New Dimensions in Wireline Formation Testing

Operators have had difculties obtaining pressure measurements and samples

with conventional wireline formation testers in certain formations and reservoir
uid types. Engineers have recently developed a tool for reliable testing even in
challenging environments such as low-mobility formations and heavy oil.
Cosan Ayan
Paris, France
Pierre-Yves Corre
Abbeville, France
Mauro Firinu
Eni SpA E&P
Ravenna, Italy
Germn Garca
Mexico City, Mexico
Morten R. Kristensen
Abu Dhabi, UAE
Michael OKeefe
London, England
Thomas Pfeiffer
Stavanger, Norway
Chris Tevis
Sugar Land, Texas, USA
Luigi Zappalorto
Eni Norge SA
Stavanger, Norway
Murat Zeybek
Dhahran, Saudi Arabia
Oileld Review Spring 2013: 25, no. 1.
Copyright 2013 Schlumberger.
ECLIPSE, MDT, Quicksilver Probe and Saturn are marks
of Schlumberger.
1. For more on WFTs: Ayan C, Hafez H, Hurst S, Kuchuk F,
OCallaghan A, Peffer J, Pop J and Zeybek M:
Characterizing Permeability with Formation Testers,
Oileld Review 13, no. 3 (Autumn 2001): 223.

32

Oileld Review

Borehole fluid

Packer assembly

Inflatable packer

Fluid intake
opening for WFT
Pistons

Probe

Inflatable packer

Borehole fluid

> Dual straddle packer wireline formation tester (WFT). Some WFTs use
hydraulic inatable packers to seal the formation from contamination by
borehole uids during sampling and transient testing.

Engineers seeking to characterize reservoirs and

design completions for maximum production efciency depend heavily on analysis of downhole
reservoir uid samples and transient pressure
testing. But identifying mobile uids and dening
hydrocarbon columns can be difcult in complex
formations. Reservoir engineers and petrophysicists use a variety of data to make accurate
reserves estimates and create representative reservoir models. These include uid composition,
pore pressure measurements, reservoir temperature, reservoir response to pressure changes and
integration of seismic data.
In the past, most formation uid samples
were captured after they reached the surface
during drillstem tests and production well tests
and were then separated into gas, oil and water

Spring 2013

components. These samples were transported to

offsite laboratories for analysis. Well tests continue to provide engineers with useful data
about reservoir uids, reservoir size and production potential. But characterizing uids from
samples captured at the surface can be problematic. Recombination of the separated uids
at the surface requires great care: It is often
difcult for technicians to avoid contaminating
the samples or inducing pressure losses during
capture and transportation, particularly when
working at remote locations; re-creating in situ
conditions in the laboratory is difcult but necessary for accurate analysis.
In the 1950s, the industry began addressing
these and other sampling difculties by introducing wireline formation testers (WFTs) that were

> Probe-type WFT. Once a probe-type tool is on

depth, the tool extends pistons from one side of
the WFT against the wellbore wall, while a packer
assembly is forced rmly against the formation to
be tested. A probe in the center of the packer
assembly then extends into the formation; the
reservoir uids ow through the probe into the
tools owline and sample chambers for retrieval
to the surface. The packer seal, which surrounds
the probe, prevents wellbore uids from mixing
with reservoir uids.

lowered on wireline logging cable to the zone of

interest. One recent version of these tools uses
dual straddle packers inated above and below
the sample point, or station, to isolate the formation from wellbore uids and to expose more
of the formation for sampling (above left).
Formation uids are then owed or pumped into
the tool for capture and retrieval to the surface.
Probe-type WFTs use hydraulically operated
arms to force a packer assembly against the
borehole wall (above). The probe, located in the
center of the packer, extends into the formation, and then reservoir uids ow or are
pumped into the tool. The uids are analyzed
downhole, and samples may be captured while
pressure is measured using downhole gauges.
Fluids are analyzed for purity before being
directed to the sample chambers. This allows
contaminated uids to be removed before wireline engineers take formation samples. Sample
bottles maintain the uids at formation pressure to avoid phase changes while the samples
are being retrieved to the surface for transport
to a laboratory for analysis.1

33

Contamination level

WFTs often delivered uid samples that were

more representative of reservoir uids than those
captured on the surface. However, the probes used
in early tools were not applicable in certain formations where establishing a seal was difcult. In addition, testing formations in which uids move slowly
to the tool prolonged the time the tool was on station and often resulted in samples that were contaminated with excessive mud ltrate. Furthermore,
highly viscous uids can typically be mobilized
through the formation and into the wellbore only by
creating a relatively high differential pressure
between the wellbore and the formation. This drawdown, or differential pressure, may exceed the ratings of the WFT packer or may cause the borehole
wall in unconsolidated formations to fail, leading to
loss of the seal around the packer assembly.2 A high
pressure differential may also cause the pressure at
the tool to drop below the bubblepoint pressure,
inducing free gas and composition changes in the
oil, which jeopardizes sample integrity.
In certain well conditions, it may be difcult
to capture representative samples using standard
single-probe WFTs because the sealing packer
isolates the formation or the probe assembly only
from drilling or completion uids in the borehole.
Fluids that have invaded permeable zones may
also contaminate the sample. To acquire a relatively pure sample of reservoir uids, engineers
use a pumpout modulea miniature pump

Acceptable sample
Time

included in the WFT toolstringto ow or pump

uids from the formation through the tool and
out to the wellbore until contaminants have been
pumped away. The nature of the incoming uids
is analyzed downhole by a variety of sensors. Flow
is then directed to sample bottles that capture
and store uids for transport to surface laboratories for analyses.
Under any condition, obtaining a representative reservoir uid sample can be a challenge
because it can be difcult for engineers to know
when the ow stream is sufciently purged of
contaminants. Engineers must rely on information about the reservoir and nature and amount
of contaminant invasion to calculate the time it
will take for the formation to clean up at a given
ow rate. This calculation is further complicated
because the ow from the reservoir streams in a
conical volume toward the probe and draws contaminants from the near-wellbore invasion zone
as well as from some vertical distance along the
wellbore. The outer edge of this ow stream may
contain signicant nonreservoir uids, which
may then require extended periods of time to be
pumped away. Often, because engineers may
underestimate the amount of time this process
can take, they capture nonrepresentative samples, or conversely, if engineers overestimate the
time, they spend unnecessarily long and costly
periods of time at the sampling station.
Innovations in WFT designs have done much
to overcome these limitations. For instance, to
shorten cleanup and ensure a representative
sample, Schlumberger engineers developed the
Quicksilver Probe focused extraction of pure reservoir uid tester, which uses two concentric

Flow tube to
sample chambers

Contaminated
intake

Guard
intake

Seal

Seal
Sample intake

Flow tube to
wellbore

> Formation uid sampling with the Quicksilver Probe focused sampling tool. The probe has two intake
ports, the guard intake surrounding the sample intake (bottom left). Packers surround and separate
these probes and seal against the borehole wall (right). Formation uid is blue-gray and ltrate is light
brown. When pumping begins, uid owing through the sample intake is highly contaminated (top left),
but contamination levels quickly reach an acceptable value.

34

sampling areas through which pumped uids

enter the tool. The outer ring is a conduit for the
more contaminated outer segment of the ow
stream, which is discarded to the wellbore. The
inner probe draws uids from the more representative inner section of the conical ow, which
may then be diverted into the WFT sample bottles (below).3
Another innovation, downhole uid analysis
(DFA), uses optical spectroscopy to identify the
composition of reservoir uid as it ows through
the WFT. This technology allows engineers to
determine contaminant levels and begin sampling only after these levels within the ow
stream have reached an acceptably low value.
When DFA is deployed at selected intervals
within a well and in multiple wells, engineers
gain previously unavailable data with which to
perform reservoir architecture analysis.4
In addition to ensuring the purity of samples,
these innovations shorten time on station, which
may aggregate to signicant savings in operating
expenses. However, hurdles remain. This article
discusses obstacles to capturing uid samples in
certain troublesome reservoirs and a new WFT
probe that helps overcome these obstacles. Case
histories from the Middle East, Mexico and
Norway illustrate how the new tool facilitates
uid sampling in challenging environments.
The Continuing Challenges
In most formation types, enhancements to WFT
technology have greatly increased an operators
ability to capture representative uid samples suitable for analysis while obtaining highly accurate
downhole pressures. But operational constraints,
unconsolidated sands, heavy oils and low-permeability rock still impact sampling success.
Traditional dual straddle packers offer one
solution for these conditions. However, this solution comes with operational concerns. In large
holes, the packers require extended ination
times, and their relative positioning above and
below the zone being tested creates a large sump
volume. The effect of this storage volume can signicantly extend cleanup times and create problems for transient testing measurements in
low-permeability reservoirs.5
In the testing of low-mobility formations, drawdown pressures during pumpout may become
quite high. The resulting differential pressures can
exceed existing straddle packer ratings of about
31 MPa [4,500 psi]. High differential pressures
may also result from owing high-viscosity uid
through unconsolidated sands, causing seal failure
or even borehole wall collapse.

Oileld Review

Crumbling formations may also foil sampling

operations when sand from the formation plugs
the probe and owlines. In addition, drilling
through rock with low mechanical strength typically results in a highly rugose wellbore wall with
few sections of in-gauge hole against which to
obtain a good packer seal.
To address these issues, engineers have
increased probe size 10-fold over the years and
devised probe shapes to better accommodate
various formation types. Probes that create
larger ow areas have increased success rates
in tight formations and friable sands, and dual
packer technology has increased the ratings for
differential pressure to 40 MPa [5,800 psi]. DFA
measurements also help ensure sample purity
and enable a different set of complex uid analyses than is possible on samples brought to the
surface and transported to laboratories. The
next step in the evolution of WFTs was recently
introduced by engineers at Schlumberger with
the development of a probe that provides a signicantly larger ow area between the formation and the tool while simultaneously providing
a better sealing element.
A Radial Solution
To address the limitations of differential pressure
and issues of related seal and packer failures,
Schlumberger engineers developed the Saturn
3D radial probe. This tool uses four elongated
ports spaced evenly around the circumference of
the module rather than a single probe or dual
packers. The ports are individually isolated from
the wellbore by a single inatable packer that
creates a large sealing surface against the formation (right).
The packer used in the Saturn probe seals
more reliably against a rugose borehole than single-probe WFT packers do and inates and deates
more quickly than the dual straddle packers while
completely eliminating sump volume. The four
openings are embedded in the packer, and each is
signicantly larger than those on conventional
probes, which further hastens cleanup.
Cleanup timea primary component of formation test timesis the period required to
ow the well until contamination of the reservoir uid ow stream has been eliminated or
reduced to an acceptable level. One key to
reducing prolonged test times is to shorten
cleanup through higher ow rates. To test
whether the Saturn probe design accomplishes
this goal, reservoir engineers constructed a
numerical model comparing cleanup time using
the Saturn probe to those with a traditional

Spring 2013

Inflata
ble
packe
r

Fluid in
ports take

The Saturn 3D radial probe, which uses four ports, increases the
probe surface area to more than 500 times that of the standard probe.

Saturn 3D
Radial Probe

Elliptical
Probe

Extra Large
Diameter Probe

Quicksilver Probe
Probe

Large Diameter
Probe

Standard
Probe

79.44
Surface flow
area, in.2

6.03
Surface flow
area, in.2

2.01
Surface flow
area, in.2

1.01
Surface flow
area, in.2

0.85
Surface flow
area, in.2

0.15
Surface flow
area, in.2

> Saturn probe. The Saturn probe (top) captures reservoir uid samples through four large ports
spaced evenly on the tools circumference. The ports are pressed against the borehole when the
packer that contains them is inated, which creates a seal separating reservoir uids from wellbore
uids. The tool geometry provides a radial ow pattern (middle, right) for reservoir uids (green) and
faster removal of contaminated uids (blue). This differs from the ow pattern of a typical WFT (middle,
left), which has a single opening on one side of the tool. The Saturn probe also has a ow area that is
many times larger than that of traditional probes (bottom).

2. Drawdown is a differential pressure condition that

induces uids to ow from a reservoir formation into a
wellbore. It occurs when the wellbore pressure is less
than the formation pressure and may occur naturally or
be created by pumping or producing from the well.
3. For more on the Quicksilver Probe tool: Akkurt R,
Bowcock M, Davies J, Del Campo C, Hill B, Joshi S,
Kundu D, Kumar S, OKeefe M, Samir M, Tarvin J,
Weinheber P, Williams S and Zeybek M: Focusing
on Downhole Fluid Sampling and Analysis,
Oileld Review 18, no. 4 (Winter 2006/2007): 419.

4. For more on downhole uid analysis: Creek J, Cribbs M,

Dong C, Mullins OC, Elshahawi H, Hegeman P, OKeefe M,
Peters K and Zuo JY: Downhole Fluids Laboratory,
Oileld Review 21, no. 4 (Winter 2009/2010): 3854.
5. Wellbore uid expansion and compression effects distort
the reservoir response to pressure changes used in
pressure transient analysis. A critical element of
pressure transient analysis is distinguishing between
the wellbore storage effects and the true reservoir
pressure response.

35

Common Parameters
Porosity
Horizontal permeability
Vertical permeability
Wellbore diameter
Formation thickness
Tool distance from boundary
Formation pressure
Maximum drawdown during cleanup
Maximum pumpout rate
Depth of filtrate invasion

Value
20%
10 mD
2 mD
21.6 cm [8.5 in.]
50 m [164 ft]
25 m [82 ft]
21 MPa [3,000 psi]
4 MPa [600 psi]
25 cm3/s [0.4 galUS/min]
10 cm [4 in.]

Miscible Cleanup Parameters

Oil viscosity
Oil-base mud filtrate viscosity

Value
1 cP
1 cP

Model Output
Oil viscosity
Water-base mud filtrate viscosity
Relative permeability
Residual oil saturation
Irreducible water saturation
Water relative permeability
Oil relative permeability
Water and oil core exponents
Connate water saturation

Value
1 cP
0.6 cP

Model Output
Saturn 3D radial probe
XLD probe
Saturn speedup over XLD probe

Water-wet
0.10
0.20
0.20
1.00
3.0 and 1.5
0.12

Oil-wet
0.30
0.15
0.80
0.60
1.5 and 3.0
0.12

Miscible Immiscible Cleanup,

Immiscible
Cleanup
Water-Wet
Cleanup, Oil-Wet
0.99 h
0.42 h
0.71 h
14.61 h
7.17 h
9.10 h
14.8
17.0
12.8

> Parameters of a cleanup test simulation. Engineers performed a model

comparison of the cleanup efciency of the Saturn probe, dual straddle
packer and XLD probes using a reservoir model based on specic wellbore,
formation, uid and simulation parameters (top). Model output (bottom)
conrmed that the greater ow area of the Saturn probe signicantly
decreased cleanup times for various vertical and horizontal permeabilities for
both water-wet and oil-wet sands. The simulations take into account the
storage effects of the dual packer sump. In these simulations, a sump volume
of 17.0 L [4.5 galUS] is assumed, and oil- and water-base mud ltrates are
assumed to be segregated instantaneously within the sump. The interval
height between packers is 1.02 m [40 in.].

extra large diameter (XLD) probe. The team

used ECLIPSE reservoir simulation software on
three probe congurations to test the proposition. A ne grid was used to model the XLD and
Saturn probes. For miscible contamination,
investigators simulated a single-phase uid system and represented the drilling uid ltrate
contamination using an embedded tracer. In
addition, investigators conducted immiscible
modeling for oil-wet and water-wet systems.
During the simulated tests, engineers considered parameters such as permeability, anisotropy,
viscosity contrast between ltrate and oil, dispersion of the invasion front and extent of invasion.
In a miscible contamination cleanup scenario,
engineers found that although the breakthrough
of formation oil is faster for the XLD probe,
cleaner samples can be collected with the Saturn

36

3D radial module with less total volume pumped.

In a simulation of immiscible contamination
cleanup, mud ltrate viscosities of 1.0 cP
[1.0 mPa.s] and 0.6 cP [0.6 mPa.s] were used. In
scenarios using typical water- and oil-wet relative
permeability, cleanup times to reach 5% contamination were similar to those for miscible contamination (above).6
Because mobilizing heavy uids often generates drawdown pressures high enough to cause
weak formations to collapse, the combination of
high-viscosity uids in poorly consolidated sands
constitutes one of the most formidable wireline
formation testing challenges.
The behavior of uid ow from the reservoir
to the sampling tool is governed by Darcys law,
in which ow is directly proportional to permeability, drawdown pressure and cross-sectional

surface area and inversely proportional to uid

viscosity and the length over which the drawdown is applied. By introducing a ow area
about 40 times larger than that of traditional
XLD probes, the Saturn probe reduces the necessary drawdown pressure to mobilize heavy
uids or uids in low-permeability formations
(next page, top).
In the past, traditional WFT options restricted
operators to a choice between the higher drawdown and reduced ow rate of a traditional probe
and the larger ow rate of a straddle packer. The
disadvantage of lower ow rates is longer cleanup
times. On the other hand, while dual packers
allow higher ow rates than the ow rates of traditional probes, they create large storage volumes and may lose seal because they cannot
provide necessary borehole wall support in
unconsolidated formations. The Saturn probe
design provides the benet of both a probe and a
dual packer: a large ow area to reduce time to
cleanup and a packer-probe conguration that
provides mechanical support of borehole walls to
create a more reliable seal.
The Saturn 3D radial probe innovations allow
operators to capture samples, perform DFA and
identify transient ow regimes in situations where
they previously could not. These include low-permeability formations, heavy oils, unconsolidated
formations, single-phase uids close to the bubblepoint, ultratight formations and others.7
Putting Theory to the Test
An operator deployed the Saturn tool to distinguish between oil and water zones in formations
that had been difcult to test using traditional
tools. Among the problems was a history of formation tests in which mud losses had restricted
sampling time to four hours per station. Because
these were also low-mobility formations, this
operational constraint made it difcult to capture samples using traditional probes.
Engineers viewed this operation as an opportunity to compare the Saturn tool with traditional
sampling methods. They designed a WFT toolstring that comprised an XLD probe, a Saturn
probe, a compositional DFA module and several
sample bottles. Engineers took multiple pressure
measurements as the tool was run into the hole,
6. Al-Otaibi SH, Bradford CM, Zeybek M, Corre P-Y,
Slapal M, Ayan C and Kristensen M: Oil-Water
Delineation with a New Formation Tester Module,
paper SPE 159641, presented at the SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, USA,
October 810, 2012.
7. Mobility is the ratio of formation permeability to uid
viscosity. Therefore, lower formation permeability or
higher uid viscosity decreases mobility.

Oileld Review

Time 2

Time 3

Time 4

Contamination

Contamination

Contamination

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

Delta-T
Sonic Porosity

530

930 0.01 1,000

Contamination

Contamination

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

Contamination

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

%
Bulk Density Correction
g/cm3
Photoelectric Factor

Resistivity
60-in. Array Induction
ohm.m
30-in. Array Induction
ohm.m
20-in. Array Induction
ohm.m
10-in. Array Induction
ohm.m

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

Invaded Zone Resistivity

ohm.m

Lithology
Porosity
Sandstone
MDT
Station

Fluid Type

Limestone
Dolomite

Station 3

46

70%
water

0.367 psi/ft (oil)

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

> Three-dimensional contamination distribution. Models of cleanup using the Saturn probe and an XLD
probe are shown at four points in time. The same drawdown is applied to both the XLD and the Saturn
probes, but because of its larger ow area and multiple, circumferentially spaced drains, the Saturn
probe can operate at higher pump rates and consequently achieve cleanup 12 to 18 times faster than
the XLD probe. (Adapted from Al-Otaibi et al, reference 6.)

Formation Density
g/cm3

Formation Pressure
psi

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

Contamination

Thermal Neutron Porosity

%

Pretest
Mobility
mD/cP

Saturn Probe

Time 1
Contamination

XLD Probe

and seven samples were captured as the toolstring was retrieved from the well.
At the rst station, samples were captured
using the XLD probe after DFA measurements
had identied 60% to 70% oil in the ow stream.
The operator chose Station 2 in an effort to determine the depth of lowest mobile oil. Engineers
attempted to capture a sample at Station 2 using
the XLD probe, but with a 13.8-MPa [2,000-psi]
drawdown, a ow rate of only 5.2 L/h [1.4 galUS/h]
could be achieved. After 1.5 hours of pumping,
ow was switched to the Saturn probe, and
although the ow rate was increased to 7.8 L/h
[2.1 galUS/h], the accompanying drawdown was
only 4.7 MPa [680 psi]. Under these conditions,
ow stability was achieved and engineers were
able to identify the oil/water delineation within
the previously imposed four-hour time limit.
While sampling at Station 2 with the XLD probe,
engineers observed no oil owing in the rst 34 L
[9.0 galUS] pumped during cleanup (below). Even
accounting for the XLD probe contribution, engineers concluded that oil arrived at the tool faster

30%
oil

Station 1

48

40%
water

60%
oil

49

Station 2
water
50

0.477 psi/ft (water)

0.021 psi/ft

51

52

> Finding oil. Logs of formation pressure (Track 1), mobility (Track 2), density-neutron-sonic (Track 3) and resistivity (Track 4) in this Middle East well would lead
analysts to assume the target formation to be devoid of oil. However, DFA (Track 5) during pumpout indicated the presence of oil in the carbonate formation.

Spring 2013

37

2,000

110

Quartz pressure gauge (observation) pressure

1,800

80

Saturn 3D radial probe pressure

1,200

70
60

1,000

50

800

40

600

30

400

Volume pumped

Rate pump 2

200
0

10

Rate pump 1
0

10,000

20,000

30,000
40,000
Elapsed time, s

20

50,000

60,000

70,000

40
30

Pumpout rate, cm3/s

Gauge pressure, psi

90

1,400

Volume pumped, 1,000 cm3

100

1,600

20
10
0

> Fluid sampling. The Saturn tool was used to acquire uid samples and measure pressure (red) at the
zone of interest. Initial measurements are mud pressure. At about 2,500 s, the tool is set and pumpout
begins, followed by a buildup beginning at about 10,000 s, which establishes an estimate of reservoir
pressure. Cumulative total volume pumped (green) begins to increase when the pump is turned back
on at about 18,000 s to begin cleanup. At around 40,000 s, a second pump is engaged, which increases
pump rate. The drawdown increases because of higher pump rate and the arrival of high-viscosity oil
at the tool. Two spikes in pressure at about 55,000 s are the results of pressure shocks created when
samples are captured followed by stopping the pump. Pressures are also recorded by an observation
probe (black). Pumpout rates (tan and blue) are recorded on the far right axis in cm3/s for the rst and
second pumps, respectively. (Adapted from Flores de Dios et al, reference 10.)

using the Saturn probe, which they attributed to the

increased ow rate and radial cleanup.
The operator also tested a low-porosity, lowresistivity zone in the eld. The rst attempt,
performed with an XLD probe, produced a
13.8-MPa drawdown and ow rate of less than
72 L/h [19.0 galUS/h]. Using the Saturn probe,
engineers were able to reduce drawdown to
7.6 MPa [1,100 psi] with a ow rate of 288 L/h
[76.1 galUS/h]. As a consequence, they were able to
capture sufcient samples to delineate the oil/water
contact (OWC) using the optical density measurements of the DFA module.
The Saturn probe was also used to identify a
small amount of oil in a low-mobility zone in
which pumpout was not possible with the standard XLD probe. And nally, the operator sought
to use sampling and DFA to determine the OWC
in a heterogeneous carbonate formation with a
resistivity measurement of 0.7 ohm.m. In this
instance, in which traditional sampling techniques were unsuited to the task, engineers were
able to use DFA measurements in conjunction
with uid samples captured with the Saturn tool
to determine the thickness of the oil zone.8
Heavy Oil Challenge
Heavy oil is particularly problematic for conventional downhole sampling devices. Production of

38

this type of resource through proper placement

of injection and production wells can be highly
dependent on accurate uid characterization.
Because moving high-viscosity oil to the wellbore
and then to the surface is often accomplished
using steam injection and articial lift, it is critical for operators to be aware of higher-mobility
zones within the reservoir layers created by relatively high-permeability rock or low-viscosity
uid. Both situations may create preferential
high-mobility pathways through which the oil and
steam ow and often result in signicant
bypassed reserves.
In 2011, the national oil company of Mexico,
Petrleos Mexicanos (PEMEX), reported 60% of the
nations oil reserves were heavy or extra heavy oil.9
As other more easily produced reserves are drained,
these resources have become increasingly important to PEMEX and the nation. In the Samaria
heavy-oil eld in southern Mexico, PEMEX is trying
to produce uids with viscosities at downhole conditions as high as 5,000 cP [5,000 mPa.s] from formations with unconned compressive strength of from
0.69 to 5.5 MPa [100 to 800 psi].10 Because of challenges presented by the combination of high-viscosity uid moving through an unconsolidated
formation, operators have been able to use WFTs to
take pressure measurements in these formations
but have been unable to capture samples. In the

Samaria eld, PEMEX engineers have instead perforated and owed each zone individually and deployed
sampling bottles on coiled tubing or a drillstring.
Because this approach proved impractical and
costlyoften taking days or weeks per zonethe
operator abandoned this sampling method.
As PEMEX engineers began a new development cycle in these Tertiary-age sandstones, they
turned to the Saturn probe in 2011 to evaluate
four wells. The primary team objective in the rst
well was to test the functionality of the new tool.
In the second and third wells, engineers moved to
full pressure testing with uid scanning and sampling. In the fourth well, they also planned interval and vertical interference testing.
Multiple stations were tested and sampled in
each of the wells. Because the formations are
unconsolidated, the wellbores are often rugose
and out of roundconditions that may cause a
traditional probe to lose its seal before cleanup is
8. Al-Otaibi et al, reference 6.
9. Petrleos Mexicanos (PEMEX) Exploracin y Produccin:
2011: Las reservas de hidrocarburos de Mxico,
Mexico City: PEMEX (January 1, 2011): 22 (in Spanish).
10. Flores de Dios T, Aguilar MG, Perez Herrera R, Garcia G,
Peyret E, Ramirez E, Arias A, Corre P-Y, Slapal M and
Ayan C: New Wireline Formation Tester Development
Makes Sampling and Pressure Testing Possible in
Extra-Heavy Oils in Mexico, paper SPE 159868,
presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, October 810, 2012.
11. Flores de Dios et al, reference 10.

Oileld Review

103

Delta P and derivative, psi

Modeled delta P, Saturn tool

10

Modeled derivative,
Saturn tool
Modeled derivative,
WFT observation probe

101

10
Modeled delta P,
WFT observation probe

10

101

102
Pressure, psi

103

> WFT interference test. The Saturn probe was run beneath a single-probe WFT. Engineers conducted
an interval pressure transient test, obtaining vertical permeability (kv ) and horizontal permeability (kh ).
Delta P and its derivative were recorded by the shallower observation tool (blue) and by the Saturn tool
(green). Models were built using values of 12.2 m, 640 mD, 120 mD and 370 cP for height, kv, kh and
viscosity, respectively. The modeled values (solid blue and green lines) reproduce the data closely,
indicating that values for vertical and horizontal permeabilities are correct. (Adapted from Flores de
Dios et al, reference 10.)

accomplished and samples captured. In the rst

well, tests were run with an XLD probe and a
Saturn probe to test the sealing efciency of the
new system and to adjust variables such as setting and unsetting time, minimum ination pressure for a seal and optimal pretest volume to
account for storage effects.
The Saturn probe achieved 100% sealing in
each of the seven stations tested using packer
ination pressures as low as 0.2 MPa [30 psi]. As
a consequence, engineers were able to obtain
full pressure surveys in both oil- and water-base
mud environments that indicated only minor
storage effects on the pressure responses.
PEMEX engineers used the pressure surveys
and mobilities determined from pretests to
design completions that will evenly distribute
injected steam in designated intervals, which
will increase sweep efciency.
As the testing for the Saturn tool continued,
engineers captured minimally contaminated
uid samples from three wells using a toolstring
that included an XLD probe and Saturn probes,
uid analyzers and sample bottles. Because of
the unconsolidated nature of the formations,
PEMEX engineers expected to use low differential pressures that would require 16 to 20 hours
per station to capture a sample; much of the time
would be used to pump ltrate ahead of reservoir

Spring 2013

uids during cleanup. At the rst station, while

limiting differential pressure, engineers saw rst
hydrocarbon after 9 hours of pumping.
The pump speed was accelerated, and the differential pressure rose to about 200 psi [1.4 MPa];
no sand was seen in the tool. Flow pressure also
decreased, indicating that the seal was holding.
This led the team to abandon the original plan for
low drawdown pressures and instead establish a
300-psi [2.1-MPa] differential minimum for
Station 2 (previous page). The minimally contaminated sample collected at this station was
7.5API gravity oil; subsequent laboratory analysis documented that this sample had a viscosity
of approximately 1,030 cP [1.03 Pa.s] at downhole conditions and about 7,800 cP [7.8 Pa.s] at
atmospheric conditions. Engineers will use the
results from laboratory analysis of the samples in
completion and production planning of the eld.
In the fourth well, engineers performed interval pressure transient tests using the Saturn probe
combined with an observation probe. These transient tests consist of complete cleanup of the mud
ltrate followed by variable-rate ow and shut-in
periods, which are used to evaluate formation
deliverability. Data from an observation probe
higher on the toolstring provided engineers with
information about formation permeability and

permeability anisotropy (above). PEMEX engineers are applying this information to calibrate
cutoffs in nuclear magnetic resonance log processing, which they use to ne-tune permeability predictions.11
Low Mobility and High Condence
Using resistivity log measurements, petrophysicists are able to delineate oil/water contacts in
the majority of formations. However, in some formations, operators have difculty interpreting
the log response where water- and oil-bearing
zones intersect. This uncertainty can affect how
engineers choose to complete the well.
For one Middle East operator trying to determine the extent of an oil zone in a tight carbonate formation, logs strongly indicated that the
top of the zone was oil bearing and the bottom
was water bearing. But log results for the
middle zone were ambiguous; the resistivity
response was similar to that of the water zone
below it. Resolving the question of the uid
types of the middle zone with DFA measurements using traditional downhole sampling
tools was precluded because establishing ow
from the tight carbonate formation would have
created a differential pressure greater than traditional dual packer ratings.

39

Thermal Neutron Porosity

%
Formation Density
g/cm3
Sonic Porosity
%
Bulk Density Correction
g/cm3
Photoelectric Factor

Resistivity
60-in. Array Induction
ohm.m
30-in. Array Induction
ohm.m
20-in. Array Induction
ohm.m
10-in. Array Induction
ohm.m

Lithology
Porosity
Limestone
Dolomite

Invaded Zone Resistivity

ohm.m

Fluid Type

MDT
Station

Clay
Sandstone

5,500

30

5,000
4,500

25

4,000
3,500
3,000

20

4,900-psi
pressure
differential

2,500
2,000

15
10

1,500
1,000

Pressure

Rate

500
0

Flow rate, cm3/s

Pressure, psi

Water

0
0

10,000

20,000

30,000
Time, s

40,000

50,000

60,000

> Low-mobility carbonate. Wireline log measurements (top) were inconclusive or provided conicting
interpretations in a formation in the Middle East. Porosity (Track 1) and resistivity (Track 2)
measurements indicate an oil-bearing zone. However, log data from a middle zone were similar to those
of the deeper water-bearing zone. Engineers resolved uncertainty in the middle zone by using the
Saturn probe to capture a reservoir sample and a DFA module to measure uid properties. Downhole
uid analysis (Track 3) indicated, similar to that in the top zone, the presence of oil in the middle zone.
Flow from the tight carbonate formation required a differential pressure of 4,900 psi (bottom), which
exceeds traditional WFT and packer ratings. (Adapted from Al-Otaibi et al, reference 6.)

Using the Saturn probe, however, engineers

were able to collect samples in all three zones,
which conrmed light oil in the top zone and water
in the lowest zone. After 15 hours of pumping at
4,900-psi [34-MPa] differential pressure from the
0.04-mD/cP mobility zone, DFA measurements
indicated the presence of mobile light oil in the
middle zone, which allowed the operator to determine that the thickness of the oil zone was greater
than initial estimates (above).

40

Drawdown Restrictions
In some instances, operators have reason to use
the Saturn 3D radial probe, even though a traditional one might sufce. After engineers at Eni
SpA saw the results achieved using the new
probe in Ghana, engineers at an afliated company, Eni Norge, elected to try the service in the
Goliath eld in the Barents Sea. Engineers at
Eni used this application to test sandstones in a
relatively low-mobility environment, update the

reservoir model and uid contacts and increase

their understanding of this new technology.
During the testing operations, the formation
pressure survey encountered some supercharged
low-mobility zones at the bottom of an oil column. This introduced some uncertainty in the
pressure gradient interpretation.12 Finding a
clear delineation of the OWC also proved difcult
because the resistivity log response could be
attributed to either high water saturation or deep
invasion effects. Fluid scanning with the Saturn
probe identied the location of the OWC 5.5 m
[18 ft] deeper than indicated by pressure gradient and log response.
Furthermore, because of the large ow area
of the Saturn probe, the strength of the laminated and low-permeability rock was conrmed.
In this case, although reservoir mobility was a
moderate 45 mD/cP, the reservoir pressure was
near saturation pressure. Thus, a low drawdown
pressure was essential to prevent a high pressure
differential that might induce two-phase ow
and an unrepresentative gas/oil ratio. Using
the Saturn probe, a drawdown of only 0.5 bar
[0.05 MPa or 7.3 psi] was needed to scan and
clearly identify reservoir oil. A sample was also
acquired using an XLD probe at another station
in the same well in which the reservoir mobility
was 880 mD/cPmore than an order of magnitude greater than that of the reservoir sampled
using the Saturn probe. Compared with the ow
rate of the XLD probe, the Saturn probe achieved
twice the ow rate at half the drawdown (next
page). As a result, cleanup time was one-third
of that using the XLD without raising concerns
over the effects of extreme pressure changes on
sample integrity.
Another Step Forward
The industrys ability to capture uid samples and
critical pressure data has evolved rapidly since the
1970s. Innovations in these arenas have been
spurred by need to develop more-complex formations with tighter limits on testing operations.
With increasing frequency, engineers are testing
weaker formations and producing high-viscosity
uids, which means tests must take less time at
each station with lower drawdown ranges and
lower ow rates. Often, these restrictions conspire
to make sampling impossible.
12. Supercharging occurs when mud ltrate invading
through the wellbore wall during drilling creates an
overpressure in the formation around the wellbore.
Pressure tests with WFTs, performed during the pretest,
are affected by this overpressure, which is higher than
the true formation pressure.

Oileld Review

45-mD/cP Mobility Reservoir

50

195.0

194.5

45

194.5

40

194.0

193.5

35

193.5

193.0

30

193.0

30

192.5

25

Quartz gauge pressure,

Sample line pressure

192.0

20

Pumpout total
flow rate

15

191.0

190.5

190.5

190.0

10

15

20
25
30
Elapsed time, min

35

40

45

50

3.5

20
Pumpout total
flow rate

15
Flow rate
22 cm3/s

10
5

10

20

30

40

50
60
70
Elapsed time, min

3.0

2.5
2.0

Fluorescence

Fluorescence

35

80

90

100

110

120

110

120

3.5
Fluorescence Channel 0

3.0

Fluorescence Channel 1

1.5
1.0
Fluorescence Ratio

0.5

Fluorescence Channel 1

2.0
1.5
1.0

Fluorescence Ratio
Fluorescence Reflection

0
100

80

80
Fluid fraction, %

100

60
40
10 min

20

Fluorescence Channel 0

2.5

0.5

Fluorescence Reflection

Fluid fraction, %

Drawdown

191.5

10

40

192.0

191.0

190.0

45

Quartz gauge pressure,

Sample line pressure

Flow rate, cm3/s

25
Flow rate
40 cm3/s

Pressure, bar

192.5

191.5

50

Drawdown

Flow rate, cm3/s

194.0

Pressure, bar

880-mD/cP Mobility Reservoir

195.0

60
40
30 min

20
0

0
0

10

15

20

25
30
Elapsed time, min

35

40

45

50
Oil

Water

10

20

30

Mud-contaminated fluid

40

50

60
70
Elapsed time, min

80

90

100

> Drawdown and ow rate comparison. Engineers at Eni chose the Saturn probe to capture samples from a 45-mD/cP mobility reservoir and a single XLD
probe to capture a sample in a much higher 880-mD/cP mobility reservoir within the same well. While ow rate (top, green line) through the Saturn probe
(left) was nearly twice that of the XLD probe (right), the drawdown (blue line) was half that of the XLD probe. Fluorescence monitoring during cleanup
(middle) indicated cleanup as uorescence increased with uid purity. The reservoir tested using the Saturn probe reached cleanup in 10 minutes (bottom
left) compared with the XLD probe, which cleaned up in about 30 minutes (bottom right).

The Quicksilver Probe tool design shortens

time on station, and DFA technology provides
engineers with critical and timely knowledge
about reservoir uids as they are captured. Both
these advances have allowed operators to gather
pressure and uid sample data more quickly and
with greater condence in the results.
The Saturn probe expands the range of situations and conditions in which WFTs are applicable;
these include low-permeability or unconsolidated
formations, heavy oil, near-critical uids and
rugose boreholes. The Saturn probe openings are
congured to create a total surface ow area
1,200% greater than that of the largest conventional single-probe formation testers. This larger
area means ow of viscous uids is less restricted

Spring 2013

and pressure differentials are reduced; viscous

uid ow and pressure differentials are the primary constraints to testing in formerly inaccessible environments.
In addition to allowing operators to take measurements and samples in these formations, in
most cases the Saturn probe works to more
quickly dispose of ltrate and contaminated formation uids, reducing time on station. Constantdrawdown simulations in low-mobility reservoirs
show the Saturn tool to be orders of magnitude
faster than standard XLD packer probes in completing cleanup. With no sump, transient ow
regimes can be recognized earlier, extending the
range of applicability of interval pressure transient tests.

Shorter operating time is not trivial on some

of todays projects in which operating costs often
exceed $US 1 million per day. The Saturn probe
addresses this issue of high-cost time through
higher ow rates that save operators hours and
even days of operating expense. Similarly, data
from the Saturn probe allow engineers to make
critical completion and production decisions
based on hard facts rather than estimates, and
that can make the difference between success or
failure, prot or loss.
RvF

41