SPE 115825

Best Practices for Formation Testing in Low Permeability Reservoirs

Peter Weinheber and Edward Boratko, Schlumberger; Kilamba Diogo Contreiras and Francisco Van-Dunem,
Sonangol P&P; Robert Spaeth, Marathon; EB Dussan V, Marco Rueda, and Adriaan Gisolf, Schlumberger Oilfield
Services

Copyright 2008, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2008 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Denver, Colorado, USA, 21–24 September 2008.

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

Abstract
The data provided by wireline formation testers (WFT) is critical to the evaluation and understanding of petroleum reservoirs.
Pretest pressures, gradients and mobilities are generally regarded as essential inputs to the reservoir evaluation model.
However, acquiring this data in low permeability reservoirs can prove challenging. There is no stable flowing pressure during
the pretest, build-up times can be long and the confidence level of the final pressure is often uncertain. These issues are
painted on the ever-present backdrop of supercharging that can limit the data’s utility or, in some cases, invalidate the results.

New generation formation testing tools that extend the range of pretest rates and volumes have greatly improved the
quality of WFT data acquired in low permeability reservoirs. Job design and planning has always been important for the
proper acquisition of formation test data. Several new options, made available through the enhanced capabilities of the new
generation of tools, makes packer/probe and parameter selection even more critical. Additionally, the challenges of the low
permeability environment require specific attention to real time quality control and evaluation of the test data as it is acquired.

In this paper we discuss best practices for formation testing in low permeability reservoirs with examples from the US
Land area and an offshore carbonate formation in West Africa. We show the pitfalls that can arise with incorrect test design as
well as the improvements brought by the latest tools when correctly configured.

While there is usually confidence in the mobility data from high permeability reservoirs the numbers generated from low
permeability reservoirs is often suspect: pretest volumes are typically very low and there is no stable flowing pressure. In the
examples the WFT probe results are compared and validated with subsequent mobility measurements made with inflatable
dual packers.

Introduction
All probe type formation testing tools utilize the same principles to measure sand face pressure:
1. The tool, with a probe and packer assembly connected to a pressure measurement gauge via a flowline, is positioned
at the depth to be tested.
2. The tool is “set”:
a. The probe/packer assembly is pushed up against one side of the borehole while hydraulic pistons provide
anchoring on the opposite side.
b. The rubber packer makes a seal against the borehole wall isolating the center probe area from the mud
column therefore allowing hydraulic communication between the flowline and the formation without
influence from the mud’s hydrostatic pressure.
c. All internal valves in the tool are closed creating a fixed flowline volume sealed at near hydrostatic pressure.
3. A pretest is performed:
a. A piston is pulled back to expand the flowline volume, thus reducing the pressure in the flowline.
b. Once pressure drops below sand face pressure fluid from the formation will flow into the flowline
c. Once the pretest piston stops expanding the flowline the pressure will build-up to sandface pressure
4. Multiple pretests may be performed on the same set and when complete the tool is retracted exposing the gauges back
to hydrostatic pressure.
2 SPE 115825

The foregoing technique has been implemented on many tools both wireline and LWD. Throughout this paper we discuss
examples from the MDT∗ tool which we refer to as the sampling tool and the PressureXpress∗ tool which we refer to as the
high-efficiency pretesting tool.

First, some terms:

Hydrostatic Pressure – the pressure in the mud column at any
given depth. This is a function of the mud weight and the true
vertical depth.
Formation Pressure – the static pressure at a given point in
the reservoir.
Overbalance Pressure – the difference between the hydrostatic
pressure in the wellbore and the formation pressure.
Flowing Pressure – the gauge pressure at the sandface while
the pretest piston is drawing back (or the pumpout is pumping).
Drawdown Pressure (ΔP) – the difference between the
formation pressure and the flowing pressure.
Total Differential – the difference between the flowing
pressure and hydrostatic pressure. This is also equal to
drawdown + overbalance pressure.

Based on the above sequence we can break up the pretest into five phases:

1) flowline decompression
2) after flowline decompression the drawdown will approach the steady state via an exponential
3) in the case of a sufficiently long flowing period at a sufficiently low flow rate: steady state formation flow
4) storage or tool dominated early time portion of the build-up
5) formation (spherical and/or radial) late time portion of the build-up

In the context of the above sequences, but now only considering low mobility formations, we frequently find ourselves
dealing with only 1) flowline decompression, possibly 2) the exponential form of the drawdown and 4) the early time
exponential portion of the build-up. When these terms dominate, as they tend to in the low mobility environment, they mask
the formation response; whether it be the stable flowing pressure in the drawdown or the spherical and/or radial flow in the
build up. In very low mobility formations, less than 0.01 mD/cp, we frequently find ourselves essentially dealing with
drawdowns that act like just 1) above – straight flowline decompression. That is to say the fluid flow rate into the tool after
the flowline pressure drops below sand face pressure is inconsequential compared with the pretest piston rate. Consequently
optimal acquisition of pretest data in the low mobility environment is focused on reducing the effects of the flowline
decompression and of the exponential portions of the pretest. We first discuss the flowline decompression phase

Flowline Decompression and Fluid Compressibility

At the beginning of the pretest the flowline is sealed and is at a pressure typically close to the wellbore hydrostatic pressure.
The initial portion of the pretest is the flowline expansion (or decompression) to take the pressure in the flowline from
hydrostatic down to sand face pressure. Flowline decompression has generally been taken to be the decompression of the
fluid in the flowline and has been described by the following equation:

ΔV = Vt C f ( pm − p f + Δpmc ) ……………… Eqn. 1

Where ΔV is the volume required to decompress a flowline of volume Vt full of a fluid with compressibility Cf. The
overbalance is the mud pressure minus the formation pressure (pm – pf ) and the pressure required to break the mudcake is
Δpmc. Note that we include the pressure required to break the mudcake but this is usually an insignificant term for several
reasons. Firstly, as we shall see, it makes only a very small mathematical difference. Secondly, most wireline tools consist of
a probe-packer assembly and the mudcake is actually pierced and broken by the probe. The pretest, then, does not break the
mudcake as it has already been mechanically broken. Finally, laboratory work has indicated that it takes only on the order of

∗
Mark of Schlumberger
SPE 115825 3

10 – 100 psi of back pressure to break the mudcake. The table below presents a calculation of some fluid decompression
volumes for typically encountered situations. For oil-base mud compressibility we reference Peters et al in SPE 18036. Note
that the table below does NOT include the Δp required to break the mudcake, but with low compressibility fluids it is
negligible. In case C, for example, even if it took 120 psi to break the mudcake the total decompression volume would change
only by 0.1 cc to 1.1 cc.
Overbalance Flowline Volume Fluid Compressibility Volume to Note that the table to the left and the
(psi) (cc) (1/psi) Decompress preceding equation consider ONLY the volume
A Moderate XPT with CQG Water 0.4 cc required to decompress the fluid in the flowline.
-6
2000 70 3 x 10 However we can not consider just the fluid
B High XPT with CQG Water 1.3 compressibility, we must account for the total
-6
6000 70 3 x 10
C Moderate XPT with CQG Oil-base Mud 1.0
system compressibility Consider, for example
2000 70 7 x 10
-6 the typical MDT pretest in Fig. 9 at the end of
D Moderate MDT with XLD Oil-base Mud 2.7 the paper. Sand face pressure is 5704 psi and
-6
2000 190 7 x 10 during the 0.5 cc/s pretest the flowing pressure
E Moderate XPT with CQG Gas at 5000 psi 28 dropped to 5692 psi. This is a 0.52 in radius
-4
2000 70 ~2 x 10
F Low MDT with LD Oil-base Mud 0.6
probe so the mobility computes to about 100
500 154 7 x 10
-6 mD/cp. The pretest was acquired in a well
drilled with oil-base mud so we assume a
Table 1 – Typical fluid-only decompression volumes compressibility of 7 x 10-6 1/psi. Applying Eqn.
1 and assuming 150 cc of flowline volume we
compute that 0.6 cc is required to decompress the flowline from a hydrostatic pressure of 6198 psi down to a sand face
pressure of 5704 psi. This is the same as Case F in the table. However, note in the bottom of Fig. 9 where we zoom in on the
pretest. In red is the quartz gauge pressure and in blue is the pretest volume, increasing as the pretest piston draws down. In
black at the bottom is the motor speed curve that is “on” as the pretest piston is being pulled back. Note that 1.8 cc of pretest
is required before the pressure in the flowline is brought down to sand face pressure. Contrast this to the 0.6 cc calculated
from just the fluid decompression and we determine that there is an extra 1.2 cc of decompression volume required. This
volume is required to account for the lack of flowline “stiffness” due to the compression required in the packer rubber, the
tightening up of metal-to-metal seals, o-ring compression and etc.

Similar to the reservoir engineer that must account for both rock and fluid compressibility to determine total
compressibility we must here consider both the fluid compressibility and the tool compressibility. The source of the fluid
compressibility is usually taken to be the drilling mud that fills the flowline before the pretest. For water and water-based mud
the compressibility is taken to be 3 x 10-6 1/psi (Fine & Millero, 1973). Work done by Peters (Peters et al, 1990) indicates that
oil-base mud compressibilities range from a high of about 8 x 10-6 1/psi for 11.0 ppg synthetic oil-base mud at lower
temperatures and pressures to a low of 2 x 10-6 1/psi for 17.0 ppg oil-base mud at high pressure.

Additional work done on characterizing tool response has indicated that the compressibility of the high-efficiency
pretesting tool can be in the order of 5 x 10-6 1/psi and up to 10 x 10-6 1/psi for the sampling tool. (The sampling tool has
demonstrated even higher compressibility values when fitted with probes and packers designed primarily for sampling. We
don’t entertain these here in this discussion of low mobility pretesting.) Compressibilities are, of course, additive and
therefore in the worst case, fluid plus tool can see values of 13 x 10-6 1/psi for the high efficiency tool and 18 x 10 -6 1/psi for
the sampling tool in certain oil-base muds. (The possibility of gas cut muds where gas kicks or inflows have not been
completely circulated out are not considered here but obviously would greatly exacerbate the situation.)

As we shall see, minimizing the effective volume of the pretest will be key to success in low mobility pretesting. However,
decompressing the flowline is a critical prerequisite and neglecting to fully account for both tool and fluid compressibility can
result in a flowline that does not fully decompress and therefore is not in communication with the formation.

Exponential Portion of the Drawdown and Build-up – τ

The drawdown exponential response is given by Eqn. 2 and the build up
exponential is given by Eqn. 3 and in both cases τ is as shown in Eqn. 4. (Proett et
al 1994) Therefore, as can be seen, minimizing the exponential effect on the
drawdown (which obscures the steady state flowing pressure) or on the build-up
(which obscures the radial and/or spherical response) is a matter of reducing τ. As
can also be seen, the effects of the exponentials are most prominent in the case of
high viscosity (μ) or low permeability (k) (i.e. low mobility). Therefore in low
mobility environments the three elements at our control are the radius of the probe
rp, the effective compressibility, Ceff and the volume of the tool, Vtool.
4 SPE 115825

Note that the volume term in our tau equation refers to the volume of both the tool flowline and the subsequent pretest.
Flowline volumes are intentionally designed to be as small as possible. Not only does a small volume flowline reduce the
exponential effects it is also of significant benefit when decompressing the flowline. Reduced volume was a primary design
criteria of the high-efficiency tool. It is also the reason there is an isolation valve in the sampling tool: to isolate the quartz
gauge (and strain gauge) in a small volume flowline for pretesting prior to sampling. Nonetheless – volumes are finite and
with a quartz gauge the high efficiency tool has a flow volume of about 70 cc and the sampling tool has a minimum volume of
about 120 cc which increases as probes of larger radius are installed.

The tool time constant, τ, also includes the probe radius. The standard or conventional probe radius is 0.22 inches and is a
default on the high efficiency tool and is widely available on the sampling tool. A larger probe radius will obviously reduce
the tool time constant, but the physical implementation of this will usually result in a larger total flowline volume. The
increase in probe radius, therefore must be balanced carefully against any additional volume that the larger probe introduces.

From our preceding discussion of the inputs to the tau function we can show here the net effects of the variance in tau.
The plot in Fig. 2 shows synthetic exponential build-ups (the thin lines) and the corresponding spherical derivative, Appendix
A, (like-colored thick lines) for three different values of tau. The table embedded in the plot shows the determination of tau
where we assumed a probe with radius of 0.22 inch, a tool volume of 70 cc and a total compressibility (fluid + tool) of 8 x 10-6
1/psi. We generate the three values of tau simply by varying the permeability. All other inputs remain constant. The build-
ups are calculated assuming a Δp of 5000 psi in a 10,000 psi reservoir.

Two key points are noted. Firstly, the initial portion of the spherical derivative, for all values of tau, is the straight line
commonly seen on virtually all pretest derivatives demonstrating the exponential nature of the early time storage effect.
Secondly, the duration of the storage effect is directly related to tau. Large values of tau result in longer periods storage effect.
More importantly, in the case of a large tau, the storage effect may persist to the point where the gauge resolution is reached
and will obscure the spherical and/or radial flow from the formation.

Figure 2 – The exponential build-up and corresponding spherical derivative for various values of τ.
SPE 115825 5

A recent introduction on the high-efficiency tool is the large area packer or LAPA. This packer fits directly on the
conventional probe and therefore adds minimal extra volume (< 20 cc) but due to its design it increases the effective probe
radius from 0.22 inch to 1.12 inches.
A chart of tau versus the more
commonly available probes and
packers on the two types of tools is
shown in Fig. 3. (In this chart we
have assumed a viscosity of 1 cp, a
permeability of 1 mD and a
compressibility of 3 x 10-6, however
tau is linear in all these terms so the
relative magnitude of change will be
the same regardless of the physical
environment.)
Fig. 3 illustrates the obvious
advantage the LAPA packer has on tau
values for both the sampling tool and
the high-efficiency pretesting tool.
Additionally the LAPA also exhibits
improved performance in vuggy or
fractured formations where success is
dependent on intersecting part or all of
a permeable vug or fracture. The
Figure 3 – Tool time constant, τ, as a function of flowline volume and probe radius increased flow area of the LAPA also
implies a smaller drawdown when pretesting (in the case of steady state flow) and this is of benefit in poorly consolidated
sands that are prone to failure and thus plugging the tool. The biggest drawback of the LAPA is the amount of mudcake that is
trapped in the flow area of the probe. If there is a high proportion of solids or lost circulation material the probe filter can be
overwhelmed and plugged. Finally, the actual flowing area (and therefore effective probe radius) is less certain than with the
other circular probes: It is difficult to be sure that all of the formation area isolated by the LAPA has released its mudcake and
is contributing to the flow. Partial mudcake breech may occur and the true flowing area maybe be smaller than that predicted
by the packer geometry. The LAPA is compared with the other probe and packer combinations in Fig. 4. The Cpf flow factor
is also included here which looks after the units conversion, anisotropy, probe radius and a small adjustment to compensate for
the fact we measure through a circular disc pushed up against the inside of a cylindrical borehole. See also Eqn. 6.

Figure 4 – A selection of available probes and packers

6 SPE 115825

Quality control of the recorded pressure

We discuss three techniques for a quality control on the recorded pressure;
1) ensuring flowline decompression
2) stable flowing pressure and mobility computation
3) derivative analysis for spherical and/or radial flow

Ensuring Flowline Decompression

In designing pretests for low mobility environments we strive to take the smallest possible volume that will still decompress
the flowline below the sand face pressure. In high mobility environments this is much less of a concern. Note our example in
Fig.9. A 100 mD/cp environment with a 10 cc pretest: 2 cc to decompress the flowline and 8 cc from the formation. No effort
was made here to minimize the volume of fluid withdrawn from the formation: at 100 mD/cp the exponential and formation
effects on the build-up time are negligible whether we pull 1 cc from the formation or 30 cc. Note in our Fig. 9 the pressure
stabilized to sand face pressure within seconds. However, below ~1 mD/cp, minimizing the volume becomes critical. There
are a number of ways to achieve this objective. One way is to allow the acquisition software to stop the pretest piston
drawdown when some predetermined pressure limit is reached – ideally a few hundred psi below expected sand face pressure.
This technique works well where there is good a priori knowledge of the formation pressure but is less applicable when there
is less certainty around the formation pressure as can be the case with fields under production. In addition, it is highly
advisable to perform subsequent pretests after the flowline has been decompressed to confirm decompression

Figure 5 – Example of a pretest aborted too early versus a properly completed pretest at the same point.

Fig. 5 shows an example of a pretest acquired in a reservoir where the pressure was expected to be about 1800 psi. The
drawdown pressure limit was then set at 1500 psi and the pretest shown in the left plot was acquired. The acquisition software
had stopped the pretest piston at 0.8 cc. The resultant pretest may well have been mistaken for a dry test. However suspicions
were raised and the tool was subsequently reset at the point and a second pretest was acquired. It is shown in the right plot. In
this case there was no drawdown pressure limit set. Note that the pretest actually exhibits a stable flowing pressure during the
drawdown according to Eqn. 5 and the build up stabilizes at 1390 psi – well below the 1800 psi originally anticipated.

Figure 6 – Using multiple drawdowns to ensure full flowline decompression.

SPE 115825 7

An alternative technique is to take multiple small drawdowns, stopping when two successive build-ups repeat. An example
of this is shown in Fig. 6. The first pretest of 2.0 cc is taken and the derivative is monitored in real time. When it is found to
not come out of storage a second 1.5 cc pretest is taken, followed by an third pretest of 2.0 cc. The second and third pretests
stabilize at 695.5 and 694.4 psi, respectively.

A more extreme example of this is shown in Fig. 7 where six small volume pretests are required to fully decompress the
flowline in this ~5000 psi overbalanced (highly depleted) environment. Note that each of these pretests are pressure limited.

Figure 7 – Multiple small pretests used to decompress the flowline in a depleted reservoir

In order to avoid excessive pretest volumes resulting in undesirable, long build up times, the engineer sets the drawdown
pressure limit 200 to 500 psi lower during each subsequent pretest. A pretest is taken, the build up monitored, the pressure
limit lowered and the process is repeated until the build-up demonstrates a response. Not until the sixth pretest (after a total of
1.15 cc) is a build-up detected. This builds to 3801.5 psi and pretest number 7 is performed to confirm the pressure. The
drawdown mobility calculated for this zone was .02 mD/cp.

Mobility determination
Drawdown mobility is determined from WFT pretests through one of two methods which we shall refer to as the steady-state
method and the area-under method. The steady state-method can be used when the tool time constant, τ, is sufficiently low
such that a stable flowing pressure exists as the pretest piston is withdrawn. This stable flowing
Q×μ pressure is a function of Darcy’s law as represented in Eqn. 5 (Moran & Finklea, 1962;

Δp = Schlumberger, 2006) We can rearrange this equation in terms of the mobility ratio k/μ and
include the Cpf term which accounts for units conversion, probe radius and anisotropy to get Eqn.
k × 4r p
6. This can be used to derive the drawdown mobility when a stable flowing pressure exists. For
instance our first example (Fig. 9) we had a drawdown of 5704 – 5692 = 12 psi. The flow rate
Equation 5 was 0.5 cc/s and a 0.54 inch radius probe was used which implies a Cpf = 2395. The mobility is
therefore 100 mD/cp.

k Q Many times, especially in the case of low mobility environments we are unable to establish a
= C pf stable flowing pressure. In such situations we do not use the steady-state method but instead
μ Δpss employ the area-under method. The area-under method is the default mobility provided from
both the high-efficiency pretesting tool and the sampling tool. For the area-under method we
integrate the area under the pressure-time curve for all pressures less than the final read build up
Equation 6 pressure and divide the result of this integration into the total pretest volume. The left hand side
of Fig. 13 at the end of the paper shows the formula used to calculate drawdown mobility from a
8 SPE 115825

pretest. Mobility or k/μ is on the left hand side of the equation. On the right hand side pretest volume and shape factor are in
the numerator. The shape factor is a function of the tool geometry. In the denominator we have a constant, the probe radius
and an integral. The integral represents the area enclosed by the draw-down/build-up portion of the pressure time curve and a
horizontal projection of the final build-up pressure. This area is shown in red on the simulated pressure time plot on the right
hand side of the figure. As can be seen from this equation, any error in the determination of pretest volume will transform
linearly to an error in mobility.

The accuracy of WFT mobility data then is dependent on the accuracy of the rate determination (for the steady state
method) and of the volume determination (for the area-under method). Since the majority of pretests acquired in low mobility
formation must be analyzed using the area-under method (there is typically no stable flowing pressure) the accuracy of the
volume determination is key. Older generation formation testing tools, such as the sampling tool, employ hydraulically
driven pretest mechanisms. An electric motor is used to run a pump which pumps hydraulic oil to move the pretest piston.
This method has the advantage of generating very large drawdowns (the sampling tool can pretest against 20,000 psi) but
suffers from limitations in the determination of the volume. Furthermore, errors in the determination of the pretest volume
actually increase as the pretest volume decreases. This is obviously a significant issue when determining mobility from low
volume pretests made in low mobility environments. The high-efficiency pretesting tools uses an electromechanical motor
coupled to a planetary roller screw mechanism and a high reduction gearbox. (Schrooten et al, 2007) This system provides
highly stable and precise control of both the pretest rate and volume. Additionally, many of the tool control and command
functions are performed in the downhole electronic cartridge which means improved response time and makes it possible to
achieve accurate pretest volumes as low as 0.1 cc and rates as low as 0.05 cc/s Therefore in low mobility formations, where
lower pretest volumes are typical, the improved volume accuracy of the new generation pretest mechanism translates directly
to improved mobility calculations.

With the advent of improvements in the accuracy of the pretest volume determination and subsequent application in low
and very low mobility environments, gaps in the area-under algorithm become apparent. Traditionally, no matter how much of
the pretest volume was used to decompress the flowline down to the sand face pressure, the total pretest volume was used in
the mobility computation. However the appropriate volume to use is the actual amount extracted from the formation. With
the accurate volumes of the high-efficiency pretesting tool it made sense to correct the algorithm to accurately separate the
portion of the pretest volume used to decompress the flowline down to sand face pressure from the portion that actually gets
withdrawn from the formation. This is done by simply projecting the final build up pressure back to the drawdown portion of
the pressure-time curve. See Fig. 13 again, at the end of the paper. This intersection is the break point where all flowline
volume expansion prior to this time was necessary to decompress the flowline to sand face pressure. The pretest volume
following this point is the portion used in the mobility equation. This allows for more accurate mobility computations,
particularly in highly depleted reservoirs where a significant portion of the pretest volume is used for flowline decompression.
Note that this algorithm has also been implemented on the sampling tool – but the inherent inaccuracy of the volume and rate
determinations from a hydraulic pretest system remain.

Stable Flowing Pressure in a Very Low Mobility Environment - 1

Fig. 10 at the end of the paper is an example of a pressure application is a very difficult environment. This is a Cotton Valley
Sand in an East Texas field which has been under production for quite some time and is therefore depleted. The pressure
versus time plot shows an initial 10 cc pretest at a low pretest rate of 0.1 cc/s. This data set is acquired with the high-
efficiency pretesting tool – the hydraulically operated sampling tool would not have been able to acquire a pretest at such a
slow rate. Note that there is about 3.8 cc of flowline decompression – not surprising given the level of depletion. Note also
that the remaining 6.2 cc of the pretest comes just about to a stable flowing pressure. This formation test was performed with
the LAPA packer discussed earlier providing a significantly increased flow area. As the table embedded in the plot shows, the
mobility from the first pretest using the steady state algorithm (0.056 mD/cP) is quite close to the mobility from the area-under
method (0.050 mD/cp). Additionally note in the bottom of the figure that the derivative plots clearly show the response is well
out of recompression and is seeing flow from the formation. The second pretest is pulled much faster than the first (0.38 cc/s)
and consequently does not establish a stable flowing pressure. The area under method is applied and calculates to 0.039
mD/cp … agreeing to the values determined from the first pretest to within the tolerances one would expect for this type of
environment. The derivatives from the second pretest are also presented and show again that the flow is responding to the
formation. Note that the first pretest stabilizes to 4059 psi and the second to 4057 psi. All this occurs, from set tool to retract
tool, in 13 minutes. This is a significant improvement in both time and data quality over using the standard probe in low
mobility environments like this. This high quality data could not have been acquired in this formation without the precise,
slow pretest rate of the high efficiency tool combined with the large flow area of the LAPA.

Comparison of steady state mobility and area under mobility

Fig. 8 is an example which compares mobilities derived from sequential pretests: one that reached a steady state flowing
condition and one that did not. The sequence consists of an initial 0.8 cc pretest that is not sufficient to decompress the
flowline. This is followed by another 0.8 cc pretest. Both of these pretests have the very low flow rate of 0.05 cc/s which
SPE 115825 9

Figure 8 – Stable flowing pressure in a low mobility environment

represents the low end of pretest rates possible with the high-efficiency tool. The second pretest is sufficient to fully
decompress the flowline. Of the second pretest, 0.3 cc is used for the final flowline decompression and 0.5 cc flows from the
formation. Using such a low flow rate it is possible to establish a very stable flowing pressure – the Δp here is 109 psi. With a
rate of 0.05 cc/s this computes to a steady state mobility of [5660 x (0.05 ÷ 109)] = 2.53 mD/cp. Additionally note that the
area-under method computes a drawdown mobility of 2.45 mD/cp on the same pretest.

The final pretest (Pretest 3) is pulled at a rate of 0.38 cc/s and this is too fast and too short to yield a stable flowing
pressure. The area-under method yields a mobility of 3.7 mD/cp which is very much in-line with the mobilities determined
from the first pretest. The final built up pressure from the first pretest was 2267 psi and 2268 psi from the second pretest.

Dual Packer and Probe Pretests at the Same Position

Fig. 11a through 11d show pressure measurements made with the high-efficiency pretesting tool, the inflatable dual packer and
the focused probe tool all at the same point. The focused probe tool (Weinheber & Vasques, 2006; O’Keefe et al, 2006; Akurt
et al, 2006) is primarily a sampling tool but we include the pretest information here for completeness

MD TVD P formation DD Mob DD Mob SS Rate Volume

[m] [m] [psia] [md/cp] [md/cp] [cc/sec] [cc]
Dual Packer – Fig 11a xx26.6 xx66.0 x424 (radial p*) 0.2 0.1 1.50 32,100
XPT – Fig 11b (1st) xx26.8 xx66.1 x435 9.1 8.3 0.2 5.0
XPT – Fig 11b (2nd) xx26.8 xx66.1 x435 9.5 11.1 0.6 5.0
XPT – Fig 11c xx26.9 xx66.2 x438 0.4 n/a 0.5 1.6
PQ – Fig 11d xx27.0 xx66.1 x432 0.7 n/a 0.4 6.7
Table x – Summary of pretest and pressure data acquired from XPT, MDT and Dual Packer in the same interval

In this particular application the high-efficiency tool was deployed to obtain formation pressures and the dual packer
combined with focused probe was deployed subsequently to acquire fluid samples. In the low mobility zones the focused
probe tool was used and in the very low mobility zones the dual packer was inflated. (Contreiras et al, 2008). This rich data
set allows for comparison between the various tools and methods of pressure and mobility acquisition.
10 SPE 115825

It must be first noted that three different tools were used to acquire this data set with three different quartz gauges. When
comparing pressures from gauge to gauge one must be mindful of the accuracy specification. In this case it is ± (2.0 psi +
0.01% of reading) for all the gauges. Given that our measured formation pressures are around 2400 psi the accuracy
specification is ±2.24 psi. Note first the pretest measurements made by the XPT, Fig. 11b. There are two pretests acquired
here the first at 0.2 c/s and the second one at 0.6 cc/s. Both pretest are 5 cc.

Figure 11b shows the second XPT pretest within 0.3 m of the first. There is a 5 cc pretest at 0.2 cc/s followed by another 5
cc pretest at 0.6 cc/s. Pressure stabilizes to x435 psi and we note that there is about 150 s of radial flow near the end. An
extrapolation of the pressure versus radial time yields a radial p* that is within 0.2 psi of the final read build-up pressure.
Steady state and area-under mobilities are available for both pretests and they are all in the 8 – 11 mD/cp range. A second
XPT measurement was made at xx26.9 m (Fig. 11c) and yielded a low mobility pretest.

Next the focused probe was deployed to the zone and multiple attempts were made to find a place from which to sample
but to no avail. The oil-base mud image log in Fig. 14 demonstrates the heterogeneity of the formation. The single good point
from the first XPT pretest was the only decent permeability and we were not able to find it again. For that reason the dual
packer was deployed.

The dual packer station is shown in Fig. 11a. The tool was inflated and 32 litres were pumped out at an average rate of
about 1.5 cc/s. Even at this low flow rate with such a large area (the dual packer isolates 1.0 m of borehole) the drawdown
was still 700 psi attesting to how low the average permeability was over the entire interval. Using the work of Onur, Hegeman
and Kuchuk (Onur et al, 2004) we are able to compute drawdown mobilities of 0.2 mD/cp and 0.1 mD/cp from the area-under
and the steady state respectively. A pressure transient analysis of the build-up was made using a limited entry slanted well
model, assuming a homogeneous reservoir and infinite boundary. A match was obtained using the parameters displayed in the
Fig. 11e. With a downhole water viscosity of 0.31 cp and a horizontal permeability of 0.05 md we compute a build up
mobility of 0.17 md/cp.

Core Air Permeability versus Pretest Mobility

Since the introduction of the high-efficiency pretest tool a new standard of data has been available which can and should be
compared to other measurements in low permeability environments in an effort to understand the limitations and boundaries of
formation tester measurements. Fig. 13 shows data from a low mobility environment where we compare mobilities from the
high-efficiency pretesting tool to a lab analysis of rotary cores. The green triangles are the drawdown mobilities computed
using the draw down (area-under) technique, with corrected pretest volumes as described earlier. The core perms are the red
squares showing three values at each level. These three values correspond to lab measurements done at three different net
confining pressures: 1200, 2000 and 5000 psi. For any given core point the measured permeability is decreasing as net
confining pressure increases. As the gamma ray on the left side of the figure shows, this is a very layered formation and
probably heterogeneous formation. Significant scatter in the results would be expected due to depth discrepancies between
the coring and formation tester runs. While the match is certainly not exact at each level, as a whole the data sets agree very
well in this environment where the majority of the zones are below 1 mD/cp.

Conclusions
Determining sand face pressure and mobility in low mobility formations has always been difficult. Early generation tools
allowed very little flexibility in the crucial parameters of pretest design – rate and volume. The third generation of formation
testers significantly improved flexibility in this regard – in the sampling tool the pretest rate and volume are infinitely
adjustable, within the limits of the tool – however rate and volume measurements still employed the less accurate
hydraulically driven pretest piston. With the introduction of the high-efficiency pretesting tool significant improvements were
made with the specific intention of improving the ability to measure sand face pressure and determine mobility in low
permeability situations.

The importance of reduced flowline volume and of increased probe radius is well understood when testing low mobility
formations. However, increased probe radius usually implies increased flowline volume. Using the concept of tool time
constant we have shown how to balance increase in volume against increase in radius and used this to implement a new packer
for the high efficiency tool that extends even further its ability to acquire accurate sand face pressure and mobility.

Probe type tools, however, do have some inherent limitations. Firstly there is a practical lower limit to the mobility they
can measure. Secondly the very nature of the probe type measurement introduces the issue of scale when incorporating WFT
measurements into a reservoir. We have shown how the use of an inflatable dual packer can both extend the low end of
measured mobilities and perform a more consistent averaging function as it investigates 1.0 m of formation.
SPE 115825 11

References
Akurt R et al; Focusing on Downhole Fluid Sampling and Analysis, Schlumberger Oilfield Review, Winter 2006, pages 4-19.

Fine RA, Millero FJ; Compressibility of Water as a Function of Temperature and Pressure; The Journal of Chemical Physics, Volume 59,
Number 10, pages 5529 – 5536; 15 November 1973

Horner, DR; Pressure Build-up in Wells; Originally Published in Section II of the Proceedings of the Third World Petroleum Congress, 1951
available in: SPE Reprint Series No. 9; Published by the Society of Petroleum Engineers of the AIME; Dallas, TX, 1963

Moran JH, Finklea EE, Theoretical Analysis of Pressure Phenomena Associated with the Wireline Formation Tester SPE Journal of
Petroleum Technology, August 1962; SPE 00177

O'Keefe M, Eriksen KO, Williams S, Stensland, D, Vasques R; Focused Sampling of Reservoir Fluids Achieves Undetectable Levels of
Contamination, SPE paper 101084 prepared for presentation at the 2006 SPE Asia Pacific Oil & Gas Conference and Exhibition held in
Adelaide, Australia, 11–13 September 2006.

Onur M, Hegeman PS, Kuchuk FJ, Pressure Transient Analysis of Dual Packer-Probe Wireline Formation Testers in Slanted Wells; SPE
Paper 90250; presented at the SPE ATCE 26-29 September 2004

Peters EJ, Chenevert ME, Zhang C; A Model for Predicting the Density of Oil-based Muds at High Pressures and Temperatures; SPE
Drilling Engineering Journal, June 1990

Proett MA, Waid MC, Kessler C, Real Time Pressure Analysis Methods Applied to Wireline Formation Test Data, SPE Paper 28449
prepared for presentation at the 69th Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition in New Orleans, 25-28 September, 1994

Schlumberger Educational Services Fundamentals of Formation Testing 2006

Schrooten RA, Boratko EC, Singh H, Hallford D, McKay J, A Case Study: Using Wireline Pressure Measurements to Improve Reservoir
Characterization in Tight Formation Gas – Wamsutter Field, Wyoming; SPE Paper 109565 presented at the SPE ATCE 11-14
November, 2007 in Anaheim, CA

Weinheber PJ, Vasques R, New Formation Tester Probe Design for Low-Contamination Sampling; Paper RR presented at the SPWLA
Annual Symposium, Veracruz, Mexico, June 4-7, 2006

Weinheber PJ, Gisolf A, Jackson RJ, De Santo I, Optimizing Hardware Options for Maximum Flexibility and Improved Success in Wireline
Formation Testing, Sampling and Downhole Fluid Analysis Operations; SPE (number pending) presented at the SPE 2008 Nigeria
Annual International Conference and Exhibition held in Abuja, Nigeria, 4-6 August 2008

Nomenclature:

V volume (cc)
Vt tool volume (cc)
Cf fluid compressibility (1/psi)
Cpf probe proportionality constant
p pressure (psi)
Δpmc pressure to break the mudcake (psi)
Q flow rate (cc/s)
k permeability (mD)
μ viscosity (cp)
τ tool time constant (s)
rp probe radius (in)
tb time into the build-up (s)
td time into the drawdown (s)
12 SPE 115825

Figure 9 – Flowline decompression in the sampling tool

SPE 115825 13

Figure 10 – Stable Flowing Pressure in a Very Low Mobility Environment

14 SPE 115825

Figure 11a Dual Packer sampling station and subsequent pressure build-up

Figure 11b XPT double pretest and subsequent build-up

Figure 11c XPT single pretest and subsequent build-up

SPE 115825 15

Figure 11d MRPQ Pretest and subsequent build-up

Figure 11e – Pressure transient analysis of the dual packer data from Fig 11a
16 SPE 115825

Figure 12 – XPT pretest mobility versus core permeability

SPE 115825 17

Figure 13 – Area and Volume terms for the mobility calculation

Figure 14 – Oil-base mud image data with relative positions of

formation testers annotated
18 SPE 115825

Appendix A – The Spherical and Radial Derivative Note that Spherical Permeability is defined as

Spherical Derivative
In SPE 177 Moran and Finklea assumed spherical flow K s ≡ 3 K r2 K z = K r2 K z ( ) 1
3

and derived the following equation for the pressure build-

up:
Substituting:
qμ φμCt ⎛⎜ 1 1 ⎞⎟
p f − pi = −
4πK r πK z ⎜⎝ t − tb t ⎟⎠ 2

(K ) ⎛q⎞ 3
(φCt ) 13
1
2
r Kz 3
= K S = 1856 μ ⎜ ⎟
Converting to RFT units of cc/s, inches, cp, mD, seconds ⎝m⎠
and psi we get:
We usually express this as a mobility:

80,000qμ φμCt ⎛ 1 1 ⎞ 2
p f − pi = ⎜ − ⎟ KS ⎛q⎞ 3
Kr Kz ⎜ t −t
⎝ b t ⎟⎠ μ = 1856⎜⎝ m ⎟⎠ (φCt )13

So by knowing the slope of the pressure versus F(s) line

Rearranging in the form of the straight line equation y = (and a few assumptions about porosity and
mx + b we get: compressibility) we can determine a spherical mobility.

− 80,000qμ φμCt ⎛ 1 1 ⎞ The question arises: How to determine if the line is

pt = ⎜ − ⎟ + pi straight? The solution is to take the derivative of the line.
Kr Kz ⎜ t −t t ⎟⎠
⎝ b If the derivative is constant, then the line is straight for
that period of time where the derivative is constant. Take
Where ‘x’ is what we refer to as the Spherical Time for example the pretest shown in Fig. A1
Function R(s):
PTIM Plot

⎛ 1 1 ⎞⎟
13000

F ( s) = ⎜ − 12800

⎜ t −t t ⎟⎠
⎝ b 12600
QCP (psia)

12400

The slope ‘m’ is therefore: 12200

12000

80,000qμ φμCt
m=
11800

Kr Kz 11600
120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200
Time (sec)

We can therefore plot the building pretest pressure versus Figure A1 - Example Spherical Pretest
the spherical time function and interpret two things:
- if the line is straight then the flow fits the model
proposed and the flow is said to be spherical for the
period of time that the line is straight
- the slope of the straight line can be used to derive a
spherical permeability

If we assume that the slope ‘m’ is:

80,000qμ φμCt
m=
Kr Kz

Then after some algebra we can show that:

6.4 E 9q 2 μ 3φCt
K r2 K z =
m2
SPE 115825 19

We can generate the spherical time function using F(s) as From Fig. A4 we note two things 1) the derivative is
described earlier and knowing that the length of the pretest constant from about 20 s out to about 60 s. Secondly, the
was 9.3 s. value of the derivative (which is, by definition, the slope
PTIM Plot of the pressure vs F(s) line) is 9.31
12000 1.6
Remember that:
1.4
11950 2
kS ⎛q⎞ 3
(φCt ) 13
1.2

Spherical Time Function

11900
1
μ = 1856⎜⎝ m ⎟⎠
QCP (psia)

0.8

11850
0.6

0.4
11800
0.2
In our case this was a 9.2 cc pretest (after decompression)
11750 0
that took 9.3 s. We shall assume a porosity of 15 p.u. and
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 a compressibility of 1.5 x 10-4 1/psi
Time (seconds)

Figure A2 - Real time versus Spherical Time

Function
Now plotting the F(s) versus pressure we get:
Our Spherical Mobility becomes:
12000

2
⎛ 9.2cc ⎞ 3
11950
ks ⎜ 9.3s ⎟ (0.15 * 0.00015) 13
μ = 1856⎜⎜ 9.31 ⎟⎟
⎝ ⎠
11900
QCP (psia)

11850

11800 Or 11.74 mD/cp.

11750 Note that for interest’s sake we can compute the

1.6 1.4 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0
Spherical Time Function drawdown mobility. The Δp was 235 psi and the pretest
rate was 1.0 cc/s. This is a 0.22 inch probe so the
Figure A3 - Pressure vs F(S) drawdown mobility at this point calculates to 24 mD/cp.
As can be seen in Fig. A3 it is difficult to determine
Radial Derivative:
where the line is ‘straight’ we therefore compute the
In 1951 D.R. Horner (Horner 1951) showed that for Radial
derivative of the line at every point and plot the derivative
Flow:
versus real time:
qμ
p f − pt = (log(T + Δt ) − log(Δt ))
4πK r h

Converting to RFT units of cc/s, inches, cp, mD, seconds

and psi we get:

2687qμ
p f − pt = (log(T + Δt ) − log(Δt ) )
Kr h

Rearranging the equation in the familiar straight line form

of y = mx + b we get:

2687qμ
pt = (log(T + Δt ) − log(Δt ) ) + p f
Kr h
Figure A4 Spherical Derivative Plot

Where ‘x’ is the Radial Time Function F(r):

20 SPE 115825

F (r ) = (log(T + Δt ) − log(Δt ) )
and the slope ‘m’ becomes:

2687qμ
m=
Kr h
We can therefore solve for mobility:

k q
= 2687
μ mh
Figure A6 - Pressure versus Radial Time Function
Which is usually expressed in units of mD-ft/cp, so:
From Fig. A7 we note two things. The slope of the p vs
kh q F(r) is constant from about 45 s to 85 s. This implies that
= 88.16 the flow regime is Radial. Additionally, the value of the
μ m slope is 3.85. Entering our radial slope equation with 3.85
As an example we look at the second pretest in Fig A5: we get:

kh q
= 88.16
μ m

kh 1.94 mD • ft
= 88.16 = 44.4
μ 3.85 cp

And again we can compute the drawdown mobility here:

The flow rate is 2.0 cc/s and the drawdown is 475 cc for a
mobility of 24 mD/cp.
Figure A5 - Example Pretest for Radial Flow

This was a 9.9 cc pretest that took 5.1 s for a rate of 1.94
cc/s. For interest, the drawdown mobility was 24.1
mD/cp.

Plotting the data from the second pretest versus F(r), the
Radial Time function yields the plot in Fig A6.
Computing the derivative of the curve in Fig. A6 and
plotting that derivative in real time yields the plot in Fig.
A7.

Figure A7 - Radial Derivative Plot