 89
 Contents vii

Example 2. Surface plots 90

Example 3. Sinusoidal excitation 91
Example 4. Rectangular wave excitation 94
Example 5. Permeability prediction at
general dip angles 96
Example 6. Solution for a random input 98
2.3.5.3 Layered model formulation 99
2.3.5.4 Phase delay software interface 100
2.3.5.5 Detailed phase delay results in layered
anisotropic media 103
2.3.6 Supercharging and formation invasion
introduction, with review of analytical forward
and inverse models 110
2.3.6.1 Development perspectives 111
2.3.6.2 Review of forward and inverse models 113
FT-00 model 113
FT-01 model 117
FT-02 model 118
FT-06 and FT-07 models 119
FT–PTA–DDBU model 122
Classic inversion model 123
Supercharge forward and inverse models 123
Multiple drawdown and buildup inverse
models129
Multiphase invasion, clean-up and
contamination133
System integration and closing remarks 138
2.3.6.3 Supercharging summaries - advanced
forward and inverse models explored 139
Supercharge math model development 139
Conventional zero supercharge model 141
Supercharge extension 142
2.3.6.4 Drawdown only applications 144
Example DD-1. High overbalance 144
Example DD-2. High overbalance 150
Example DD-3. High overbalance 154
Example DD-4. Qualitative pressure trends 158
Example DD-5. Qualitative pressure trends 161
Example DD-6. “Drawdown-only”
data with multiple inverse scenarios for
1 md/cp application 163
viii Contents

Example DD-7. “Drawdown-only”

data with multiple inverse scenarios for
0.1 md/cp application 168
2.3.6.5 Drawdown – buildup applications 173
Example DDBU-1. Drawdown-buildup,
high overbalance 173
Example DDBU-2. Drawdown-buildup,
high overbalance 177
Example DDBU-3. Drawdown-buildup,
high overbalance 180
Example DDBU-4. Drawdown-buildup,
1 md/cp calculations 184
Example DDBU-5. Drawdown-buildup,
0.1md/cp calculations 188
2.3.7 Advanced multiple drawdown – buildup (or,
“MDDBU”) forward and inverse models 193
2.3.7.1 Software description 193
2.3.7.2 Validation of PTA-App-11 inverse model 200
2.3.8 Multiphase flow with inertial effects –
Applications to borehole invasion, supercharging,
clean-up and contamination analysis 217
2.3.8.1 Mudcake dynamics 217
2.3.8.2 Multiphase modeling in boreholes 220
2.3.8.3 Pressure and concentration displays 222
Example 1. Single probe, infinite anisotropic media 223
Example 2. Single probe, three layer
medium228
Example 3. Dual probe pumping, three layer
medium230
Example 4. Straddle packer pumping 231
Example 5. Formation fluid viscosity imaging 233
Example 6. Contamination modeling 234
Example 7. Multi-rate pumping simulation 234
2.4 References 236
3 Practical Applications Examples 237
3.1 Non-constant Flow Rate Effects 238
3.1.1 Constant flow rate, idealized pumping, inverse method 239
3.1.2 Slow ramp up/down flow rate 245
3.1.3 Impulsive start/stop flow rate 250
Closing remarks 255
 Contents ix

3.2 Supercharging – Effects of Nonuniform Initial Pressure 256

Conventional zero supercharge model 256
Supercharge “Fast Forward” solver 258
3.3 Dual Probe Anisotropy Inverse Analysis 264
3.4 Multiprobe “DOI,” Inverse and Barrier Analysis 273
3.5 Rapid Batch Analysis for History Matching 281
3.6 Supercharge, Contamination Depth and Mudcake
Growth in “Large Boreholes” – Lineal Flow 289
Mudcake growth and filtrate invasion 289
Time-dependent pressure distributions 292
3.7 Supercharge, Contamination Depth and Mudcake
Growth in Slimholes or “Clogged Wells” – Radial Flow 292
3.8 References 294
4 Supercharge, Pressure Change, Fluid Invasion and
Mudcake Growth 295
Conventional zero supercharge model 295
Supercharge model 296
Relevance to formation tester job planning 298
Refined models for supercharge invasion 299
4.1 Governing equations and moving interface modeling 300
Single-phase flow pressure equations 300
Problem formulation 303
Eulerian versus Lagrangian description 303
Constant density versus compressible flow 304
Steady versus unsteady flow 305
Incorrect use of Darcy’s law 305
Moving fronts and interfaces 306
Use of effective properties 308
4.2 Static and dynamic filtration 310
4.2.1 Simple flows without mudcake 310
Homogeneous liquid in a uniform linear core 311
Homogeneous liquid in a uniform radial flow 313
Homogeneous liquid in uniform spherical domain 314
Gas flow in a uniform linear core 315
Flow from a plane fracture 317
4.2.2 Flows with moving boundaries 318
Lineal mudcake buildup on filter paper 318
Plug flow of two liquids in linear core without cake 321
4.3 Coupled Dynamical Problems: Mudcake and Formation
Interaction323
x Contents

Simultaneous mudcake buildup and filtrate invasion in a

linear core (liquid flows) 323
Simultaneous mudcake buildup and filtrate invasion in a
radial geometry (liquid flows) 327
Hole plugging and stuck pipe 330
Fluid compressibility 331
Formation invasion at equilibrium mudcake thickness 335
4.4 Inverse Models in Time Lapse Logging 336
Experimental model validation 336
Static filtration test procedure 337
Dynamic filtration testing 337
Measurement of mudcake properties 338
Formation evaluation from invasion data 338
Field applications 339
Characterizing mudcake properties 340
Simple extrapolation of mudcake properties 341
Radial mudcake growth on cylindrical filter paper 342
4.5 Porosity, Permeability, Oil Viscosity and Pore Pressure
Determination345
Simple porosity determination 345
Radial invasion without mudcake 346
Problem 1 348
Problem 2 350
Time lapse analysis using general muds 351
Problem 1 352
Problem 2 353
4.6 Examples of Time Lapse Analysis 354
Formation permeability and hydrocarbon viscosity 355
Pore pressure, rock permeability and fluid viscosity 357
4.7 References 360

5 Numerical Supercharge, Pressure, Displacement and

Multiphase Flow Models 363
5.1 Finite Difference Solutions 364
Basic formulas 364
Model constant density flow analysis 366
Transient compressible flow modeling 369
Numerical stability 371
Convergence371
Multiple physical time and space scales 372
Example 5-1. Lineal liquid displacement without mudcake 373
 Contents xi

Example 5-2. Cylindrical radial liquid displacement

without cake 380
Example 5-3. Spherical radial liquid displacement
without cake 383
Example 5-4. Lineal liquid displacement without
mudcake, including compressible flow transients 385
Example 5-5. Von Neumann stability of implicit time
schemes388
Example 5-6. Gas displacement by liquid in lineal core
without mudcake, including compressible flow transients 390
Incompressible problem 391
Transient, compressible problem 392
Example 5-7. Simultaneous mudcake buildup and
displacement front motion for incompressible
liquid flows 396
Matching conditions at displacement front 399
Matching conditions at the cake-to-rock interface 399
Coding modifications 400
Modeling formation heterogeneities 403
Mudcake compaction and compressibility 404
Modeling borehole activity 405
5.2 Forward and Inverse Multiphase Flow Modeling 405
Problem hierarchies 406
5.2.1 Immiscible Buckley-Leverett lineal flows without
capillary pressure 407
Example boundary value problems 409
General initial value problem 410
General boundary value problem for infinite core 411
Variable q(t) 411
Mudcake-dominated invasion 412
Shock velocity 412
Pressure solution 414
5.2.2 Molecular diffusion in fluid flows 415
Exact lineal flow solutions 416
Numerical analysis 417
Diffusion in cake-dominated flows 419
Resistivity migration 419
Lineal diffusion and “un-diffusion” examples 420
Radial diffusion and “un-diffusion” examples 423
5.2.3 Immiscible radial flows with capillary pressure
and prescribed mudcake growth 425
xii Contents

Governing saturation equation 426

Numerical analysis 427
Fortran implementation 429
Typical calculations 429
Mudcake dominated flows 435
“Un-shocking” a saturation discontinuity 438
5.2.4 Immiscible flows with capillary pressure and
dynamically coupled mudcake growth 441
Flows without mudcakes 441
Modeling mudcake coupling 450
Unchanging mudcake thickness 451
Transient mudcake growth 453
General immiscible flow model 457
5.3 Closing Remarks 458
5.4 References 464
Cumulative References 467
Index481
About the Authors 498
 Preface

Formation testing, unlike conventional logging methods focused on resis-

tivity, acoustic, nuclear or magnetic resonance approaches, provides direct
results as opposed to indirect inferred properties. In sampling, actual
in-situ fluids are collected for surface evaluation. And in pressure transient
analysis, properties that pertain to production economics like mobility,
compressibility, anisotropy and pore pressure are obtained directly from
the underlying Darcy flow equations. By and large, the conventional sub-
ject matter deals with single, dual and multiprobe tools where pad nozzles
are displaced axially relative to each other and along the same azimuth.
This being so, idealized spherical “source” or “sink” methods are used in
formulating forward and inverse problems.
Even so, few models have proven useful. An early steady model for
spherical flow no longer applies to the lower mobility formations encoun-
tered in practice. Later transient models contain complicated Bessel func-
tions and integrals whose effective use in the field is questionable. And
then, a rapid, early-time prediction method for “effective permeability”
and pore pressure, addressing the low mobility and “not so low” flowline
volume limit – while significant in the 1990s and, in fact, invented by the
last author, does not address all-important supercharging effects uncov-
ered in recent field-based publications.
Fortunately, progress in source methods has been made, but at such an
unusual pace that any presentations at industry meetings would have been
rapidly dated. In support of our work, John Wiley & Sons has published
our research in three volumes during 2014 – 2019, introducing the latest
ideas and techniques to the industry, complete with derivations, equations
and software. The present work, our latest formation testing addition to
Wiley-Scrivener’s Petroleum Engineering Handbook Series, serves several
purposes. While “handbooks” normally refer to summaries of decades-old
technologies, this edition is timely because numerous new advances have
been made in related and interdependent areas. These include pressure
transient analysis, forward and inverse modeling, supercharge, mudcake

xiii
xiv Preface

growth and fluid invasion formulations, and contamination and cleaning

multiphase methods – and all during the past two decades by the present
authors. While China Oilfield Services Limited (COSL) does manufacture
its own conventional single and dual probe tools, it is the availability of our
complete suite of software models that allows its tools to be used in many
more innovative ways.
For example, methods are available to predict permeability and pore
pressure rapidly from early time data in low mobility formations with
strong flowline volume. But what if significant supercharging exists? Most
inverse methods require constant flow rate drawdowns. What if this is
not possible? And unacceptably, few authors have ever rigorously stud-
ied mudcake growth and fluid invasion, which produce the thick cakes
responsible for stuck formation testers – the same phenomena associated
with supercharge. Nor do they address the thin cakes that wreak havoc
on nozzle pad sealing – leakages that would doom any formation testing
job. Numerous related questions are treated in this comprehensive volume.
And so this handbook, which addresses all of these problems from source
model perspectives, provides unified discussions in forward and inverse
formation testing analysis, supercharge in pressure evolution and perme-
ability prediction, plus related topics in fluid invasion, mudcake growth
and displacement front prediction. It is our hope that this work stimulates
continuing research and enhances the innovative use of conventional tools
in the field.
During the past several years, other high risk research and development
projects were undertaken at COSL. In the early 1990s, an innovative “mul-
tiprobe” formation tester was introduced by a major service company that
has greatly benefited the industry. This tool, consisting of an active “sink
probe” and a passive “horizontal” observation probe displaced at 180° azi-
muthally from the sink, would provide measurements for horizontal and
vertical permeability. However, in low mobility applications, measured
pressure drops at the latter probe were often orders-of-magnitude less than
those obtained at the pumping probe. This limitation attracted the interests
of COSL engineers, who raised several unusual design challenges. “What if
three azimuthally displaced probes, each separated by 120° from the oth-
ers, were used?” And further, “What if each probe in the triple multiprobe
tool were capable of operating independently from the others?”
What would be the logging advantages? What additional parameters
of formation evaluation interest could we predict? Is it possible to detect
heterogeneities? Dip angle? Can we pump at high rates without releasing
dissolved gas? In order to design such a multiprobe tool, a fully three-di-
mensional transient model would be required to guide mechanical design
 Preface xv

as well as to support interpretation procedures at the rigsite. Can a rapid,

stable, accurate and easy-to-use computational method be devised? Is it
possible to develop a robust procedure that supports field work in hori-
zontal and vertical mobility definition? How would we apply “big data”
statistical approaches using advanced algorithms? Can inverse procedures
be solved accurately and rapidly at the rigsite and in field offices?
These questions are addressed in a companion 2021 volume in John
Wiley’s Advances in Petroleum Engineering series, entitled Multiprobe
Pressure Analysis and Interpretation, by Tao Lu, Minggao Zhou, Yongren
Feng, Yuqing Yang and Wilson Chin. This complementary volume contains
math models entirely different from the present, but which are also appli-
cable to conventional 180° dual probe tools. Both of our 2021 books, draw-
ing on research and engineering developed over more than a decade, are
essential to modern formation testing, and we hope that both will find per-
manent places on petroleum engineers’ bookshelves. In this time of great
uncertainty, one truth prevails: now, more than ever, innovation is needed
to explore and produce natural resources more efficiently. And innovation
in engineering means nothing less than a thorough understanding of phys-
ics and mathematics and putting both to important practical use.

The Authors,
Beijing and Houston
 Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank the management of China Oilfield Services

Limited (COSL) for permission to publish this manuscript. Our research
efforts hope to advance formation testing, algorithm design and well log-
ging technology and bring greater efficiencies to exploration and produc-
tion. We are also indebted to Xiaoying Zhuang for her interpretation and
translation skills, and usual hard work and perseverance, which have been
instrumental in communicating a wide range of engineering and technical
ideas to English-speaking audiences over the past decade. And last but not
least, we again thank Phil Carmical, Acquisitions Editor and Publisher, for
his confidence and faith in our research activities. In times of economic
uncertainty such as ours, it is imperative that “the show must go on” and
oil and gas industry professionals continue to “push the envelope” despite
the headwinds. This monograph describes our persistent and continuing
efforts in this endeavor and we are pleased to present our ideas to our
petroleum engineering colleagues.

xvii
 1
Pressure Transient Analysis
and Sampling in Formation Testing
The formation tester is a well logging instrument with extendable
pad nozzles which, when pressed against the borehole sandface, extracts
in situ formation fluids for delivery to the surface for chemical
examination. This process characterizes its fluid “sampling” function.
By-products of this operation are pressure transient histories, which can
be interrogated using Darcy math models for fluid and formation
properties such as permeability, mobility, anisotropy, compressibility and
pore pressure. This is referred to as “pressure transient analysis,” or
simply, “PTA.” Both can be conducted as wireline or Measurement
While Drilling, or “MWD,” applications, where these operations now
represent invaluable elements of the standard well logging suite.
Pressure transient analysis challenges. While collecting and
transporting fluids is relatively straightforward, e.g., storing samples in
secure vessels that maintain downhole conditions, the PTA process poses
a greater design challenge. A well designed tool often begins with a
good understanding of the environment, plus physics coupled with sound
experience in mathematical modeling. Some ideas are obvious. For
example, a single “source” or “sink” probe, serving both pumping and
pressure observation functions, will at most provide the “spherical
permeability” kh2/3kv/1/3, where kh and kv are horizontal and vertical
permeabilities. Thus, “single probe” tools, while mechanically simple,
will offer fewer logging advantages than “dual probe” or “multiprobe
tools” which provide much greater formation evaluation information.
1
2 Supercharge, Invasion and Mudcake Growth

Figure 1.1. Drawdown-buildup pressure response

with dynamic pumping action and flowline.
But how are probe arrays configured and placed for optimal effect?
Figures 1.1 and 1.2 illustrate the operation of a single probe tool that
withdraws fluid and then stops, creating the expected “drawdown and
buildup” shown. If a second probe is desired, should it be placed an
axial distance apart but along the same azimuth? Or azimuthally apart, at
180o away along the borehole circumference? What about a “drawdown
only” pumpout? Or perhaps, have the pump oscillate sinusoidally in
place, thus mimicking the AC transmissions of an electromagnetic
logging tool? How many probes are best? What are their flow areas?
Do answers to these questions depend on fluid and formation properties?
 Pressure Transient Analysis and Sampling 3

Figure 1.2. Downhole, surface and logging truck operations.

Background development. The present book addresses these
questions for “source” or “sink models” of the pumping nozzle, these
terms referring to ideal representations of the flow where borehole and
pad geometry are described using mathematically small closed surfaces.
The recent books due to Chin et al. (2014) or Formation Testing:
Pressure Transient and Contamination Analysis, Chin et al. (2015) or
Formation Testing: Low Mobility Pressure Transient Analysis, and Chin
(2019) or Formation Testing: Supercharge, Pressure Testing and
Contamination Models, published by John Wiley & Sons, contain
complete math derivations and detailed validations. However, the rapid
pace of recent development suggests a separate volume in Wiley’s
Handbook of Petroleum Engineering Series, focused on the main ideas
4 Supercharge, Invasion and Mudcake Growth
behind the recent works. These ideas are essential as they are also used
in the design of newer COSL formation testing tools as well as in
interpretation software now available to the petroleum industry. What
engineers lack, at present, are job planning and PTA tools both useful at
the rigsite and at engineers’ desktops. It is our purpose to support this
pressing need.

Figure 1.3. Recent formation testing book publications.

 Pressure Transient Analysis and Sampling 5
1.1 Conventional Formation Testing Concepts.
Formation testing design concepts are rich and varied. A pumping
probe, operating as a “sink” or (equivalently) a “source,” or both, also
tracks pressure transient responses. Other pressure probes my reside
along the tool body, displaced axially, azimuthally or both, which may
actively pump or act as passive observers. While the primary formation
tester function is fluid sampling, where in-situ reservoir fluids are
collected and transported to the surface for analysis, pressure
measurements represent critical by-products important to formation
evaluation. Examples of testers offered by different manufacturers for
wireline and MWD applications are given in Figures 1.4 – 1.7.

Figure 1.4. Conventional formation tester tool strings.

Figure 1.5. Formation testers, additional developments.

6 Supercharge, Invasion and Mudcake Growth

Figure 1.6. Conventional dual and triple probe testers.

Figure 1.7. Dual probe tester with dual packer.

1.2 Prototypes, Tools and Systems.

In a “handbook” such as this, it is important to provide examples of
prototypes, commercial tools and systems. The wide ranges in design
parameters can be surprising to newcomers in formation testing. For
example, the “vertical and sink probes” in Figure 1.6, which are
displaced axially but lie along the same azimuth, can range from six or
seven inches to as much as 2.3 ft (27.6 in) and 10.3 ft (123.6 in), where
the latter two distances are obtained from the manufacturer’s figure in
SPE Paper No. 36176. We might, for example, ask, “Just what does the
distant observation probe “see” under different mobility backgrounds?”
“Will the tool do the job for my formation?” This book attempts to
answer the most obvious questions, but it also aims at providing the tools
and software for readers to address those pressing questions that
invariably arise in any new logging scenario. To provide a flavor of how
hardware literature and specifications might appear, we have included
discussion of COSL material related to its standard product lines. Note
that COSL’s new “triple probe, 120o tool” (as opposed to a conventional
180o tool) is treated separately in our companion 2021 book.
 Pressure Transient Analysis and Sampling 7
Close-ups of early single and dual probe prototype formation testers
are shown in Figure 1.8. These photographs were obtained during field
tests. The black pads shown perform an important sealing function,
which prevents leakage of fluid through its contact surface with the
sandface. However, they are not as “simple” as they appear. For
instance, at any given pump rate, the pressure drop, which depends on
nozzle diameter, may be excessive and allow the undesired release of
dissolved gas – orifice sizes must be chosen judiciously, as suggested by
the wide variety of choices shown in Figure 1.9. The shape of the hole
or slot is also important; circular or oval shapes may be acceptable for
consolidated matrix rock, but slotted models may be required for
naturally fractured media or unconsolidated formations. Of course, in
supporting PTA interpretation objectives, the size and shape of a
formation tester’s pads must be incorporated into the host math model.
More often than not, the model must be simple and mathematically
tractable in order to obtain useful answers in a reasonable amount of
time. This may require the use of idealized source or sink models, or
numerical models with limited numbers of grids in the case of finite
difference or finite modeling – consequently, questions related to
calibration or geometric factors arise, along with test procedures, etc.

Figure 1.8. Early COSL single and dual probe prototype

formation testers (details in 2014 and 2015 books).
8 Supercharge, Invasion and Mudcake Growth

Figure 1.9. COSL pad designs with varied sizes and shapes,
for different applications, e.g., firm matrix rock, unconsolidated
formations, fractured media, and so on..
Pressures obtained in PTA logging are used for multiple
applications. For example, depending on the tool, permeability,
anisotropy, compressibility and pore pressure are all possible (the term
“mobility,” defined as the ratio of permeability to viscosity, is often
interchangeably used, assuming that the viscosity is known). The pore
pressure itself is used to identify fluids by their vertical hydrostatic
gradients; this is possible because changes in pressure are affected by
changes in fluid density. Sudden changes in pressure, for instance, may
indicate the presence of barriers. However, the raw measured pressure,
unless corrected for the “cushioning” effects associated with flowline
volume, will not reflect pore pressures accurately. The correction
depends, in turn, on the line volume as well as the compressibility and
the mobility of the formation fluid. All said, the physics and math can be
challenging, but solutions and analytical highlights are presented in the
next chapter for a wide variety of tools and applications. Chapter 2
provides a broad state-of-the-art review for source and sink models.
 Pressure Transient Analysis and Sampling 9
®
1.2.1 Enhanced Formation Dynamic Tester (EFDT ).
The “Enhanced Formation Dynamic Tester” is an advanced wireline
formation testing system that delivers: (1) Multiple, large-volume high-
purity formation fluid samples with downhole fluid characterization, (2)
Reliable formation pressure testing, and (3) Real-time downhole fluid
analyze, and more. Typical tool string configurations and architectures
are shown in Figures 1.10 and 1.11. For detailed specifications, the
reader is referred to the latest updated manufacturer’s literature.

Figure 1.10. Tool string configurations.

COSL’s EFDT is designed to obtain formation pressures and
formation fluid samples at discrete depths within a reservoir. Analyzing
pressure buildup profile and the properties of fluid samples helps provide
a more complete description of reservoir fluids and behavior. The EFDT
service provides key petrophysical information to determine the reservoir
volume, producibility of a formation, type and composition of the
movable fluids, and to predict reservoir behavior during production.
THE EFDT is a modular formation testing system. It can be
customized for the specialized applications. The modularity of EFDT
ensures its ability to test and sample fluids in a wide range of geological
environments and borehole conditions. For its basic configuration, the
string includes a fully controllable Dual Probe Module for fluid in-
taking, a Flow Pump Module for variable-volume drawdown and pump
out of contaminated fluids, a Fluid Sensor Module for dynamic
properties of fluids, a PVT Carrier Module for monophase sampling, and
a Large Sample Carrier Module for large-volume normal sampling. It
can also be configured with a Straddle Packer Module, an Optical
Analysis Module, a Focused Probe Module and a Multi-PVT Tank
Module to meet the requirements of complex reservoir formation tests,
such as low permeability rock or natural fractures.
10 Supercharge, Invasion and Mudcake Growth
The EFDT enables up to five properties of fluid and formation to be
monitored during testing: fluid conductivity or capacitivity, fluid density,
fluid dynamic pressure, fluid optical analysis and formation permeability
and anisotropy. The EFDT provides up to four MonoPhase Sampling
Tanks (MPST) for one run, which recovers high-quality pressure-
compensated reservoir fluid samples during borehole formation testing
operations. The new Multi-PVT Module can take up to 24-48 PVT
samples in one run (6 X 350 ml per module). The EFDT uses standard
EDIB telemetry protocol, is combinable with other EDIB logging tools,
and requires the company’s ELIS surface acquisition system. Surface
control interfaces and user output displays are given in Figures 1.12 and
1.13. Applications, benefits and features are summarized below.

Applications
Formation pressure measurements and fluid contact identification
Repeatable formation fluid sampling
Measurement of formation permeability and anisotropy
Vertical interference testing
ln-situ downhole fluid analysis

Benefits
Fast, high-accuracy pressure measurement using Quartz Pressure
Gauges (QPG) with temperature compensation
Conductivity/capacitivity, density, fluid dynamic pressure, NIR
optical analysis and formation permeability anisotropy for real-time
reservoir evaluation
Savings of 50% sampling time using focus probe
Multiple samples in one run, providing high quality PVT samples

Features
Modularity, offering expanded testing versatility
Accurate pressure measurement using QPG
Real time downhole fluid assessment
PVT quality formation fluid samples
 Pressure Transient Analysis and Sampling 11

Figure 1.11. Tool architectures.

12 Supercharge, Invasion and Mudcake Growth

Figure 1.12. Surface control interface.

Figure 1.13. Pressure measurement chart (left) and

real-time fluid monitoring chart (right).
 Pressure Transient Analysis and Sampling 13
TM
1.2.2 Basic Reservoir Characteristic Tester (BASIC-RCT ).
COSL’s “Basic Reservoir Characteristic Tester” or “BASIC-RCT”
is a third generation product of the formation tester family, characterized
by its pump through function. BASIC RCT is a compact, convenient,
safe and efficient tool. It can replace in part Drill Stem Testing (DST)
operations in order to save rig time. BASIC RCT provides economical
and reliable solutions to formation evaluation for oilfield exploration and
engineering, representing a good means to reduce cost while solving
difficult technical problems. BASIC RCT can be run on any service
company logging unit, requiring only winch, cable head and depth
measurement. All services, telemetry, gamma ray recording, test
recording (digital, numerical listing, screen and printer graphics) are
provided in real time. Tool configurations are shown in Figure 1.14. For
latest specifications, the reader should refer to the manufacturer’s
updates.
Functions
Measuring formation pressure accurately
Taking multi-samples of formation fluids
Taking large samples
Pumping through contaminated formation fluids
Monitoring formation fluid properties in real time.
Flowing formation fluids at controlled rates
Pumping through in reverse
Making quick well site sampler transfer
Providing real time and reliable data for analyzing permeability and
formation damage
Structure
The BASIC RCT is a combination of surface system and downhole
tools. The surface system includes the Acquisition and Data Process
software, PC and DC control panel, and AC power supply. The
downhole tools include the upper electronics section,
mechanical/hydraulic section, sensor section, lower electronics section
with a standard configuration, and also include the 2 520 cc large
sampler with optional configuration (see Figures 1.15 and 1.16).
www.cosl
14 Supercharge, Invasion and Mudcake Growth

Figure 1.14. Tool string configurations.

Figure 1.15. Tool architecture.

 Pressure Transient Analysis and Sampling 15

Figure 1.16. Tool and surface system.

Figure 1.17. Pressure drawdown curve (left) and

fluid contact curve (right).
1.2.3 Enhancing and enabling technologies.
While we principally focus on pressure transient analysis in this
volume, a number of enabling technologies contribute to the operational
success of formation testers in general, and in particular the robustness of
the tools mentioned in Sections 1.2.1 and 1.2.2. A critical problem is
that associated with “stuck tools,” which results in expensive fishing
jobs, lost tools and increased rig costs.
16 Supercharge, Invasion and Mudcake Growth
Stuck tool alleviation. Issues related to stuck pipe are as old as
drilling itself. In “Development on Incongruous Pushing and Stuck
Releasing Device of EFDT,” by Qin, X., Feng, Y., Song, W., Chu, X.
and Wang, L. and appearing in Journal of China Offshore Oilfield
Technology, Vol. 4, No. 1, April 2016, pp. 70-74, the authors analyze the
causes of differential pressure sticking during openhole wireline logging.
Their modular IPSRD releasing device, designed for EFDT formation
tester applications, could be seamlessly assembled to the tool. “Stuck
Release Arms” (SRA) are driven by hydraulic forces that free the dual
probe tool from adhesive forces. In Chapters 4 and 5, we show how
mudcake thicknesses can be accurately modeled and predicted – small
values to reduce chances for tool loss are needed, while larger
thicknesses are required to seal tester pads to the sandface – at the same
time, providing excellent descriptions for supercharge pressure effects.
The authors importantly point out that while measuring pressure and
sampling, even at a single point in the well, duration times may last
several hours or even tens of hours. In particular, for higher mud
densities, the possibility of differential sticking – and the likelihood of
expensive fishing jobs – is high. In extreme cases, loss of the tool
downhole and well abandonment are possible. Figure 1.18 explains the
conceptual ideas behind IPSRD. The left diagram illustrates the
differential sticking process, with the following nomenclature: 1-
Wellbore fluid, 2-Backup, 3-EFDT, 4-Mudcake, 5-Probe, 6-Protector
and 7-Formation. The right side outlines the tool architecture. Upper
Stuck and Lower Stuck release modules USRM and LSRM are found at
the top and bottom, with the Dual Probe Module (DPM) residing
between the two. The “stuck release arms” (SRA) for each releasing
module are designed in opposite directions for pushing separately. The
paper describes several field applications and savings in logging costs.

Figure 1.18. IPSRD stuck tool release mechanism.

 Pressure Transient Analysis and Sampling 17
Field facilities. Finally, we offer some snapshots of COSL logging
trucks and rigsite facilities from which formation testing jobs are run.
The photographs are self-explanatory.

Figure 1.19. Rigsite facilities.

1.3 Recent Formation Testing Developments.

Conventional formation tester tools with single and dual probes are
shown in Figures 1.8 and 1.9, noting that different testers may be
outfitted with different pad designs depending on the application. For
instance, small round nozzles may be used with firm matrix rock; in low
permeability formations, larger nozzles may be preferable in order to
prevent excessive pressure drawdowns that result in the undesired release
of dissolved gas or increased mechanical demands. Larger slot nozzles
are ideal when formations are lower in permeability or naturally
fractured and higher pump rates are desired.
18 Supercharge, Invasion and Mudcake Growth
The right-side diagram in Figure 1.6 shows an active pumping “sink
probe” mounted on the mandrel, with a passive “horizontal” observation
probe located 180o circumferentially away around the borehole. A
“vertical probe” is also shown displaced axially from the sink probe and
lying along the same azimuth. This conventional 1990s designed “triple
probe” tool has seen wide application since its introduction. However, in
low mobility formations, questions related to weak pressure signal
detection and large diffusion arise.
These have motivated the design of a new and different type of
“triple probe” tester, where three independently operated, closer probes
are located about the borehole at 120o separations, all residing in the
same axial plane and supporting pumping and pressure measurement.
Axially displaced “vertical probes” also augment the new triple probe
design. The new COSL tool offers advantages over conventional
instruments and these are described in a companion 2021 book
Formation Testing – Multiprobe Design and Pressure Analysis by Lu,
Zhou, Feng, Yang and Chin (John Wiley & Sons). Because of the three-
dimensional nature of the physics, the complementary volume develops
new analysis and interpretation methods that account for borehole size
and shape, and without invoking symmetry assumptions, since the probes
may differ during any logging run and pump with different flow rate
schedules. Figures 1.20 – 1.22 show example graphics from the book.

Figure 1.20. New triple probe formation tester. Pads with “small round
nozzle and slot probe” (top) and “all long slot nozzles” (bottom).
 Pressure Transient Analysis and Sampling 19

Figure 1.21. New COSL triple probe tester, perspective view.

Figure 1.22. Simulator menu for Probes 3, 7 and 11 (top),

sink Probe 7 pressure drop versus kh and kv at fixed rate (bottom).
20 Supercharge, Invasion and Mudcake Growth
1.4 References.
Chin, W.C., Formation Testing: Supercharge, Pressure Testing and
Contamination Models, John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, New Jersey,
2019.
Chin, W.C., Zhou, Y., Feng, Y. and Yu, Q., Formation Testing: Low
Mobility Pressure Transient Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken,
New Jersey, 2015.
Chin, W.C., Zhou, Y., Feng, Y., Yu, Q. and Zhao, L., Formation
Testing: Pressure Transient and Contamination Analysis, John
Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, New Jersey, 2014.
Lu, T., Qin, X., Feng, Y., Zhou, Y. and Chin, W.C., Supercharge,
Invasion and Mudcake Growth in Downhole Applications, John
Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, New Jersey, 2021.
Lu, T., Zhou, M., Feng, Y., Yang, Y. and Chin, W.C., Multiprobe
Pressure Analysis and Interpretation, John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken,
New Jersey, 2021.
Qin, X., Feng, Y., Wu, L., Tan, Z., Zhou, Y. and Chin, W.C.,
“Permeability and Pore Pressure Prediction in Highly Supercharged
FTWD Environments,” submitted for publication, 2020.
Qin, X., Feng, Y., Song, W., Chu, X. and Wang, L., “Development
on Incongruous Pushing and Stuck Releasing Device of EFDT,”
Journal of China Offshore Oilfield Technology, Vol. 4, No. 1, April
2016, pp. 70-74.
Zhou, M., Feng, Y., Xue, Y., Zhou, Y., Chen, Y. and Chin, W.C.,
“Multiprobe Formation Testing – New Triple Arm Logging
Instrument,” submitted for publication, 2020.
 2
Spherical Source Models for
Forward and Inverse Formulations
The 1990s sparked important innovations in formation tester design,
e.g., single, dual and triple probe tools, straddle packer applications,
optical fluid analysis, and so on. Very well received were the “early
time, low mobility, non-negligible flowline volume” inverse methods
used to predict mobility and pore pressure in formations where earlier
steady state methods were no longer optimal – for example,
Halliburton’s GeoTapTM method was successful in commercializing such
models. One of its inventors, W.C. Chin, later went on to win two Small
Business Innovation Research (SBIR) awards from the United States
Department of Energy in 2004 to extend the early work and to embark on
other promising avenues of pressure transient and sampling research.
This work continued beyond the life of the DOE contracts, resulting
in many new methods and algorithms that would see book publication in
the 2000s. In particular, these were Chin et al. (2014) or Formation
Testing: Pressure Transient and Contamination Analysis, Chin et al.
(2015) or Formation Testing: Low Mobility Pressure Transient Analysis,
and Chin (2019) or Formation Testing: Supercharge, Pressure Testing
and Contamination, all with John Wiley & Sons. These research
monographs introduced new methods and provided mathematical and
algorithmic details, practical validations, approaches motivated by
electromagnetic logging, and so on, which the present authors hope
would stimulate further advances. Nonetheless, the very rapid pace with
which the new models were introduced meant that the entire portfolio of
ideal “source models” could not be understood in perspective, even by
those actively engaged in research and engineering. A practical state-of-
the-art summary emphasizing key ideas, and less so the formal math, was
long overdue and is presented in this “introductory” chapter. Our
methods are applicable to all formation tester manufacturers’ tools.

21
22 Supercharge, Invasion and Mudcake Growth
However, this need was not driven by dissemination objectives
alone. During the same time frame, China Oilfield Services Limited
(COSL) would embark on several programs to develop leading edge
formation testing tools, a technology dominated by leading oil service
companies Schlumberger, Halliburton and BakerHughes. This effort was
all-the-more ambitious because COSL, a newcomer to formation
testing, would need to establish its competence in conventional tools
before its long term objective could be achieved. What was this
objective? The industry’s leading tester, at its most basic level, consisted
of a source (or sink) probe nozzle which, when pressed against the
sandface, would extract formation fluid samples for surface evaluation.
By products of this extraction are pressure transients measured at the
source nozzle – and also at a passive observation probe displaced 180o
circumferentially about the borehole. But physical intuition and field
observation would confirm extremely small pressures from the faraway
probe, or weak signal to noise ratios, especially at low mobilities, that
would lead to inaccurate predictions in demanding reservoir applications.
COSL engineering staff asked, “What if 180o probe spacings were
reduced?” What if three probes, each spaced 120o apart, were used?
And what if each probe were capable of operating independently, playing
active as well as passive roles, during the logging process? This clearly
opens up new possibilities in formation tester interpretation. An accurate,
robust and rapid full three-dimensional simulator accounting for borehole
curvature and pad geometry was needed which would also support
mechanical design and field operations. It would address practical
questions. For instance, what pump rate and nozzle combinations would
allow fluid withdrawal without releasing dissolved gas? How are pump
characteristics specified? How can triple probe redundancies support
determination of local heterogeneities? Dip angle? Before such a
simulator could be developed, the limitations in existing state-of-art
methods must be understood. Such a simulator has been developed and
is reported in 2021 companion book. The present chapter summarizes
our knowledge of existing models, in particular, the advanced spherical
and ring “source models” derived in the three prior books, which will
continue to be useful in ongoing developments related to the new triple
probe formation tester. Our compilation of general algorithms, in a
single volume, provides a comprehensive discussion of key formation
testing interpretation methods applicable to all manufacturers’ tools.
 Spherical Source Formulations 23
2.1 Basic Approaches, Interpretation Issues and Modeling
Hierarchies.
In this opening section, we review the main ideas and models
developed in the books Formation Testing: Pressure Transient and
Contamination Analysis, Formation Testing: Low Mobility Pressure
Transient Analysis and Formation Testing: Supercharge, Pressure
Testing and Contamination Models published by John Wiley & Sons in
2014, 2015 and 2019. Our discussions provide greater insight than
existed at the time and our ideas are now presented from the perspective
of developers who have designed a much broader three-dimensional
model. This does not mean that the earlier works, based on idealized
spherical and ring sources, are dated. In fact, the work is just as relevant
to future testers, which will host circumferentially positioned sensors and
also passive and active pressure displaced axially along the tool axis.
Early steady flow model. What are formation testers? Simply
said, they are borehole logging instruments with pad nozzles which,
when pressed against the sandface, extract or “sample” formation fluids
for detailed examination at the surface. By-products of the sampling
process are flowline pressure transient histories (at one or more probes)
associated with pumping actions, which can be interrogated for valuable
information related to formation properties like mobility, permeability,
anisotropy, compressibility and pore pressure. The earliest methods, now
several decades old, are based on formulas like “ks = CQ /(2 rp P)”
and gave only “spherical permeabilities” (subscripted by “s”). These
approaches required long wait times for steady-state pressure drops P to
develop. Later, more flexible approaches using Horner-type approaches
were developed; while decreasing waiting times, they unfortunately
required additional rock and fluid information, e.g., porosity and
compressibility, introducing inconvenience and potential error.
Simple drawdown-buildup models. The above formula, which
again required steady conditions, was excellent for high mobility
formations where pressure equilibrium could be achieved in minutes or
seconds. However, it does not apply in the presence of larger flow line
volumes when mobilities are low. Pressures normally indicative of the
downhole reservoir environment are initially forced to compress or
expand the fluid cushion residing in the line so that actual formation
characteristics are obscured or hidden – an analogy can be made to
gauging the power of a boxer’s punch with the boxer wearing heavily
padded gloves. When flowline volume effects are large, bearing in mind
24 Supercharge, Invasion and Mudcake Growth
that “large” is relative and depends on unknown fluid compressibility
and mobility, the measured pressures are distorted and cannot be used to
calculate properties like mobility, permeability or viscosity. The Darcy
component of pressure cannot be identified; this problem is akin to
“wellbore storage” issues in well testing. In response to this, petroleum
engineers simply waited for flowline effects to dissipate or subside,
which in low mobility formations may require many hours. Not only did
this increase logging time and expense, but the risk of stuck tools rose
substantially. Flowline storage problems had been accepted as inevitable
until a series of interesting breakthroughs achieved in the 1990s.

Figure 2.1. Early COSL single and dual probe formation testers
(where “dual” refers to axially displaced probes).
In petroleum engineering, students are taught that boundary value
problems governing physical phenomena consist of partial differential
equations constrained by boundary and initial conditions. Solve the
relevant formulation and the problem is fully understood. But the real
problem is practical: many important formulations cannot be solved in
closed analytical form, so that any physical insights and convenient
formulas that would have been useful remain hidden in numerical data.
And alternative computational solutions are only partly reliable:
“artificial viscosities” arising from truncation and round-off errors
contribute to uncertainties in permeability. Mark Proett, working at
Halliburton in the 1990s, developed an approximate “boundary condition
only” analytical approach valid at early times when storage and flow
 Spherical Source Formulations 25
effects were equally strong. Similar approaches developed for isotropic
media are now available, e.g., one at BakerHughes evolved to become
the company’s “formation rate analysis” or “FRA.”
Proett’s simplified approach is discussed in United States Patent No.
5,602,334, “Wireline Formation Testing for Low Permeability
Formations Utilizing Pressure Transients,” awarded to M.A. Proett and
M.C. Waid in February 1997. From its Abstract, “An improved
formation testing method for measuring initial sandface pressure and
formation permeability in tight zone formations exhibiting formation
permeabilities on the order of 1.0-0.001 millidarcies based on pressure
transients which occur shortly after the tester enters its pressure buildup
cycle and substantially before reaching final buildup pressure. The
method makes an estimate of formation permeability based on fluid
decompression transients which occur in the formation tester flowlines
which occur shortly after the tester begins its buildup cycle. The method
further estimates initial sandface pressure based on the change in
pressure over time shortly after beginning the buildup phase. The method
of the present invention thereby permits accurate estimates of formation
permeability and initial sandface pressure to be made relatively early in
the buildup cycle, thus substantially reducing the time required to make
the pressure and permeability measurements.”
Proett’s heuristic model, surprisingly, was very successful in
predicting spherical mobility and pore pressure in low mobility
environments from highly transient data. This assessment was also
based on the availability of synthetic data obtained from detailed
“forward” finite element calculations where timewise pressures (used to
validate Proett’s scheme) were determined from given or known
permeabilities. In retrospect, this is not altogether surprising. Many
problems in mathematical physics can be studied, at least initially,
without solving the complete formulation. As a case in point, consider
classical mass-spring-damper systems: if a small mass is struck quickly,
its initial motion is completely determined by auxiliary conditions, but
only subsequently does the complete differential equation matter.
Similarly, in formation testing, the differential equation would need to be
solved if additional information is required.
Analytical drawdown-buildup solution. Motivated by this need,
Wilson Chin solved the complete transient anisotropic formulation in the
late 1990s, with both flowline storage and skin effects in closed
analytical form, and demonstrated how Proett’s (constant rate) solution
26 Supercharge, Invasion and Mudcake Growth
provided the leading term of an asymptotic, low mobility expansion
whose application could be further extended. This “exact solution”
forms the basis for Halliburton’s drawdown-buildup GeoTapTM model
used in real-time mobility and pore pressure prediction in “formation
testing while drilling” (FTWD) or Measurement While Drilling (MWD)
tools. Further details are given in the prior cited books and in U.S.
Patent 5,703,286, “Method of Formation Testing,” awarded to W. Chin,
M. Proett and C. Chen, Dec. 30, 1997. Typical predictions in the field
require less than one minute of tool test time, thus enabling higher
density and more economical well logging. The term “exact,” at the
time, referred to analytical descriptions obtained using spherical source
models; however, we emphasize that the early solutions are approximate,
with “exact” now reserved for methods accounting for borehole diameter
and curvature, and the presence of circumferentially positioned probes.
We emphasize that Chin’s method, or “exponential solution,”
assumes a pumping nozzle modeled by ideal “sources” or “sinks,” and
provides pore pressure and spherical (or ellipsoidal, in the case of
transversely isotropic media) permeability predictions using early time
data. It does not, however, give horizontal and vertical mobility or
permeability individually, which can differ substantially in different
directions, unless measurements from an additional probe are available.
In the 1990s, this meant dual probes axially displaced along the tool axis,
although a diametrically opposite “180o probe” was available for limited
use at higher mobilities. The success of the new physics-based
drawdown-buildup approach motivated other challenges. Are other host
physical interactions possible? “Is it possible to use pressure diffusion in
a completely different way that reduces test times significantly? It turns
out that “pulse interactions” and “phase delay” approaches are viable.
Phase delay analysis. The prior question seems counter-intuitive
because high mobilities imply rapid pressure equilibrium – thus, low
mobilities would suggest long test times. However, this conclusion is
only the case if one restricts attention to conventional constant rate
pressure drawdown processes (which are used to derive classically used
formulas like “ks = CQ /(2 rp P)).” In fact, there are pumping actions
for which the opposite is true – by focusing on mechanisms that depend
strongly on diffusion, it is possible to develop fast algorithms for
permeability and pore prediction. In this regard, Chin turned to possible
analogies found in electromagnetic logging, that is, resistivity prediction
in high conductivity diffusive formations. In electromagnetic well
 Spherical Source Formulations 27
logging, a transmitter broadcasts constant frequency AC waves, whose
amplitude decay and phase (that is, time) delay are recorded at
neighboring coil receivers. These measurements are interpreted using
Maxwell’s equations as the host mathematical model and anisotropic
resistivities can be estimated – in fact, the greater the diffusion, the
higher the signal-to-noise ratio and the better the predictions.
Chin introduced his “phase delay” approach to formation tester
mobility prediction by developing an analogy to electromagnetic logging
as follows (e.g., refer to U.S. Patent 5,672,819, “Formation Evaluation
Using Phase Shift Periodic Pressure Pulse Testing,” awarded to W.C.
Chin and M.A. Proett in September 1997). The tester pump was taken as
the “transmitter” while a second passive observation probe assumed the
role of the “receiver.” When the pump piston oscillates sinusoidally, it
creates an AC wave whose pressure amplitude and time delay can be
measured at the observation probe. These measurements are interpreted
using Darcy’s equations to give mobility estimates, thus completing the
analogy to electromagnetic logging.
Experiments performed at Halliburton were successful.
Interestingly, time delays, in contrast to those observed in resistivity
logging, are large and could be ascertained visually from strip charts,
thus reducing demands on computational and electronics resources. And
mechanical requirements were not demanding – pump frequencies on the
order of 1 Hz were sufficient. But many questions remained unanswered
at the time. Once a pressure signal leaves the pumping probe, its fate is
completely determined by the formation – the “receiver,” so to say, “sees
what it sees.” But what happens if what it sees is poor in quality? And
what if the pump piston cannot execute pure sinusoidal waves as
required by theory, but only limited numbers of wave cycles that are,
say, rectangular in shape? It turns out, however, that the form of the
created wave can be controlled by varying flowline volume in time, thus
providing a means for customization, “active tuning” and quality control;
these effects are considered in Chin et al. (2015).
At the time the work was first performed, there was little incentive
to commercialize the phase delay approach at Halliburton. The invention
applied only to isotropic media – the required theoretical extensions to
anisotropic formations, in which the effects of dip angle would figure
prominently, were not available. To determine isotropic permeability,
the single-probe early-time drawdown method was more cost-effective,
simpler and additionally provided pore pressure. The phase delay
28 Supercharge, Invasion and Mudcake Growth
approach, while elegant and interesting, required dual probe tools and
could not give pore pressure estimates. Now, some two decades later,
the needed generalization to anisotropic media with dip has been
completed, together with more powerful extensions to low-mobility,
early-time, drawdown-buildup methods. The combination of the two, as
we demonstrated in the 2015 book, allows both horizontal and vertical
permeabilities – not just “spherical permeabilities” alone – to be
predicted from early time data in very low mobility formations. We have
summarized key interpretation approaches developed in the 1990s. They
were useful in that detailed math models were solved analytically in
closed form, also demonstrating which parameter groups were significant
physically and how field procedures could be optimized. But proper
understanding of these contributions requires us to understand the
limitations of idealized mathematical modeling methods themselves,
their physical implications, and of course, their consequences.
Modeling hierarchies. Few innovations to pressure transient
interpretation appeared until Halliburton’s sponsored research starting in
the 1990s. These initial efforts, summarized in “Advanced Permeability
and Anisotropy Measurements While Testing and Sampling in Real-
Time Using a Dual Probe Formation Tester,” SPE Paper 64650,
presented at the Seventh International Oil & Gas Conference and
Exhibition in Beijing by M. Proett, W.C. Chin and B. Mandal in
November 2000, introduced several avenues of research which saw
subsequent development. The first was the low-mobility, early-time
drawdown-buildup method discussed earlier; the second, a completely
analytical solution to the full boundary value problem developed by
Chin; and the third, the phase delay method, also due to Chin, although
restricted then to isotropic media. Difficulties with the analytical
solution, which manifested themselves only years later, would motivate
further work supported by the United States Department of Energy.
In the two decades since the “exact solution” appeared, two dozen
Halliburton papers continuing this line of development have appeared.
And given the wide dissemination of these publications, appearing in
journals and conferences associated with the Society of Petrophysicists
and Well Log Analysts (SPWLA), the Society of Petroleum Engineers
(SPE) and other organizations, it is important to additionally clarify what
was meant by “exact” then and what it refers to in the present context.
To understand this further, we need to understand the subtle differences
between real-world tools and their mathematical idealizations.
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
VERTICAL

Invents1 Acclamation
49
Obscurity
2 To rest
52
For example
3 Simpleton
56
Transaction
4 Rough59
An edible
5 root Side60glance
Ejaculation
6 Repast
61
Measure7 To cook
62
Toward 8 Vehicle
63
Sparkling
9 decoration Oily 64
fruit
Weeds 10 Miners’
65 pickax
Back11 Ribbed-appearing
67
A rabble
13 fabric
Wave-like
14 molding Conduits
68
Expressing
16 consent Species
70 of poplar
Agreement
17 Yearly
72income
Withered
18 Singing
74 sea nymphs
Illumined
20 Wearing
76 away
Hillside
21 (Scot.) Exaltation
79
Position
22 Soon82
Lofty24nest Curve84
Otherwise
27 Engagements
86
A minor
29 planet European
88 river
Flowers
30 Expressing
89 assent
Disappoint
33 Slave90
Lament35 Fabulously
92 rich man
Sport 37enclosure Spike94
Greasy38 Innuendo
95
Discontinuing
40 Puddle
97
Serpent
42 Above98
Girl’s43name Poss.
101pronoun
Stream45 beds State
102(abbr.)
Scatter
47 Cerium
105 (chem.)
 Denoting
107 hesitation

[109]

[Contents]
Puzzle No. 98
 A NINE-CELLED HIVE
By Edith S. Iseman

There is plenty of verbal honey in the nine divisions of

this construction, and your search is not likely to result
in any stings. The central interlock, perhaps, might be
improved upon, but there! We have built puzzles
ourselves, and know what the constructor is up
against.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31 32 33 34
35 36 37 38 39 40
41 42 43 44 45 46
47 48 49 50 51 52 53
54 55 56 57 58 59
60 61 62 63
64 65 66 67 68 69
70 71 72 73 74 75 76
77 78 79 80
81 82 83 84 85 86 87
88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95
96 97 98 99 100 101
102 103 104 105 106 107 108
109 110 111
112 113 114
[108]

HORIZONTAL

Bribery1 Unit 62
of square measure
At the5place Depression
63
Mass 10of caked metal Deciduous
64 tree
Musical
15 instrument Copied
65
Treasure
16 Staff67
(Scotch)
Recess17 Man’s69name
Fabric19 Moldings
70 (arch.)
Urchins
21 Struck
72
Young 22 feline A drug
75
Prophet
23 Vehicle
77
Husk24 Long79
Relative
26 One80
Devoured
28 Jeopardy
82
On ocean
29 Animal
84
Pour31 Silences
85
Council
33 of judges Examine
88 minutely
Character
34 in Genesis Singer
90
Number35 again Ruler92
Insect37 Part 94
of boat
Beverage
39 Tense96of Greek verb
Abyssinian
42 noble (abbr.)
Claims43 Extinct
97 bird
Offspring
45 End 99
Snow 47(combining form) Evil101
Redistributes
49 A saint
102
Mobile51 colorless liquid Color
104
Equip 54 Dimness
107 of vision
Descend
55 Disinfectant
109
Succors
57 Ant110
Girl’s59name Partner
111
 Bewail
60 Missile
112
Greedy
61 Made
113of tape
German
114 composer

VERTICAL

Units 1of liquid measure Strays

49
Sword2 Procreated
50
Equal3quantity (med.) Pertaining
52 to the sun
Great4General Indian
53princes
Cetacean
5 Strike
56
Pronoun
6 Retreat
58
Periods
7 Persian
65 gold coin
Part of
8 structure Bridge
66
Composition
9 Adroitness
68
One 11 Unbroken
71
Illuminated
12 Goat73
Series
13 of eights Exclamation
74 of
Greek14letter contempt
Hymn 15 Vegetable
76
Injection
18 Savory
78 smell
Machines
20 Pertaining
80 to gold
Joints
22 Afloat
81
Hire 25 Ecclesiastical
82 district
Receptacle
27 Top 83
Pertaining
30 to Bleat85
atmosphere Member
86 of Asiatic race
Domestic
32 Artificial
87 compound
Volcano
33 Warm 89coverings
Relative
34 Emit91
Arrive
36 Harsh93
Indigence
38 Avid95
Ventures
40 forth Playtoy
97
Multitudes
41 Irregular
98 mass
 Wittily
43 Halting
100
Loosen
44 Deer
103
Cut 46 Masc.
105prop. name
Engraving
47 Contest
106
Reflection
48 Loiter
108

[111]

[Contents]
Puzzle No. 99
 HIS PRIDE AND JOY
By Arthur J. Goldberg

For a second attempt (“My first you will never see,”

says Mr. Goldberg) this is really quite a wonder. It is
hard enough to confuse even you experts and yet all
the words are 100 per cent American—or should be!
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31 32 33 34
35 36 37 38
39 40 41 42
43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50
51 52 53 54 55 56
57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64
65 66 67 68 69 70
71 72 73
74 75 76 77 78 79 80
81 82 83 84 85 86
87 88 89 90 91 92 93
94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102
103 104 105 106
107 108 109 110 111 112 113
114 115 116 117 118 119
120 121 122 123 124 125
126 127 128 129 130
131 132 133 134
[110]

HORIZONTAL

A leopard
1 Course
73
To bite,
4 crunch Ancient
74 galley
Appears8 To censure
77 as faulty
Trained
13 Having
78 two shells
Sooner
17 than Belonging
81 to him
A small
18 job Coarse
82 heavy friezes
Encounters
20 Tumor
84
Metal-bearing
22 rock A division
85
To search
23 to the Tropical
86 climbing plant
bottom Above
87
Wholly
24 engrossed Implement
89
A fish
25of pike kind Strong
91 taste
To abound
27 Note93of scale
Obligation
28 Reduce
94 to a lower
A short
29 musket grade
Last31king of ancient Composed
97 of states
Troy Thoroughfare
100
Personal
33 chattel Period
103 preceding
forfeited to the crown important event
First35 A very
104 small distance
One36 who makes a Pieced
105 out
legal grant Female
106 bird
Passageway
38 Short
108for well bred man
To undermine
39 Helped
110
A day40laborer Broken
112 coat of grain
The 41
kingdom of Persia Dreads
114
Small42artificial Chief
117minister of
elevation Ahasuerus (Bib.)
Support
43 Advance
118
Knick-knacks
46 Three
120(prefix)
Screens
48 To 121
gather
 Word51of denial Genus
123 homo
Range52 of rocks under Floating
124 ice
water Neckwear
125
Tidy 54 Design
126
You 56 Specific
127 quality
A perforated
57 block Delays
129
Fragment
59 Kindled
130
Pen 60
for swine Cæsurea
131
To spill
62 Tent
132
Group64 Clownish
133 fellows
Characterizing
65 Snakelike
134 fish
ingredient of common
clay
Precipitous
67
Heavy69 hide whip
Siestas
71
Pens72for animals

VERTICAL

Fresh1and salt water Establish

63
fish Miserably
64
An air2sung by single Disfigure
66
voice Sward67
Quell 3 A fold
68
Melody4 Bleat70
Expectancy
5 Dull 74
sound
Skill 6 Mellow
75
Personal
7 pronoun Self 76
Part of
9 “to be” Anathema
78
Soaked
10 Urn 79
Destitution
11 Give80vent to
Macerate
12 Long83seats
Revolved
14 Fenced
85 off
 Ireland
15 Wanderer
88
Actions
16 Scotch90 city
Makes18 brittle Captured
91
Worthless
19 A cosmetic
92
Sleek21 Headaches
95
Admit25 Purports
96
Proportion
26 Revery98
Plait30 Military
99 defense
Firm31in resisting Pangs101
Early32part of day (pl.) Dignify
102
Gloomy
34 Fragrant
107 oil
Fur-bearing
36 animal Negotiate
109
Grates
37 So 111
be it
East43Indian coin Part112
of the face
Moving
44 spirit Thrashes
113
Change
45 Large115lake
Mediate
47 Preserve
116
Cleanings
48 Cabal118
Observes
49 narrowly Work 119
A son50of Adam (Bib.) Sharp122sound
Epoch53 A disease
124
Same 55 Concerning
128
N. African
58 country It is129
well
Young59 pigeon
Disseminate
60
Be eager
61

[113]
[Contents]
Puzzle No. 100
 A HARD NUT TO CRACK
By J. T. D.

Get out nutcracker, hammer, tongs and poker, for

there are words in here that the English language
doesn’t know it owns. J. T. D. is absolutely ruthless
when it comes to cornering the odd and unusual
word, and the unheard-of definition. This puzzle is
included especially to show you to what lengths the
innocent Cross Word can go when it tries.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31 32
33 34 35 36 37
38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47
48 49 50 51 52
53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62
63 64 65 66 67 68
69 70 71 72 73 74
75 76 77 78 79 80
81 82
83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96
97 98 99 100 101 102
103 104 105 106 107 108
109 110 111 112 113 114
 115 116 117 118 119
120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129
130 131 132 133 134
135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144
145 146 147 148 149 150
151 152 153 154
155 156 157 158

[112]

HORIZONTAL

Sanction
1 Islet 82
East Indian
5 revenue Pastry83 forms
collector Serving
87 tray
Reluctant
9 Genus 90 of orchids
Miller’s-thumb
13 (fish) Narrow93 opening
Pilfer17 Presently
97 (obs.)
List 18 A little
98while (Scot.)
Largest
19 known toad Scar99 (obs.)
Bird 20
of thrush family Part101of type face
Large22drinking cup projecting beyond the
Drained
23 shank
Persia
24 Dark102or purplish
Pert.25to the gums brown color
Bow-like
27 form Pale103brown color
Knavish
28 tricks Gibbon
104 of the Malay
Coiling
30 organ of peninsula
climbing plant Tricky
105(slang)
Climbing
32 shrub Long107inlet with
Insoluble
33 residue diminishing depth
Know 35or knows (obs.) Presently
108
Boggy36 land Ceremonial
109 saddle
Asiatic
37 country horse
Ancient
38 Greek dialect Wooded
111 land
Aromatic
40 medicinal Inflate
113
leaves Dandy
115
Indefinite
44 Spanish
116 gypsy dance
Corner47 Mohammedan
117 cleric
Black 48 Roumanian
119 coin
Presently
50 Domain
120
Early51Teutonic land Brush
123of twigs for
tenure sweeping
Drinking
52 vessel Pert.
124to the nostrils
Provident
53 Sound
126 of metals
Piece 57of needlework struck together
Located
59 Otherwise
130
In an63unbalanced Insane
131
state Trifle
132
A charm
64 (obs.) Inland
134sea, Asiatic
French66 given name, Russia
male Pluto
135
Sward 67 Venezuelan
136 coin
Holly68 Speak
140 rapidly and
East69 Indian cotton indistinctly
fabric Chemical
144 suffix of a
Precedence
70 binary compound
Outfit72 Heavenly
145
Small 73gastropod of European
147 cedar
gardens producing medicinal
East74 Indian plant used oil
in making hats European
148 bivalve
Allowance
75 in addition used as food
to tare Alarm
149bell
Sterile
76 Biblical
151 patriarch
Unqualified
78 Star152
in Pegasus
Tiller80 constellation
Pass81swiftly Genus
153 of the olives
Ethyl
154oxide
 Perennial
155 plant with a
single wooded stem
Inhabitant
156 of the
Kurland peninsula
Small
157river duck
Check
158

VERTICAL

French 1 hackney Adhere

73
coach Rope 77to hoist a yard
Breed2 Near79 (Scot.)
Maple3 Furtive
83 glance
Fling 4 South84American
Mayflower
5 Indian tribe
Pigmentary
6 nævus Earl 85
(obs.)
Roman 7 highway Sniff86
Title of
8 nobility Food87made from
Immature
9 pollack orchid tubers
(Scot.) At a 88
distance
Hideous
10 being Redemption
89 price
Malayan
11 for Sahib Enact90
Small12number Plant91of the iris family
Bear13 Gastropod
92 with spiral
Lounge
14 shell
Subdivision
15 of ancient Thin93flexible blade
Greek clan Crescent-shaped
94
Sarcastic
16 geometrical figure
Untamed
17 Venerated
95 image
Pert.21
to snow (obs.) Incline
96
Balm22(obs.) Suffix
100denoting
Flat-headed
26 jurisdiction
inflorescence Not105
concerted (mus.)
 Irregular
29 lump Enigma
106 (obs.)
Arikara
31 Indian Gypsy
110
East34 Indian tree Genus
111 of cattle
yielding a pungent oil Attention
112
Torment
37 Dry114
(French)
16th39 century clock in Slender
116 stalk
the form of a ship Violent
118 wind of
Kind41 of lettuce Southern France
Venerable
42 Interpret
120 (obs.)
Destroy
43 a creation Ignore
121
Spiral
44architectural Agreement
122
ornament Mine
123(Cornwall)
Addle45(obs.) Small
125house
Pikelike
46 fish Sprung
127 up
Aught47(obs.) Time
128of greatest
Fine49 silk net depression
Small52gnat Secluded
129 narrow
Fling53 valley
Axillary
54 Bale
131of raw silk
Part 55 Become
133 exhausted
Willingly
56 (colloq.)
Food58prepared from Shade
136 of blue
taro root Web137of a feather
Bitter59 Passage
138
Plant60of lily family Despoiled
139
Divulge
61 Blemish
140
Test 62
(slang) Whimper
141
Mechanical
65 device to Carbamide
142
regulate flow Routine
143
Dawdle
67 (dial.) Conjunction
146
Dig 71 Greek
150letter

[115]
[Contents]