Real-Time Formation Evaluation and Contamination PRediction

REE187432 DOI: 10.
2118/187432-PA Date: 29-April-19 Stage: Page: 531 Total Pages: 17
Real-Time Formation Evaluation and

Contamination Prediction Through
Inversion of Downhole Fluid-Sampling
Measurements
Morten Kristensen, Nikita Chugunov, and Adriaan Gisolf, Schlumberger;
Mario Biagi, Eni; and Francois Dubost, Schlumberger
Summary
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/REE/article-pdf/22/02/531/2133159/spe-187432-pa.pdf/1 by Schlumberger Oilfield UK Plc user on 09 January 2023

Acquisition of fluid samples using wireline-formation testers (WFTs) is an integral part of reservoir evaluation and fluid characteriza-
tion. Recent developments in formation-tester hardware have enabled wireline-based fluid sampling in a wide range of downhole condi-
tions. However, accurate quantification of oil-based-mud (OBM) filtrate contamination using data from downhole-fluid-analysis (DFA)
sensors alone remains challenging, especially in difficult sampling environments and for advanced sampling tools that have complex
inflow geometries and active guarding of filtrate flows. Such tools and conditions lead to contamination behaviors that do not follow
simple power-law models that are commonly assumed in OBM-contamination-monitoring (OCM) algorithms.
In this paper, we introduce a new OCM algorithm derived from an inversion of DFA data using a full 3D numerical flow model of
the contamination-cleanup process. Using formation and fluid properties and operational tool settings, the model predicts the evolution
of filtrate contamination as a function of time and pumped volume, and can thus be used to forward model the DFA sensor responses.
Sensor data are then inverted in real time to provide contamination predictions. Real-time computation is enabled through fast, high-
fidelity proxy models for the cleanup process. The proxy models are trained on and thoroughly vetted against a large number of full-
scale numerical simulations. Compared with existing algorithms, the new OCM method is now applicable for all types of sampling
hardware and a wider set of operating conditions. By directly relying on a model of the cleanup process, the physical properties of the
formation and fluids (such as porosity, permeability, viscosity, and depth of filtrate invasion) are estimated during the inversion, thus
providing additional valuable information for formation evaluation.
The new method is demonstrated by practical application in both synthetic and field examples of oil sampling in OBM. The syn-
thetic examples demonstrate the robustness of the algorithm and show that the true formation and fluid properties can be recovered
from noise-corrupted sensor data. The field example presented demonstrates that contamination predictions are in good agreement with
results from laboratory analysis, and the inverted formation properties are consistent with estimates derived from openhole logs and
pressure measurements.
Introduction
Downhole acquisition of fluid samples using a WFT is necessary for fluid characterization. Because of the invasion of the near-
wellbore region by drilling fluids, the first phase of fluid sampling involves cleanup of filtrate contamination. The cleanup operation
proceeds by pumping fluid from the formation through the internal flowlines of the tool and then disposing of the contaminated fluid in
the wellbore. The contamination level in the produced fluid is monitored using DFA. Below an acceptable contamination threshold,
fluid is collected in sample chambers for analysis. Optical DFA sensors enable the monitoring of the optical-absorption-spectrum differ-
ence between the reservoir fluid and drilling-mud filtrate. This is the basic principle underlying optics-based contamination monitoring.
Quantifying contamination from optical-density (OD) measurements requires knowledge of the OD of clean filtrate and formation fluid.
In OCM algorithms, these so-called OD endpoints are typically estimated by fitting and extrapolating a simple power-law model to the
OD measurements. However, in difficult sampling environments and for focused-sampling hardware with active guarding of filtrate
flow, the assumption of a simple power-law model is no longer valid.
The first goal of this paper is to develop an improved OCM algorithm with an inversion of DFA sensor measurements and using a
physics-based flow model of the contamination-cleanup process. By relying on a model of the cleanup process, the physical properties
of the formation and fluids are estimated during the inversion. The new algorithm, therefore, also provides key insights for formation
evaluation. The algorithm requires flow models of miscible filtrate-contamination cleanup. For realistic downhole conditions and
modern sampling hardware with complex geometries, such models must be solved numerically on 3D high-resolution grids. Numerical
simulations are computationally demanding and hence impractical in real-time work flows. As a key enabling step, the second goal of
this paper is to construct high-fidelity proxy models for the cleanup problem. These are computationally efficient, and therefore suitable
for real-time inversion work flows.
This paper is organized as follows. In the first section, we present the mathematical model describing the mud-filtrate-
contamination-cleanup process. The second section introduces the proxy models. The details on proxy-model construction and valida-
tion are presented in Appendix A. In the final section, we develop the new OCM algorithm and demonstrate it by application to both
synthetic and field data.
Modeling of Mud-Filtrate-Contamination Cleanup

Several authors have studied the contamination-cleanup problem during fluid sampling. Hammond (1991) presented approximate ana-
lytical models for both miscible and immiscible contamination cleanup through a standard probe. The models explained the late-time
Copyright V
C 2019 Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper (SPE 187432) was accepted for presentation at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, USA, 9–11 October 2017, and revised for publication.
Original manuscript received for review 7 February 2018. Revised manuscript received for review 10 September 2018. Paper peer approved 25 September 2018.
May 2019 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering 531
ID: jaganm Time: 14:34 I Path: S:/REE#/Vol00000/180083/Comp/APPFile/SA-REE#180083

REE187432 DOI: 10.2118/187432-PA Date: 29-April-19 Stage: Page: 532 Total Pages: 17
2
asymptotic behavior where the produced contamination decreases as t– =3. Also using analytical techniques, Ramakrishnan (2007) and
Sherwood (2005) proposed optimal designs for focused-sampling probes, in which the formation fluid flowing to an inner sampling
probe is guarded by an outer concentric probe, thus greatly reducing the contamination at the inner probe and thereby the time required
to collect an uncontaminated sample. Malik et al. (2007) used a compositional numerical-simulation model to history match observed
pressure and gas/oil ratio (GOR) during oil sampling in OBM conditions using a conventional probe. This work was extended to
focused probes and deviated wellbores by Angeles et al. (2009). Addressing the specific needs in prejob sampling planning, both Chin
and Proett (2005) and McCalmont et al. (2005) presented special-purpose numerical simulators for cleanup simulation.
Among the full-physics cleanup models requiring numerical solution, few authors have addressed efficient approximation techniques
that could make the solutions available for use in rapid-job-planning work flows, uncertainty quantification, and real-time inversion.
Zazovsky (2008) and Skibin and Zazovsky (2010) studied behaviors of miscible cleanup by a conventional probe. After identifying
characteristic signatures on the cleanup curve (formation-fluid breakthrough and transition between circumferential and vertical cleanup
regimes), they constructed simple type curves for the cleanup process and demonstrated their use in contamination monitoring. The spe-
cific solution structure limited their methodology to cleanup by a probe positioned away from formation boundaries. Akram et al.
(1999) developed a correlation for prediction of cleanup time for sampling of oil by a probe in water-based-mud (WBM) conditions.
They used a correlation structure dependent on the analytical solution developed by Hammond (1991), and extended it to account for
viscosity contrast, ratio between endpoint relative permeabilities, and distance to bed boundaries. Alpak et al. (2008) developed a proxy
model for OBM cleanup during sampling using a conventional probe. They used a third-order polynomial dependence between log10F

and log10V, where F is the fraction of produced contamination and V is the pumped volume. The polynomial coefficients were fitted to
match contamination results from full-scale numerical simulations.
The cleanup model used in this study was presented in Kristensen et al. (2014). For sampling oil in the presence of OBM contamina-
tion or sampling water in WBM contamination, we use a single-phase, two-component model assuming full miscibility between the fil-
trate and reservoir fluid. The model equations consist of the single-phase continuity equation and a contamination transport equation,
@/q
þ r qu ¼ q^; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð1Þ
@t
@/qw
þ r wqu ¼ w^ q ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð2Þ
@t
where / is porosity, q is fluid density, u is the Darcy velocity, w is the contaminant mass fraction, and q^ is the source density. From
linear mixing of filtrate and formation-fluid volumes, we can write the mixture density as
!1
w 1w
q¼ þ ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð3Þ
qmf qo
where qmf and qo are the densities of pure filtrate and formation fluid, respectively. The contaminant volume fraction is determined from
w
qmf
g¼ : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð4Þ
w 1w
þ
qmf qo
A nonlinear mixing rule is used for the effective viscosity l (Todd and Longstaff 1972),
lo lmf
l¼h i4 ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð5Þ
1=4 1=4
wlo þ ð1 wÞlmf
where lmf and lo are the viscosities of filtrate and formation fluid, respectively.
We consider a vertical wellbore with diameter Dw penetrating a homogeneous and anisotropic formation of thickness H with the
sampling tool at a distance h (0 h H) from the formation top. The lateral extent of the formation is large enough for boundary
effects to be negligible. Outer reservoir boundaries are closed to fluid flow, and the inner surface exterior to the WFT probe is closed as
well (i.e., it is assumed that the mudcake is impermeable). This assumption is generally justified for wireline-based fluid sampling,
where enough time has passed after drilling for a stable mudcake to form. For sampling while drilling, on the other hand, dynamic filtra-
tion conditions must be accounted for in the model. The work presented here, therefore, focuses on wireline sampling. The boundary
condition at the drain inlets is described using the standard well equation formulation of a reservoir simulator (Schlumberger 2017),
X q
q¼ Tc ðPc Pt Þ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð6Þ
c
l
where q is the total mass-flow rate of filtrate and formation fluid, Pc is the pressure of a boundary cell at the drain inlets, Pt is the pres-
sure within the tool, and Tc denotes the well-connection transmissibility calculated for a wellbore at the center of a radial grid,
0 1
B Hkh Dz C
B C
Tc ¼ B C ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .ð7Þ
@ r22 r2 A
ln 0:5
r22 rw2 rw c
where H is the grid-cell angle, r2 is the outer radius of the connecting grid cell, Dz is the height of the connecting grid cell, kh is the hor-
izontal permeability, and rw is the wellbore radius. The modeling of the inlet boundary condition assumes that pressure drops in internal
flowlines of the sampling tool are negligible compared with the pressure drop between the tool and formation. Along with the pressure
response, the model predicts the filtrate contamination as produced at the sandface. Because the sampling tool’s internal-flowline vol-
umes are small, the sandface contamination is a good approximation to the fluid-analyzer data. For sampling using a dual-packer tool,
532 May 2019 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering

this is not the case. The wellbore volume between the packers, which is initially filled with drilling fluids, must be taken into account.
We use the simple method presented in Kristensen et al. (2014) to account for tool storage, assuming full mixing of filtrate and forma-
tion fluid in the interval volume.
The model is initialized in hydrostatic equilibrium with a specified pressure at a datum depth corresponding to the center of the sam-
pling probes. The filtrate fraction is initialized with w ¼ 1 between the wellbore wall and the invasion radius, and with w ¼ 0 beyond the
invasion radius (i.e., it is assumed that filtrate has invaded the formation in a piston-like manner). The model equations are solved
numerically on a radial near-wellbore grid using a reservoir simulator (Schlumberger 2017). An overview of the sampling tools covered
in this study is presented in Table 1, and the tool-drain geometries are illustrated in Fig. 1 for the probe tools.
2
Tool Flow Area (cm ) Domain Symmetry
Circular probe 13.0 ½
Focused probe 3.1 (3.4)* ½
Elliptical probe 38.9 ½
3D radial probe 512.6

Dual packer 6891.2** 2D axisymmetric
* Sample and guard drain, respectively
** For 21.6-cm-diameter wellbore and 101.6-cm packer spacing
Table 1—Overview of sampling tools included in the study. The third

column indicates the domain symmetry used for each model to
reduce the computational domain.
×4
Fig. 1—Drain-area geometries for the four probes included in this study (not to scale). From left to right: circular probe, focused
probe, elliptical probe, and 3D radial probe. The 3D radial probe has four identical drains spaced 908 apart around the tool circum-
ference. The gray areas indicate the packer material surrounding the fluid inlets.
A numerical convergence study was performed to ensure convergence of the solutions with respect to both spatial and temporal dis-
cretization. Because we are concerned with the construction of proxy models from precomputed full-scale simulations that only need to
be run once, we have opted for a conservative strategy using very detailed gridding and timestepping to minimize numerical approxima-
tion errors. Although for some tools, such as a conventional probe, a coarser grid could have been used without noticeable loss of accu-
racy in the cleanup curve, other tool geometries, such as the focused probe, require very fine gridding near the probe inlets to properly
capture flow partitioning between guard and sample drains. For additional details on the WFT probes and a parametric study of their
cleanup behaviors, we refer to Kristensen et al. (2014).
Proxy Modeling of Filtrate Cleanup

The approximation error introduced by replacing full-scale simulation with a proxy model should be insignificant for the intended appli-
cation. For typical engineering applications in sampling-job planning and interpretation, a relative proxy-model accuracy of 5% is
deemed sufficient. A uniform proxy-model accuracy is desirable over the full duration of cleanup, from 100% filtrate contamination to
clean formation fluid. Although accuracy in the low-contamination range (<10%) is important for job planning, capturing the time of
formation-fluid breakthrough and the progression of cleanup at higher contamination levels is important for real-time contamination
monitoring. To fully replace numerical simulation, the proxy models should also incorporate the rate/pressure-drawdown relationships
to predict pressure drawdown at a given pumping rate.
A detailed discussion of proxy-model construction and validation is given in Appendix A. We emphasize that the proxy models are
key enablers for the real-time inversion work flow. They replace time-consuming numerical simulation with rapid evaluation at a negli-
gible computational cost and without sacrificing accuracy.
Real-Time Formation Evaluation and Contamination Estimation

Formation testers with DFA sensors enable monitoring of the optical-absorption-spectrum difference between the reservoir fluid and
drilling-mud filtrate. OBM filtrate-contamination monitoring (OFCM) is used to continuously monitor the fluid in the flowline during
downhole sampling until low mud-filtrate contamination is achieved. The principle of OFCM with optical measurements is dependent
on the Beer-Lambert law (Dong et al. 2003). For a fully miscible binary mixture of formation oil and mud filtrate, OD at channel k is
calculated using
ODk ¼ gODmf þ ð1 gÞODo ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð8Þ

where g is the volume fraction of OBM-filtrate contamination in a live fluid. Subscripts o and mf denote the virgin formation fluid and
the pure OBM filtrate, respectively.
Quantifying OBM contamination requires estimates of the properties of a virgin reservoir fluid and a pure OBM filtrate. One of the
main challenges in real-time OCM interpretation is that these endpoints cannot be measured directly in practice. Mullins and Schroer
(2000) fitted OD data acquired with a spectrometer at specified wavelengths to a power law,
ODðtÞ ¼ a btc ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð9Þ
where t is the time (assuming a constant pump rate), a and b are the two adjustable parameters, and c is a fixed exponent. Extrapolating
t to infinity, one can obtain the endpoint OD of a virgin fluid. For a variable pump rate, Eq. 9 can be rewritten in terms of pumpout
volume V rather than time t. Although a multichannel OCM algorithm dependent on synchronized OD measurements at multiple chan-
nels provides significant improvement over single-channel interpretation (Hsu et al. 2008), the accuracy of the endpoint characterization
is still limited if there is no, or minimal, OD contrast between the oil and the filtrate. This is typically the case when mud systems absorb
color because of well-to-well reuse, or if the native fluid lacks color. Multisensor OCM work flows have been proposed by Zuo et al.
(2015) using mixing rules similar to Eq. 8 for mass density, OD, and GOR. Specifically, for mass density assuming ideal mixing
between mud filtrate and reservoir fluid, the linear mixing rule holds,

q ¼ gqmf þ ð1 gÞqo ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð10Þ
where q is the mass density of the sampled fluid, qmf is the density of the mud filtrate, and qo is the density of the formation fluid. A
similar mixing rule can be obtained for the single-stage-flash fluid-shrinkage factor b (i.e., ratio of stock-tank-oil volume to reservoir-
fluid volume) (Zuo et al. 2015),
b ¼ gbmf þ ð1 gÞbo ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð11Þ
where b is the shrinkage factor of the sampled fluid, bmf is the shrinkage factor of the mud filtrate, and bo is the shrinkage factor of the
formation fluid. Finally, a mixing rule can be derived for GOR using an auxiliary f-function,
f ¼ gfmf þ ð1 gÞfo ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð12Þ

b
where f ¼ GORo ðGORo GORÞ (Zuo et al. 2015). From these linear mixing rules, we can express the filtrate-contamination
fraction as b mf
ODo OD q q bo b fo f
g¼ ¼ o ¼ ¼ : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð13Þ
ODo ODmf qo qmf bo bmf fo fmf
Hence, measurements of density and inferred estimates of GOR can be used in addition to measurements of OD for contamination esti-
mates. However, in the conventional work flow, a power-law assumption is applied for all measurements to estimate endpoints. This
empirical fixed-exponent power law presented in Eq. 9 has practical limitations and cannot be universally applied in OCM interpreta-
tion. Fig. 2 provides examples of deviation from the power law observed for various sampling tools and downhole environments. For a
2
dual-packer configuration, a large sump volume can cause significant delay in the late-time switch to V– =3 mode, as shown in Fig. 2a.
–2=3
The late-time V cleanup regime can be affected by the thickness of the sampled reservoir zone, as illustrated by Fig. 2b for the 3D
radial probe. Because of the shielding of filtrate flow by the bed boundaries, sampling in thin formations is often faster than predicted
2
by the V– =3 cleanup regime. Finally, Fig. 2c shows the effect of viscosity ratio on the early-time V–5/12 cleanup regime. OCM interpreta-
tion for focused tools is even more challenging because the power law of Eq. 9 is not applicable in this case (Lee et al. 2016).
102 102 102

Dual packer 3D radial probe: H = 5 ft
V –²⁄₃ 3D radial probe: H = 10 ft
Contamination (%)
Contamination (%)
Contamination (%)
3D radial probe: H = 50 ft
V –²⁄₃
101 101 101
Circular probe: μo /μmf = 1

V –⁵⁄₁₂
100 0 100 0 100 –1
10 101 102 103 10 101 102 103 104 10 100 101 102 103
Pumped Volume (L) Pumped Volume (L) Pumped Volume (L)
(a) Dual packer (b) 3D radial probe (c) Circular probe
Fig. 2—Examples of deviations from the fixed-power-law cleanup regime of Eq. 9: (a) sump-volume effect for dual packer; (b) zone-
thickness effect for 3D radial probe; (c) viscosity-ratio effect for circular probe.
The availability of fast and accurate proxy models for cleanup predictions enables the development of novel inversion work flows
for OCM and formation evaluation. We propose an inversion work flow for combined OCM and formation evaluation. The proxy-
model parameterization is extended by adding the OD endpoint of formation fluid (and OBM-filtrate endpoint, if necessary) to enable
the calculation of OD directly from Eq. 8. The proxy-predicted OD values can now be used to history match the measured OD and
invert for the formation and fluid properties listed in Eq. A-1 (see Appendix A), together with the endpoints. This work flow is naturally
extendable to multisensor OCM work flows using the relevant relationships for mass density, GOR, and shrinkage factor (Eqs. 10
through 12), and adding corresponding endpoints to the inverted-parameter set. An illustration of the work flow is shown in Fig. 3. Prior
knowledge from petrophysical evaluation and pressure-transient analysis is incorporated by setting appropriate bounds on the inversion

parameters. For example, porosity can be constrained by interpretation results from conventional openhole log analysis, and kv/kh can
be constrained by interval pressure-transient tests, if such tests were performed. For the purpose of uncovering parameter correlations,
as will be discussed later, the work flow proceeds by solving the inversion problem Ntotal times with random initialization of the inver-
sion parameters. During each inversion loop, a gradient-based optimizer is applied to minimize a misfit function between measurements
and proxy-model predictions.
OH log and
WFT pressure- Set parameter bounds
transient analysis for inversion
Random initialization
of parameters

(and added noise)
Predict contamination,
Solve optimization Measured OD,
OD, GOR, ρ, and b
problem GOR, ρ, and b
using proxy models
No
N > N total
Yes
End
Fig. 3—Schematic of proposed work flow for combined OCM and formation evaluation from inversion of WFT cleanup measure-
ments. OH 5 openhole.
The inversion problem can be formally stated as

ð
min WOD ðVÞkOD g ODðxÞk dV; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð14Þ
x p
V
where ODg is measured OD, ODðxÞ is proxy-generated OD, WOD(V) is a weight vector, and x is a vector of input parameters, including
proxy input parameters and OD endpoints. We note that because cleanup volume is insensitive to formation mobility, kh is not included
in the inversion process. For the examples presented in this paper, we have used Eq. 14 with an l1-norm. In the more general case of
multisensor inversion, the objective function is expanded to include other available measurements,
ð
min fWOD ðVÞkOD g ODðxÞk þ WGOR ðVÞk f~ f ðxÞk þ Wb ðVÞkb~ bðxÞk þ Wq ðVÞk~ q qðxÞkp gdV; . . . . . . . . . . . . ð15Þ
x p p p
V
where the proxy-based predictions for f ðxÞ; bðxÞ; and qðxÞ are computed using Eqs. 10, 11, and 12, respectively. The mismatch for
each measurement contributes to the objective function according to individual weight vectors.
OCM Algorithm Validation. To test the robustness of the new OCM algorithm, we consider two synthetic sampling cases for the 3D
radial probe and the focused probe, respectively.
We first consider sampling by the 3D radial probe in a thin formation. The “true” contamination and OD color-channel responses
are computed using the model parameters in Table 2 and the cleanup proxy model described in Appendix A. The synthetic OD meas-
urements are then generated by adding 1% relative noise to the OD. For each of 50 realizations of the noise, the model is inverted for
the parameters in Table 2.
Fig. 4 shows the results of the 50 inversions using OD measurements until V ¼ 344 L, at which point the true contamination is 2%.
All inversion results closely fit the true OD measurements, and inversion in noise-free data recovers the true contamination response
and formation and fluid parameters (see Table 2). The parameter estimates reveal correlations among some of the parameters, notably
between porosity and filtrate-invasion depth, both of which govern cleanup volume. The mean contamination estimate at V ¼ 344 L is
2.2%, with a P10 to P90 range of 1.6 to 2.9%.
The proximity of the tool to bed boundaries affects the late-time cleanup and, therefore, the contamination curve deviates from
fixed-exponent power-law behavior, as illustrated in Fig. 2b. To contrast the proposed OCM algorithm with existing power-law-based
approaches, we illustrate the “conventional” OCM work flow in Fig. 5. The conventional work flow proceeds by rearranging Eq. 9 and

plotting (a–OD)/b vs. V on a log scale to identify a regime of constant-exponent power-law behavior. The power-law model is then
fitted to the OD measurements and extrapolated to infinite volume to obtain the OD endpoint of formation fluid. Finally, contamination
estimates are computed from the endpoints and measured OD using Eq. 13.
kv/kh H (m) μ o (cp) Rinv [cm (in.)] φ ODo

True 1.0 1.5 2.0 17.8 (7) 0.18 1.7
Minimum 0.1 1.0 0.5 7.6 (3) 0.10 1.2
Maximum 2.0 5.0 4.0 30.5 (12) 0.25 2.2
Inverted (noise-free) 1.0 1.5 2.0 17.8 (7) 0.18 1.7
Inverted (mean over 50 realizations) 1.0 1.6 2.0 18.5 (7.3) 0.16 1.7
Table 2—True-parameter values, parameter-inversion bounds, and final estimates for the synthetic
OCM inversion problem for 3D radial-probe sampling. Additional model settings used are kh 5 10 md,
lmf ¼ 1 cp, Dw ¼ 21.59 cm (8.5 in.), z ¼ 0.5, and Q ¼ 25 cm3/s.
2.0 101 2.2

2.0
1.5
OD Color
1.8
μ o /μ mf
OD Oil
1.0 100
1.6
0.5 Noise-affected inversions

1.4
True noiseless OD measurements
Noise-free inversion
0 10–1 1.2
101 102 103 10–1 100 1 2 3 4 5
Volume (L) kv /kh Thickness (m)
102 12 4.0
Noise-affected inversions Sampled
True contamination 3.5 True
Invasion Depth (in.)
Noise-free inversion 10 Averaged sampled

Contamination (%)
3.0 Noise-free inverted
μ o (cp)
8 2.5
101
2.0
6
1.5
4 1.0
100 0.5
101 102 103 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2
Volume (L) Porosity μ mf (cp)
Fig. 4—Inversion results for the new OCM algorithm when applied to synthetic data for 3D radial-probe sampling. Results are
shown for 50 realizations of OD measurement noise along with results from inversion in noise-free data. The corresponding
parameter estimates are shown in the panels to the right.
Theoretically, late-time cleanup behavior for the 3D radial probe follows c ¼ –2=3 in Eq. 9 (Hammond 1991; Kristensen et al. 2014).
Hence, this value is typically used for radial-probe OCM. A likely interpretation of the flow-regime plot (Fig. 5a) would be that late-
time OD data obey this exponent, especially when accounting for the noise in the data. When fitted within the interval indicated, the
power-law model gives an OD endpoint of 1.81, which leads to a contamination estimate of 8% at V ¼ 344 L, compared with the true
contamination of 2%. Including the exponent when fitting the power law leads to the results shown in Fig. 5b and a contamination esti-
mate of 4%. As this example illustrates, flow-regime identification might not be straightforward, and interpretation using a constant-
exponent power-law model might bias the contamination estimates when the underlying cleanup process deviates from the assumed
behavior. In addition, closely matching OD measurements and power-law predictions (Fig. 5c) might lead to a false sense of accuracy
in the contamination predictions. However, we stress that conventional OCM is still valid and expected to yield results comparable with
those of proxy-based OCM when sampling in thicker formations where the cleanup process is unaffected by bed boundaries, thus obey-
ing the power-law behavior.
In the second synthetic example, we consider OCM for focused-probe sampling. Unlike sampling by nonfocused tools, the existence
of specific cleanup regimes obeying fixed-exponent power-law behavior has not been demonstrated for focused tools through modeling,
nor observed from field data. As in the first example, we compute the true contamination and OD color-channel responses using the
model parameters in Table 3 and the focused-probe proxy model described in the section on proxy modeling. Synthetic OD measure-
ments are generated for both sample and guard lines by adding 3% relative noise to the OD. For each of the 50 realizations of the noise,
the model is then inverted for the parameters in Table 3. We consider two scenarios: inversion in sample-line data only and inversion in
both sample- and guard-line data.
Figs. 6 and 7 show results from the 50 inversions using sample- and guard-line data and only sample-line data, respectively. In both
cases, inversion in noise-free data recovers the true contamination response and formation and fluid properties (see Table 3). As for the
3D radial-probe example, the parameter estimates indicate correlation between filtrate-invasion depth and porosity but, in general, the
estimates appear robust to measurement noise. The estimated contamination at V ¼ 8.7 L, at which point the true sample-line

contamination reaches 2%, varies between 1.6 and 2.0%. Ignoring guard-line data in the inversions has only a minor effect on the accu-
racy of the contamination and parameter estimates, as shown in Table 3. Although guard-line data can help to constrain the inversion
problem, the dynamic range from such data in real sampling jobs is naturally limited by the termination of the sampling job when the
sampling-line contamination reaches below the desired threshold. Thus, the robustness of the OCM algorithm is important when
limited guard-line data are available. However, it is still recommended to include all available data (sample and guard) in the inversion.
100 10–1
OD data (with noise): (a1–OD)/b1 OD data (with noise): (a2–OD)/b2
OD data (no noise): (a1–OD)/b1 OD data (no noise): (a2–OD)/b2
V –²⁄₃ Vγ
Fitting interval Fitting interval
(a–OD)/b
(a–OD)/b
10–1 10–2

10–2 10–3
101 102 101 102
Volume (L) Volume (L)
(a) Flow regime identification assuming a power-law (b) Flow regime identification with fitting of γ. Fitting results:
exponent of γ = −²⁄₃. Fitting results: a1 = 1.81, b1 = 6.89 L²⁄₃. a2 = 1.74, b2 = 37.1 L1.08, γ = −1.08.
2.0 102
1.8
1.6
1.4
Contamination (%)
1.2
OD Color
1.0 101
0.8
0.6 Estimated contamination from OD

(ODo from two-parameter power law)
0.4 Power-law fit (two parameters) Estimated contamination from OD
Power-law fit (three parameters) (ODo from three-parameter power law)
0.2 True noiseless OD measurements
Fitting interval True contamination
0 100
101 102 101 102
(c) Comparison of true OD data with fixed-exponent (d) Comparison of true contamination with contamination
power-law predictions. computed from power-law-estimated OD endpoint.
Fig. 5—Illustration of conventional OCM work flow using single-channel synthetic OD data from 3D radial-probe cleanup. The OD
endpoint of clean formation fluid is obtained by fitting the power-law model (Eq. 9) to the observed OD data within a fitting interval
determined from the flow-regime plots (a, b) as the interval where the data obey a constant-exponent power law. (a) Flow-regime
2
identification assuming a power-law exponent of c 5 –2=3. Fitting results: a1 5 1.81, b1 5 6.89 L =3. (b) Flow-regime identification with
1.08
fitting of c. Fitting results: a2 5 1.74, b2 5 37.1 L , c 5 –1.08. (c) Comparison of true OD data with fixed-exponent power-law predic-
tions. (d) Comparison of true contamination with contamination computed from power-law-estimated OD endpoint.
kv/kh μo (cp) Rinv [cm (in.)] φ ODo

True 0.10 2.0 25.4 (10) 0.20 1.90
Minimum 0.01 0.5 5.1 (2) 0.15 1.50
Maximum 1.00 5.0 38.1 (15) 0.25 2.30
Inverted: S+G (noise-free) 0.10 2.0 25.4 (10) 0.20 1.90
Inverted: S+G (mean over 50 realizations) 0.09 2.1 24.9 (9.8) 0.21 1.90
Inverted: S only (noise-free) 0.10 2.0 25.4 (10) 0.20 1.90
Inverted: S only (mean over 50 realizations) 0.08 2.2 24.9 (9.8) 0.22 1.92
Table 3—True-parameter values, parameter-inversion bounds, and final estimates for the synthetic
OCM inversion problem for focused-probe probe sampling. Additional model settings used are
kh 5 100 md, lmf ¼ 3 cp, Dw ¼ 21.59 cm (8.5 in.), H ¼ 50 m, z ¼ 0.5, and Q ¼ 10 cm3/s. S ¼ sample line;
G ¼ guard line.

2.0 101
2.2
1.5 2.1
OD Color 2.0
μo /μmf
OD Oil
1.0 100 1.9
1.8
0.5 1.7
Noise-affected inversions
True noiseless OD measurements 1.6
0 10–1 1.5
100 101 102 103 10–1 100 5 10 15
Volume (L) kv /kh Invasion Depth (in.)
102 5
14 Sampled
True

Averaged sampled
Contamination (%)
12 4
Noise-free inverted
10
μo (cp)
3
101 8
6 2
True contamination 4
Noise-free inversion 1
100 0 2
10 101 102 103 0.15 0.2 0.25 1 2 3 4 5
Volume (L) Porosity μmf (cp)
Fig. 6—Inversion results for the new OCM algorithm when applied to synthetic data for focused-probe sampling using OD meas-
urements from both sample and guard lines. Results are shown for 50 realizations of OD measurement noise, along with results
from inversion in noise-free data. The corresponding parameter estimates are shown in the panels to the right.
2.0 101
2.2
1.5 2.1
OD Color
2.0
μo /μmf
OD Oil
1.0 100 1.9
1.8
0.5 1.7
True noiseless OD measurements 1.6
0 10–1 1.5
100 101 102 103 10–1 100 5 10 15
Volume (L) kv /kh Invasion Depth (in.)
102 5
14 Sampled
True
Averaged sampled
Contamination (%)
12 4
Noise-free inverted
10
μo (cp)
3
101
8
6 2
True contamination 4
Noise-free inversion 1
100 2
100 101 102 103 0.15 0.2 0.25 1 2 3 4 5
Volume (L) Porosity μmf (cp)
Fig. 7—Inversion results for the new OCM algorithm when applied to synthetic data for focused-probe sampling using OD meas-
urements only from the sample line. Results are shown for 50 realizations of OD measurement noise, along with results from inver-
sion in noise-free data. The corresponding parameter estimates are shown in the panels to the right.
Application to Field Data. In this subsection, we provide an example of applying the proposed work flow to real field data obtained
during 3D radial-probe sampling. Although multisensor measurements were obtained in this sampling job (Fig. 8), we will focus only
on OD data (top track) for simplicity.

Raw OD Filtered OD
0.16
0.14
OD (unitless)
0.12
0.10
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
Raw density Filtered density
0.73
0.72
Density (g/cm3)
0.71
0.70
0.69
0.68
0.67
0.66

Raw GOR Filtered GOR
900
800
GOR (ft3/bbl)
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
Raw FVF Filtered FVF
1.50
FVF (unitless)
1.45
1.40
1.35
1.30
1.25
0 50K 100K 150K 200K 250K

Pumpout Total Volume (cm3)
Fig. 8—Multisensor data acquired during sampling by the 3D radial probe. The tracks from top to bottom are optical density, mass
density, GOR, and formation volume factor (FVF).
Because of low filtrate/formation-fluid contrast, no color channel can be used for interpretation in this case. Therefore, for contami-
nation analysis from OD only, the methane channel is selected (Channel 11, 1671-nm wavelength), with baseline Channel 9 (1600-nm
wavelength). This adds two extra parameters corresponding to the OBM filtrate and formation-fluid endpoints to the list of invertible
parameters shown in Table 4. The bounds for the parameters were established using available petrophysical data.
Results of inversion are shown in Fig. 9 and compared with predictions derived from the fixed-exponent power law. A simple weight
vector, WOD(V) ¼ V, was used in the objective function of Eq. 14 to enforce a good fit with the measured data for the low-
contamination stage of the cleanup process. Overall, the proxy-based solution agrees well with power-law interpretation for the late-
time period (when the power-law cleanup regime is valid), while also providing a reasonably close estimate for the breakthrough time.
The mismatch in early stages of cleanup is amplified by the log scale in Fig. 9b. Predicted late-time contamination was also confirmed
by the laboratory measurements. Contamination of 2.7 vol% was measured in the laboratory (Zuo et al. 2015), compared with 2.6 vol%
estimated by the traditional OCM algorithm and 3.1 vol% estimated by the proxy-based inversion algorithm.
kv/kh μo/μmf Rinv [cm (in.)] φ ODmf ODo

Minimum 0.01 0.25 7.6 (3) 0.120 0.01 0.160
Maximum 1 2.00 30.5 (12) 0.170 0.07 0.170
Initial 0.1 0.44 19.1 (7.5) 0.145 0.04 0.164
Inverted 0.15 0.73 18.1 (7.1) 0.167 0.06 0.165
Table 4—Parameter bounds, initial parameter guesses, and final estimates for the field-data-
inversion problem.
Sensitivity to Noise. In general, values of inverted parameters are consistent with available petrophysical data, pretest mobility esti-
mates, and endpoint estimates obtained from current OCM interpretation (ODo ¼ 0.1644; ODmf ¼ 0.0641). We have superimposed a
uniformly distributed noise with maximum amplitude of 3% on the measured OD and performed inversion for 200 random realizations
of the noise. Estimates of the inverted parameters are shown in Fig. 10. The spread of parameter estimates indicates an elevated sensi-
tivity to the noise in OD data, as well as possible nonuniqueness in proxy-based solutions. Among the considered input parameters,

ODo appears to be the most constrained by the inversion. This is expected because the selected weight vector in the objective function
enforces the late-time fit, which is largely sensitive to the value of the ODo endpoint. In the synthetic case studies, we observe negative
correlation between depth of invasion and porosity, suggesting their strong link in controlling the cleanup volume. However, in the con-
sidered field example, this correlation does not seem to be significant.
100
0.16
From measured OD
90 Proxy-based inversion
0.14
80 Power-law fit
0.12
Contamination (%)
70
0.10 60
OD
0.08 50
40
0.06
30

0.04
Measured OD 20
0.02 Proxy-based inversion
10
Power-law fit
0
50 100 150 200 250 100 101 102
(a) (b)
Fig. 9—Comparison of history-matched proxy-based predictions with measured OD and fixed-exponent power-law fit for OD (a)
and contamination (b). The contamination curve labeled “From measured OD” uses the endpoint OD values from con-
ventional OCM.
100 12 0.07
10 0.06
0.05
Rinv (in.)
8
kv /kh
ODmf
10–1 0.04
6
0.03
4 0.02
10–2 2 0.01
0.5 1 1.5 0.12 0.13 0.14 0.15 0.16 0.17 0.16 0.162 0.164 0.166 0.168 0.17
μo /μf Porosity ODoil
Fig. 10—Results of 200 inversions corresponding to random realizations of superimposed noise. Red markers indicate results of
noiseless inversion corresponding to the results shown in Table 4 and Fig. 9.
Global Sensitivity Analysis (GSA). We further investigated parameter invertibility by performing GSA. GSA is a variance-based
decomposition approach that quantifies contributions to the variance of model prediction from uncertain input parameters (Saltelli et al.
2008). In this study, we focus on first-order effects (S1) that quantify individual contributions to the variance (i.e., no interactions con-
sidered). First, we analyzed proxy-based predictions of contamination as a function of pumpout volume with uncertain input-parameter
ranges defined in Table 4. Input parameters are assumed to be uniformly distributed. Polynomial chaos expansion using Legendre poly-
nomials is applied to compute GSA indices in a computationally efficient way (Sudret 2008). Fig. 11 shows a GSA diagram of first-
order indices for four considered uncertain input parameters: permeability anisotropy ratio, viscosity ratio, radius of filtrate invasion,
and porosity. Analysis suggests that at early times, most of the uncertainty in contamination comes from uncertainty in the radius of fil-
trate invasion. As sampling progresses, contributions from permeability anisotropy increase to approximately 18% of the variance in
contamination. Individual contributions from uncertain input parameters should be considered in the context of overall uncertainty of
model prediction, as shown in Fig. 11b. Here, uncertainty in contamination is represented by standard deviation (SD) (solid line) and
individual contributions from input parameters are indicated by their respective color bars, which are proportional to the GSA first-
order effects. Predicted contamination shows the highest uncertainty with SD of 35% at approximately 10 to 15 L of pumpout volume,
with values of SD decreasing to less than 5% after 150 L of pumpout volume.
Turning to Eq. 8, analysis for ODk should necessarily include two additional input parameters: OD endpoints for filtrate and forma-
tion fluid. Again, using ranges defined in Table 4, we performed GSA for ODk as a function of pumpout volume. Results are shown in
Fig. 12. Compared with GSA for contamination (Fig. 11), the contribution from the mud filtrate OD endpoint appears to dominate
early-time uncertainty in ODk, whereas uncertainty in OD of formation fluid dominates uncertainty in ODk at late time. Throughout the
sampling process, the contribution from uncertainty in the radius of filtrate invasion is still the most significant (up to 80%), slowly
decreasing to slightly more than 10% toward the end of the sampling (set here at 1000 L).
When GSA results are analyzed in the context of ODk uncertainty (Fig. 12b), one can observe the similarities with results presented
in Fig. 11b and the additional contributions from OD endpoints of mud filtrate and formation fluid. The maximum predicted uncertainty
in ODk occurs at approximately 10 to 15 L of pumpout volume (governed by uncertainty in formation-fluid breakthrough). SD in late-
time ODk is predicted to be less than 0.05 after 250 L of pumpout volume.

1.0 0.40
SD
0.35
kv /kh
0.8 kv /kh
μo /μmf
GSA First-Order Effect

μo /μmf 0.30
SD Contamination
Rinv
Rinv φ
0.25
0.6 φ
0.20
0.4 0.15
0.10
0.2
0.05
0 0
100 101 102 103 100 101 102 103
(a) (b)

Fig. 11—(a) GSA first-order contributions to variance of contamination. (b) GSA bin diagram presenting results in the context of
contamination uncertainty. Color bins represent individual contributions to contamination variance from input parameters; the
size of each bin is proportional to the GSA fist-order effect.
1.0 0.05
SD
kv /kh
0.8 0.04 μo /μmf
GSA First-Order Effect
Rinv
φ
0.6 0.03
SD ODλ
ODo
kv /kh ODf
0.4 μo /μmf 0.02
Rinv
φ
0.2 ODo 0.01
ODf
0 0
100 101 102 103 100 101 102 103
(a) (b)
Fig. 12—(a) GSA first-order contributions to variance of ODk. (b) GSA bin diagram presenting results in the context of ODk uncer-
tainty. Color bins represent individual contributions to ODk variance from input parameters; the size of each bin is proportional to
the GSA fist-order effect.
Although the GSA results presented confirm the significant sensitivity to the OD endpoint of formation fluid, as observed from
inversion, the values of filtrate-invasion radius did not appear to be well-constrained by the inversion (see Fig. 9). This might be
because of the structure of the objective function (Eq. 14) and, more specifically, the weighting scheme introduced that puts signifi-
cantly more weight on the late-time part of the sampling, where contribution from the radius of filtrate invasion was predicted to
decrease (as shown in Fig. 12). Nevertheless, design of the objective function remains our focus for future research. Incorporation of
GSA indices in the weighting scheme of Eq. 14 appears to be a promising direction for improving inversion quality for
formation evaluation.
Although more research is needed, the advantages of the proposed proxy-based OCM method are already evident. It not only
extends current OCM work flows to provide estimates for formation and fluid properties with associated uncertainties, but also enables
continuous and near real-time OCM interpretation using measured data as they become available, while avoiding assumptions on fixed-
power-law cleanup regimes. This approach might eventually remove the need for manual evaluation of the endpoints using flow-
regime-identification plots (Gisolf et al. 2016).
It is important to emphasize that the work flow presented is not intended to be a definitive answer for deterministic formation evalua-
tion because of the ill-posed nature of the underlying inverse problem. It rather enables comprehensive stochastic analysis of the inverti-
bility of formation properties from the available data and the eventual extraction of more value from the measurements to better
constrain the estimates for the formation properties of interest.
Conclusions
In this paper, we have developed models and approximation techniques relevant to wireline downhole fluid sampling. Using a first-
principles model of the mud-filtrate-contamination-cleanup process, we have addressed the construction of fast proxy models for plan-
ning and interpretation work flows. Through extensive validation against full numerical simulations, we have demonstrated that
average proxy-prediction errors of 1 to 6% can be achieved for the entire fluid-sampling process, all types of fluid-sampling hardware,
and over the relevant ranges in formation and fluid properties.
We introduced a new OCM algorithm using the inversion of DFA data, in which real-time computation is enabled through validated
high-fidelity proxy models for the cleanup process. Compared with existing algorithms, the new OCM method is now applicable for all
types of sampling hardware and a wider set of operating conditions. The algorithm overcomes dependence on the identification of

cleanup regimes honoring power-law behavior, and it is suitable for focused tools, for which cleanup behavior following a power law
has no theoretical support.
By directly relying on a model of the cleanup process, the physical properties of the formation and fluids (such as porosity, perme-
ability, viscosity, and depth of filtrate invasion) are estimated during the inversion, thus providing additional valuable information for
formation evaluation.
The new method was illustrated in both synthetic and field examples of oil sampling in OBM. The synthetic examples demonstrated
the robustness of the algorithm and showed that the true formation and fluid properties can be recovered from noise-corrupted sensor
data, and the field example confirmed that contamination predictions are in good agreement with results from laboratory analysis. The
inverted formation properties are consistent with estimates derived from available petrophysical logs and pretest interpretation. We
note, however, that reliable invertibility of the formation and fluid properties from the filtrate-cleanup data can be significantly affected
by the elevated noise environment. Therefore, proper prejob analysis is required to identify parameters that can be inverted within
desired confidence levels. We are actively pursuing extension of this inversion work flow to multisensor measurements.
Nomenclature
a, b ¼ power-law coefficients for OD fitting, dimensionless
b ¼ fluid-shrinkage factor, dimensionless
Dw ¼ wellbore diameter, cm (in.)

e ¼ contamination-averaged proxy-prediction error, dimensionless
E ¼ mean relative proxy-prediction error, dimensionless
f ¼ auxiliary GOR function, dimensionless
f ¼ vector of proxy-model regression functions, dimensionless
H ¼ formation thickness, m (ft)
k ¼ absolute permeability, md
m ¼ number of proxy-model training data sets, dimensionless
M ¼ formation mobility, md/cp
P ¼ pressure, bar (psi)
q ¼ mass-flow rate, kg/s
r ¼ radius, cm (in.)
Rinv ¼ radius of filtrate invasion, cm (in.)
t ¼ time, seconds
Tc ¼ connection transmissibility, m3
u ¼ Darcy velocity, m/s
V ¼ volume, m3
w ¼ mass fraction of filtrate contamination, dimensionless
W ¼ weight function in optimization problem, dimensionless
x ¼ vector of proxy model input parameters, dimensionless
y^ ¼ proxy-model prediction, dimensionless
z ¼ relative tool distance from top of formation, m (ft)
a ¼ proxy-model correlation coefficients, dimensionless
b ¼ proxy-model regression coefficients, dimensionless
c ¼ power-law exponent for OD fitting, dimensionless
g ¼ volume fraction of filtrate contamination, dimensionless
h ¼ proxy-model correlation lengths, dimensionless
H ¼ grid-cell angle (in radial grid), radians
k ¼ wavelength of OD channel, dimensionless
l ¼ fluid viscosity, cp
q ¼ fluid density, kg/m3
/ ¼ porosity, dimensionless
Subscripts
h ¼ horizontal
l ¼ lower
mf ¼ mud filtrate
o ¼ formation fluid (typically oil)
u ¼ upper
v ¼ vertical
w ¼ well
Acknowledgment
The authors would like to thank Cosan Ayan with Schlumberger for noting the sampling-cleanup problem as a worthwhile pursuit, and
for much input and continuous support over the years.
References
Akram, A. H., Halford, F. R., and Fitzpatrick, A. J. 1999. A Model To Predict Wireline Formation Tester Sample Contamination. SPE Res Eval & Eng
2 (6): 499–505. SPE-59559-PA. https://doi.org/10.2118/59559-PA.
Alpak, F., Elshahawi, H., and Mullins, O. 2008. Compositional Modeling of Oil-Based-Mud-Filtrate Cleanup During Wireline Formation Tester Sam-
pling. SPE Res Eval & Eng 11 (2): 219–232. SPE-100393-PA. https://doi.org/10.2118/100393-PA.
Angeles, R., Torres-Verdı́n, C., Sepehrnoori, K. et al. 2009. Prediction of Formation-Tester Fluid-Sample Quality in Highly-Deviated Wells. Petrophy-
sics 50 (1): 32–48. SPWLA-2009-v50n1a2.

Chin, W. C. and Proett, M. A. 2005. Formation Tester Immiscible and Miscible Flow Modeling for Job Planning Applications. Presented at the SPWLA
46th Annual Logging Symposium, New Orleans, 26–29 June. SPWLA-2005-L.
Dong, C., Hegeman, P. S., Elshahawi, H. et al. 2003. Advances in Downhole Contamination Monitoring and GOR Measurement of Formation Fluid
Samples. Presented at the SPWLA 44th Annual Logging Symposium, Galveston, Texas, 22–25 June. SPWLA-2003-FF.
Gisolf, A., Zuo, J., Achourov, V. et al. 2016. Accurate New Solutions for Fluid Sample Contamination Quantification, With Special Focus on Water
Sampling in Water-Base Mud. Presented at the Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, 2–5 May. OTC-27291-MS. https://doi.org/10.4043/
27291-MS.
Hammond, P. S. 1991. One- and Two-Phase Flow During Fluid Sampling by a Wireline Tool. Transport Porous Med. 6 (3): 299–330. https://doi.org/
10.1007/BF00208955.
Hsu, K., Hegeman, P. S., Dong, C. et al. 2008. Multichannel Oil-Base Mud Contamination Monitoring Using Downhole Optical Spectrometer. Presented
at the SPWLA 49th Annual Logging Symposium, Edinburgh, Scotland, 25–28 May. Paper QQQQ.
Kristensen, M., Ayan, C., Chang, Y. et al. 2014. Flow Modeling and Comparative Analysis for a New Generation of Wireline Formation Tester Modules.
Presented at the International Petroleum Technology Conference, Doha, 19–22 January. IPTC-17385-MS. https://doi.org/10.2523/IPTC-17385-MS.
Kristensen, M. R., Ayan, C., Lee, R. et al. 2016a. Cleanup Model Parameterization, Approximation, and Sensitivity. Filed patent application: https://patents.
google.com/patent/US20160216404A1/en?q=kristensen&inventor=chugunov&oq=kristensen+chugunov.
Kristensen, M. R., Chugunov, N., Ayan, C. et al. 2016b. Fast Proxy Models for Probabilistic Evaluation of Downhole Fluid Sampling Operations. Pre-
sented at the ECMOR XV–European Conference on the Mathematics of Oil Recovery, Amsterdam, 29 August–1 September. https://doi.org/10.3997/

2214-4609.201601861.
Lee, R., Chen, L., Gisolf, A. et al. 2016. Real-Time Formation Testing Focused-Sampling Contamination Estimation. Presented at the SPWLA 57th
Annual Logging Symposium, Reykjavik, Iceland, 25–29 June. SPWLA-2016-LLLL.
Lophaven, S. N., Nielsen, H. B., and Søndergaard, J. 2002. DACE: A MATLAB Kriging Toolbox, Version 2.0, Technical Report IMM-TR-2002-12,
Informatics and Mathematical Modeling, Technical University of Denmark, http://www2.imm.dtu.dk/projects/dace/dace.pdf (accessed 16 June 2017).
Malik, M., Torres-Verdin, C., Sepehrnoori, K. et al. 2007. History Matching and Sensitivity Analysis of Probe-Type Formation-Tester Measurements
Acquired in the Presence of Oil-Base Mud-Filtrate Invasion. Petrophysics 48 (6): 454–472. SPWLA-2007-v48n6a2.
McCalmont, S., Onu, C. O., Wu, J. et al. 2005. Predicting Pump-Out Volume and Time Based on Sensitivity Analysis for an Efficient Sampling Opera-
tion: Prejob Modeling Through a Near-Wellbore Simulator. Presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, 9–12 Octo-
ber. SPE-95885-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/95885-MS.
McKay, M. D., Beckman, R. J., and Conover, W. J. 1979. A Comparison of Three Methods for Selecting Values of Input Variables in the Analysis of
Output From a Computer Code. Technometrics 21 (2): 239–245. https://doi.org/10.2307/1268522.
Mullins, O. C. and Schroer, J. 2000. Real-Time Determination of Filtrate Contamination During Openhole Wireline Sampling by Optical Spectroscopy.
Presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, 1–4 October. SPE-63071-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/63071-MS.
Ramakrishnan, T. S. 2007. Single Probe Downhole Sampling Apparatus and Method. US Patent No. 7,263,881.
Sacks, J., Mitchell, T. J., and Wynn, H. P. 1989. Design and Analysis of Computer Experiments. Stat. Sci. 4 (4): 409–423. https://doi.org/10.1214/ss/
1177012413.
Saltelli, A., Ratto, M., Andres, T. et al. 2008. Global Sensitivity Analysis: The Primer. Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley-Interscience.
Schlumberger. 2017. ECLIPSE Technical Description, V. 2017.1. Reservoir simulator software manual. Schlumberger.
Sherwood, J. D. 2005. Optimal Probes for Withdrawal of Uncontaminated Fluid Samples. Phys. Fluids 17 (8): 083102. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.2006128.
Skibin, A. and Zazovsky, A. 2010. Self-Similarity in Contamination Transport to a Formation Fluid Tester During Cleanup Production. Transport
Porous Med. 83 (1): 55–72. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11242-009-9466-2.
Sudret, B. 2008. Global Sensitivity Analysis Using Polynomial Chaos Expansions. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Safe. 7 (93): 964–979. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ress.2007.04.002.
Todd, M. and Longstaff, W. 1972. The Development, Testing, and Application of a Numerical Simulator for Predicting Miscible Flood Performance.
J Pet Technol 24 (7): 874–882. SPE-3484-PA. https://doi.org/10.2118/3484-PA.
Zazovsky, A. 2008. Monitoring and Prediction of Cleanup Production During Sampling. Presented at the SPE International Symposium and Exhibition
on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, 13–15 February. SPE-112409-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/112409-MS.
Zuo, J. Y., Gisolf, A., Dumont, H. et al. 2015. A Breakthrough in Accurate Downhole Fluid Sample Contamination Prediction in Real Time. Petrophy-
sics 56 (3): 251–265. SPWLA-2015-v56n3a2.
Appendix A—Proxy Modeling

Proxy-Model Parameterization and Construction. The output from the cleanup model is the volumetric fraction of contaminant in
the produced stream as a function of time and volume pumped, referred to as the cleanup curve. We are interested in modeling the vari-
ation of this curve with the physical parameters of the problem over the ranges relevant to practical fluid-sampling applications, as listed
in Table A-1. Not all the parameters in Table A-1 affect the cleanup behavior independently. It is well-understood that cleanup volume
k
is insensitive to formation mobility, M ¼ , and to WFT pump rate, as long as gravity-segregation effects between filtrate and forma-
lo
tion fluid are small. For realistic density contrasts between OBM and oil, the time scale of gravity segregation is much longer compared
with fluid-sampling times (Sherwood 2005). Therefore, phase densities are not included in Table A-1 as properties entering into the
proxy model.
Six parameters can be identified as individually affecting the cleanup behavior: permeability anisotropy, radius of filtrate invasion,
wellbore diameter, formation thickness, tool distance from the formation boundary, and formation-fluid/filtrate-viscosity ratio. The
cleanup volume is proportional to porosity; thus, we treat porosity as a scaling factor and not as an independent parameter of the proxy
model. We use the input parameterization of the proxy model,
0 1T
B kv lo H C
x¼B ffi ; zC ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ðA-1Þ
@ln kh ; ln l ; lnRinv ; lnDw ; ln rffiffiffiffi
mf kv A
kh
where x is the vector of input parameters, kv and kh are the vertical and horizontal components of permeability, Rinv is the radius of fil-
trate invasion (measured from the borehole wall), and z is the relative tool distance from the top of the formation (i.e., z ¼ h/H). Four

different outputs are modeled: cleanup time, cleanup volume, pump rate, and drawdown pressure. Depending on the tool-operating
mode, only a subset of the four outputs is used to fully characterize the cleanup behavior. For example, a tool operated at constant
pump rate is fully described by the cleanup volume and the drawdown. Likewise, a tool operated at constant drawdown is described
by the cleanup volume and the rate. To represent the full cleanup curve, each of the four outputs is modeled at l discrete contamina-
tion levels,
~t ¼ ½~t 1 ; ; ~t l T ; tj M P
~t j ¼ ln ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ðA-2Þ
/
~ ¼ ½V~1 ; ; V~l T ; Vj
V V~j ¼ ln ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ðA-3Þ
/
~ ¼ ½Q~ 1 ; ; Q~ l T ; Qj
Q Q~ j ¼ ln ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ðA-4Þ
MP
~ ¼ ½P~1 ; ; P~l T ; Pj M
P P~j ¼ ln ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ðA-5Þ
Q
where tj, Vj, Qj, and Pj are the cleanup time, cleanup volume, rate, and drawdown pressure, respectively, at contamination level j. The

values of ~t j , V~j ; Q~ j , and P~j are the corresponding scaled quantities modeled by the proxy. The scaling is chosen to limit the proxy-
model variables to the minimum independent set. For example, cleanup volume scales directly with porosity. If V1 denotes the volume
required to reach, for example, a 5% contamination level in a formation with porosity /1, then the cleanup volume in a formation with
porosity /2 is given as V2 ¼ V1 /2 =/1 . Hence, we can exclude porosity from the proxy-model variables (Eq. A-1). Similar arguments
apply to mobility. When operating at a constant drawdown pressure, the cleanup time scales inversely with mobility, and we do not
need to treat mobility as a separate proxy-model variable.
Range
Parameter Units Lower Upper
Porosity – 0.01 0.40
Horizontal permeability md 0.05 5,000
Permeability anisotropy – 0.01 100
Radius of filtrate invasion cm (in.) 5.08 (2) 76.2 (30)
Wellbore diameter cm (in.) 14.92 (5.875) 31.12 (12.25)
Formation thickness m (ft) 0.914 (3) 91.4 (300)
Relative tool distance from formation top – 0 1
Formation-fluid viscosity cp 0.01 1,000
Mud-filtrate viscosity cp 0.2 10
3
WFT pump rate cm /s >0 Any
WFT pressure drawdown bar (psi) >0 Any
Table A-1—Target ranges for formation and fluid properties for proxy-model coverage.
In practice, we model l ¼ 200 logarithmically spaced points on the cleanup curve, for all four output quantities, between g ¼ 1
(100% filtrate) and g ¼ 0.01 (1% filtrate).
We use a proxy model depending on Kriging approximation,
y^j ðxÞ ¼ aT /ðh; xÞ þ bT fðxÞ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ðA-6Þ
where y^j ðxÞ is the Kriging estimate of one of the outputs at point x. fðxÞ denotes the regression part of the model, which consists of
low-order polynomials modeling a global trend in the data, whereas /ðh; xÞ denotes the correlation part of the model. In practice, we
use second-order polynomials for fðxÞ,
fðxÞ ¼ ½ f1 ðxÞ; …; fq ðxÞT ¼ ½1; x1 ; …; xn ; x21 ; …; x1 xn ; …; …; x2n T : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ðA-7Þ
The correlation functions in Eq. 21 can be written as
/ðh; xÞ ¼ ½/1 ðh; xÞ; …; /m ðh; xÞT ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ðA-8Þ
where
/i ðh; xÞ ¼ /i ½jjHðx xi Þjj2 ; H ¼ diag½h1 ; …; hn : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ðA-9Þ
Thus, the correlation part is a function of the distance between the points in which the true model was evaluated, xi , and the current
point of interest, x. The vector h denotes scaling parameters that govern the correlation lengths in each of the parameter directions. Sev-
eral different functional forms for the correlation functions were tested. Exponential and spline functions were found to provide the
best results.

The vectors a and b in Eq. 21 denote proxy-model coefficients, which are estimated by fitting responses from the true model. It is
assumed that m true model responses are given as
~ i Þ; ~t ðxi Þ; Qðx
f½xi ; Vðx ~ i Þgm : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ðA-10Þ
~ i Þ; Pðx
i¼1
By “true model responses,” we mean full-scale numerical solutions to the model presented in the previous section.
The fitting of Kriging-based proxy models is well-established (Sacks et al. 1989). We have used an openly available software pack-
age (Lophaven et al. 2002) for this study. In the first step, the underlying model is evaluated at selected points in the parameter space to
generate the responses in Eq. 25. We use a two-stage strategy to sample the inputs (Eq. 16). In the first stage, we use a Latin-hypercube
experimental design (McKay et al. 1979) to randomly select N1 parameter samples where the true model is evaluated, depending on the
parameter ranges in Table A-1 and assuming uniform (or log-uniform) distributions. A preliminary proxy model is built from this initial
training set. Proxy-prediction errors are then analyzed to identify critical areas of the parameter space where denser sampling is
required. A second set of N2 training cases is generated, which is filtered to discard parameter combinations leading to unrealistic
cleanup times (e.g., combinations of low permeability and high viscosity, resulting in cleanup times of several days). A typical outcome
of the second-stage sampling is that more points are added for thin formations and close to bed boundaries, where cleanup behavior is
affected by the presence of a no-flow boundary.
The underlying model is evaluated for both constant-flow-rate and constant-drawdown operation. Cases with constant flow rate are

used to train the proxy models for drawdown pressure. Similarly, cases with constant drawdown are used to train the proxy models for
rate. All cases can be used to train the proxy models for cleanup volume because the volume required to reach a given level of contami-
nation is independent of the rate at which it is pumped, subject to the assumptions discussed in the section on modeling
contamination cleanup.
Proxy-Model Validation. Each proxy model is validated by comparison with 500 independent cases not used in proxy construction.
As a measure of proxy accuracy, we first compute the mean relative prediction error over the full spectrum of contamination levels,
i
1X y j yij j
N j^
Ej ¼ ; j 2 I ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ðA-11Þ
N i¼1 yij
where yîj denotes the proxy-model prediction for validation case i at contamination level j. As a single measure of proxy quality, we
then compute the mean of E over the contamination range from gu ¼ 95% to gl ¼ 1%,
ð gu
1
e¼ Edv: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ðA-12Þ
gu gl gl
Numerical experiments were performed to estimate the number of samples required for proxy-model fitting to achieve the desired
prediction accuracy. The variation of the mean relative prediction error (Eq. 27) was analyzed as a function of the number of responses
included in proxy fitting. A total of 4,000 to 5,000 cases were required for all tools to reach an error range of 1 to 6% (Kristensen
et al. 2016b).
Fig. A-1 shows the main validation results for all proxy models. The mean relative proxy-prediction errors, computed according to
Eq. A-11, are plotted as a function of contamination for all tools and all modeled quantities. For the focused tools, contamination
responses are modeled separately for guard, sample, and commingled lines. We consider the simplified case with a zero pressure differ-
ential between the guard and sample drains. With this assumption, the fraction of the total fluid flowing to the guard and sample drains,
respectively, is governed by the geometry of the drains, and we can apply the proxy-model parameters in Eq. A-1 as used for the non-
focused tools. Operationally, the commingled response is often used during the early phase of cleanup to determine when to separate
the flow into guard and sample lines, but it is additionally required here to handle the pressure and rate constraints that are imposed on
the total flow. Thus, the proxy models currently do not account for dual pump operation of focused tools where flow rates are imposed
separately on guard and sample drains, leading to a nonzero pressure differential.
Fig. A-1 shows that prediction errors vary between 1 and 10% across the contamination range. Relative errors in cleanup time and
volume are slightly larger at late times (low contamination), whereas errors in rate and drawdown are larger at early times (high con-
tamination). The latter observation agrees well with the fact that the largest changes in rate and drawdown occur during the early part
of cleanup because of changes in effective viscosity of the produced mixture. We note that prediction quality for guard-line pressure
and cleanup time deteriorates for the focused probe at high contamination levels. The mean error is dominated by cases with rapid
breakthrough of formation fluid, and although relative errors in cleanup time are large, the absolute errors are mostly insignificant.
Fig. A-2 shows the contamination averaged mean prediction errors (Eq. A-12) for all tools. The errors are in the range 1 to 6%, with
exception of the rate prediction for the circular probe, where a high relative error is observed during early cleanup (compare with
Fig. A-1a). Inspection of the error correlations with different input parameters shows that the mean error is dominated by cases with an
adverse viscosity ratio between formation fluid and filtrate (i.e., lo =lmf < 0:1). When filtrate viscosity is significantly greater than
formation-fluid viscosity, the cleanup process is unstable and formation fluid will finger through the filtrate zone, a phenomenon that
cannot be reliably captured by the numerical model. Therefore, this might explain the increased proxy-model error in this region.
The proxy models are trained and validated on cases with a single active operating mode (i.e., either constant rate or constant draw-
down). However, several applications might lead to the changing of operating mode during cleanup. Examples include the following:
• Evaluation of sampling performance using a time-varying rate profile.
• Switching between fixed rate and fixed drawdown. A job can be operated at a fixed target rate, but with a maximum drawdown
constraint imposed to ensure that the pumpout pressure does not fall to less than the fluid-bubblepoint pressure.
• Varying pumping rates caused by a nonlinear relationship between pump rate and pressure differential across the pump. For exam-
ple, WFT pumps are often controlled indirectly through power availability or motor speed.
A proxy-model-evaluation algorithm was devised to accommodate multiple operating constraints. At each step of the cleanup pro-
cess, the proxy model is evaluated for all constraints, and the active control mode is then identified according to the most restrictive
among the constraints. To illustrate this feature and to demonstrate the proxy-model accuracy when applied in this way, we consider a
focused-probe sampling case with single-pump operation, where the pump is constrained by power availability,

W
Q¼ ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ðA-13Þ
DP
where Q is the pump rate, W is the available power, and DP is the pressure differential across the pump. Additional maximum rate and
drawdown constraints of 25 cm3/s and 68.95 bar (1,000 psi), respectively, are imposed. Fig. A-3 shows the comparison between proxy-
model predictions and full numerical simulation. Because of the contrast in viscosity between filtrate and formation fluid, pumping of
the less-viscous filtrate proceeds initially at a rate of approximately 16 cm3/s, which then drops to approximately 10 cm3/s at the later
stages of cleanup, when formation fluid is produced. The power-availability constraint is active throughout the cleanup. Excellent
agreement is observed between the proxy model and the numerical simulation. Notably, although the total pump rate decreases mono-
tonically as higher-viscosity formation fluid breaks through, the individual guard- and sample-line rates show nonmonotonic behavior,
which is also captured by the proxy. This behavior can be attributed to the earlier breakthrough of high-viscosity formation fluid at the
sample drain, which shifts the flow toward the guard.
10 10 10
Cleanup volume Cleanup volume Cleanup volume
Cleanup time Cleanup time Cleanup time
Flow rate Flow rate Flow rate
8 8 8

Pressure drawdown Pressure drawdown Pressure drawdown
Error (%)
Error (%)
Error (%)
6 6 6
4 4 4
2 2 2
0 0 0
100 101 102 100 101 102 100 101 102
Contamination (vol%) Contamination (vol%) Contamination (vol%)
(a) Circular probe (b) Elliptical probe (c) 3D radial probe
10 10 10
Cleanup volume Cleanup volume Cleanup volume
Cleanup time Cleanup time Cleanup time
Flow rate Flow rate Flow rate
8 Pressure drawdown
8 Pressure drawdown
8 Pressure drawdown
Error (%)
Error (%)
Error (%)
6 6 6
4 4 4
2 2 2
0 0 0
100 101 102 100 101 102 100 101 102
Contamination (vol%) Contamination (vol%) Contamination (vol%)
(d) Dual packer (e) Focused probe (sample line) (f) Focused probe (guard line)
Fig. A-1—Mean relative proxy prediction errors (Eq. 26) as a function of contamination level for the five tools included in this study.
To account for all operating modes, each tool has separate proxies for cleanup volume, cleanup time, pump rate, and drawdown.
For the focused probe, the sample- and guard-line responses are modeled separately, in addition to the behavior of the tool when
pumping commingled (not shown). (a) Circular probe; (b) elliptical probe; (c) 3D radial probe; (d) dual packer; (e) focused probe
(sample line); (f) focused probe (guard line).
10
Cleanup volume
9 Cleanup time
Flow rate
Pressure drawdown
8
Mean Prediction Error (%)
0
Circular Elliptical 3D radial Dual Focused Focused Focused
probe probe probe packer probe probe probe
(sample) (guard) (commingled)
Fig. A-2—Summary of proxy-model validation results. The contamination averaged mean prediction errors computed according to
Eq. A-12 are listed for each tool, flowline, and modeled quantity.

102 102 20
Numerical simulation (commingled) Numerical simulation (commingled) Numerical simulation (commingled)
Numerical simulation (sample) Numerical simulation (sample) Numerical simulation (sample)
Numerical simulation (guard) Numerical simulation (guard) Numerical simulation (guard)
Flow Rate (cm3/s)

Contamination (%) Proxy (commingled) Proxy (commingled) Proxy (commingled)
Contamination (%)
Proxy (sample) Proxy (sample) 15 Proxy (sample)
Proxy (guard) Proxy (guard) Proxy (guard)
101 101 10
100 100 0
100 101 102 103 10–2 10–1 100 101 102 10–2 10–1 100 101 102
Volume (L) Time (hours) Time (hours)
(a) Contamination vs. pumped volume (b) Contamination vs. time (c) Pump rate
650 30
Parameter Value
600 25

Rinv 20.32 cm (8 in.)
Flow Rate (cm3/s)

Numerical simulation
Drawdown (psi)
φ
Proxy model
550 20 Operating constraints 0.20
kh 100 md
500 15
kv /kh 0.1
450 Numerical simulation (commingled) 10 μo /μmf 3 cp/1 cp
Numerical simulation (sample)
Numerical simulation (guard)
400 Proxy (commingled)
5 Max Q 25 cm3/s
Proxy (sample)
Proxy (guard)
Max ΔP 68.95 bar (1,000 psi)
350 0
10–2 10–1 100 101 102 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 Pump Constant power at 50 W
Time (hours) Drawdown (psi)
(d) Drawdown pressure (e) Pump rate vs. draw down pressure (f) Comparison-case settings
Fig. A-3—Example comparison of proxy-model predictions with full numerical simulation for the focused probe. Filtrate cleanup is
simulated assuming pump-constrained operation (constant power) with additional maximum rate and maximum drawdown con-
straints. (a) Contamination vs. pumped volume; (b) contamination vs. time; (c) pump rate; (d) drawdown pressure; (e) pump rate
vs. drawdown pressure; (f) comparison-case settings.
Morten Kristensen is a principal reservoir engineer at Schlumberger. He joined Schlumberger in 2008 as a reservoir-simulator
developer. Kristensen worked for 4 years in the Middle East in petrotechnical consulting before joining Schlumberger-Doll
Research in 2015. His research interests include near-wellbore flow modeling and simulation with applications in enhanced oil
recovery, formation testing, and downhole fluid sampling. Kristensen holds MS and PhD degrees in chemical engineering from
the Technical University of Denmark.
Nikita Chugunov is a principal scientist and program manager with Schlumberger-Doll Research. He joined Schlumberger in
2006 as a post-doctoral degree scientist working on carbon dioxide sequestration. Chugunov’s subsequent research focused on
multiphysics modeling and inversion, wellbore integrity, optimization, and uncertainty quantification. He holds an MS degree in
applied physics and mathematics from the Moscow Institute for Physics and Technology and a PhD degree in applied sciences
from the Russian Academy of Sciences.
Adriaan Gisolf is a reservoir-domain champion with Schlumberger. His previous positions with Schlumberger include field engi-
neer in Indonesia and Nigeria, service-quality coach in Colombia, and reservoir-domain champion in Angola, Norway, and the
US. Gisolf has coauthored 25 publications related to WFTs and has filed 30 patent applications. He holds an MS degree in
mechanical engineering from Delft University of Technology, the Netherlands.
Mario Biagi is the subsurface and operations geology manager at Ieoc B.V., the Egyptian branch of Eni. He previously worked as
a mudlogging-data engineer and joined Eni in 2002, working as a wellsite geologist on DPS SAIPEM 10000 for deepwater activ-
ities in Nigeria and Morocco. Biagi also served as an operations geologist in Italy, Egypt, Tunisia, the US, and Congo, where he
was involved in the discovery and delineation campaign of the Nene, Litchendjili, and Minsala Fields. He has published papers
on formation-pressure-while-drilling measurement techniques, integrated logging while drilling and wireline borehole imaging,
and DFA for real-time sample-contamination prediction. Biagi graduated in Rome with an MD degree in geotechnical geology.
Francois Dubost is a reservoir-engineer adviser with Schlumberger. His current responsibilities lie in the technical support of
reservoir-related services across Mexico and Central America. Dubost’s technical expertise resides in formation testing and sam-
pling, from engineering aspects (with experience steering software-development projects) to operational applications in the
field. He has worked across different continents for the past 22 years with Schlumberger, with field-engineering operational expe-
rience and field management. Dubost also has prior experience in reservoir studies, such as field-development planning and
production-optimization studies, after working 5 years in the consulting line of Schlumberger. He graduated from Heriot-Watt Uni-
versity with an MS degree in reservoir engineering. Dubost is a member of SPE and the Society of Professional Well Log Analysts.

Real-Time Formation Evaluation and Contamination PRediction

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Real-Time Formation Evaluation and Contamination PRediction

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

REE187432 DOI: 10.

2118/187432-PA Date: 29-April-19 Stage: Page: 531 Total Pages: 17

Real-Time Formation Evaluation and

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/REE/article-pdf/22/02/531/2133159/spe-187432-pa.pdf/1 by Schlumberger Oilfield UK Plc user on 09 January 2023

Modeling of Mud-Filtrate-Contamination Cleanup

May 2019 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering 531

ID: jaganm Time: 14:34 I Path: S:/REE#/Vol00000/180083/Comp/APPFile/SA-REE#180083

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/REE/article-pdf/22/02/531/2133159/spe-187432-pa.pdf/1 by Schlumberger Oilfield UK Plc user on 09 January 2023

532 May 2019 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering

ID: jaganm Time: 14:34 I Path: S:/REE#/Vol00000/180083/Comp/APPFile/SA-REE#180083

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/REE/article-pdf/22/02/531/2133159/spe-187432-pa.pdf/1 by Schlumberger Oilfield UK Plc user on 09 January 2023

Table 1—Overview of sampling tools included in the study. The third

Proxy Modeling of Filtrate Cleanup

Real-Time Formation Evaluation and Contamination Estimation

ODk ¼ gODmf þ ð1 gÞODo ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð8Þ

May 2019 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering 533

ID: jaganm Time: 14:34 I Path: S:/REE#/Vol00000/180083/Comp/APPFile/SA-REE#180083

ODðtÞ ¼ a btc ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð9Þ

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/REE/article-pdf/22/02/531/2133159/spe-187432-pa.pdf/1 by Schlumberger Oilfield UK Plc user on 09 January 2023

b ¼ gbmf þ ð1 gÞbo ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð11Þ

f ¼ gfmf þ ð1 gÞfo ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð12Þ

102 102 102

101 101 101

Circular probe: μo /μmf = 1

534 May 2019 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering

ID: jaganm Time: 14:34 I Path: S:/REE#/Vol00000/180083/Comp/APPFile/SA-REE#180083

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/REE/article-pdf/22/02/531/2133159/spe-187432-pa.pdf/1 by Schlumberger Oilfield UK Plc user on 09 January 2023

The inversion problem can be formally stated as

May 2019 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering 535

ID: jaganm Time: 14:34 I Path: S:/REE#/Vol00000/180083/Comp/APPFile/SA-REE#180083

kv/kh H (m) μ o (cp) Rinv [cm (in.)] φ ODo

2.0 101 2.2

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/REE/article-pdf/22/02/531/2133159/spe-187432-pa.pdf/1 by Schlumberger Oilfield UK Plc user on 09 January 2023

0.5 Noise-affected inversions

Noise-free inversion 10 Averaged sampled

3.0 Noise-free inverted

536 May 2019 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering

ID: jaganm Time: 14:34 I Path: S:/REE#/Vol00000/180083/Comp/APPFile/SA-REE#180083

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/REE/article-pdf/22/02/531/2133159/spe-187432-pa.pdf/1 by Schlumberger Oilfield UK Plc user on 09 January 2023

0.6 Estimated contamination from OD

kv/kh μo (cp) Rinv [cm (in.)] φ ODo

May 2019 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering 537

ID: jaganm Time: 14:34 I Path: S:/REE#/Vol00000/180083/Comp/APPFile/SA-REE#180083

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/REE/article-pdf/22/02/531/2133159/spe-187432-pa.pdf/1 by Schlumberger Oilfield UK Plc user on 09 January 2023

538 May 2019 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering

ID: jaganm Time: 14:34 I Path: S:/REE#/Vol00000/180083/Comp/APPFile/SA-REE#180083

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/REE/article-pdf/22/02/531/2133159/spe-187432-pa.pdf/1 by Schlumberger Oilfield UK Plc user on 09 January 2023

0 50K 100K 150K 200K 250K

kv/kh μo/μmf Rinv [cm (in.)] φ ODmf ODo

May 2019 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering 539

ID: jaganm Time: 14:34 I Path: S:/REE#/Vol00000/180083/Comp/APPFile/SA-REE#180083

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/REE/article-pdf/22/02/531/2133159/spe-187432-pa.pdf/1 by Schlumberger Oilfield UK Plc user on 09 January 2023

540 May 2019 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering

ID: jaganm Time: 14:34 I Path: S:/REE#/Vol00000/180083/Comp/APPFile/SA-REE#180083

GSA First-Order Effect

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/REE/article-pdf/22/02/531/2133159/spe-187432-pa.pdf/1 by Schlumberger Oilfield UK Plc user on 09 January 2023

May 2019 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering 541

ID: jaganm Time: 14:34 I Path: S:/REE#/Vol00000/180083/Comp/APPFile/SA-REE#180083

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/REE/article-pdf/22/02/531/2133159/spe-187432-pa.pdf/1 by Schlumberger Oilfield UK Plc user on 09 January 2023

542 May 2019 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/REE/article-pdf/22/02/531/2133159/spe-187432-pa.pdf/1 by Schlumberger Oilfield UK Plc user on 09 January 2023

Appendix A—Proxy Modeling

May 2019 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering 543

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/REE/article-pdf/22/02/531/2133159/spe-187432-pa.pdf/1 by Schlumberger Oilfield UK Plc user on 09 January 2023

fðxÞ ¼ ½ f1 ðxÞ; …; fq ðxÞT ¼ ½1; x1 ; …; xn ; x21 ; …; x1 xn ; …; …; x2n T : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ðA-7Þ

/ðh; xÞ ¼ ½/1 ðh; xÞ; …; /m ðh; xÞT ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ðA-8Þ

/i ðh; xÞ ¼ /i ½jjHðx xi Þjj2 ; H ¼ diag½h1 ; …; hn : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ðA-9Þ