WE LL TES TiNG

The MDT Tool: A Wireline Testing Breakthrough

Jeffrey Joseph
Tim Ireland London, England
United Kingdom Nirex Ltd
Harwell, England

Formation sampling and testing on wireline dates back nearly 40 years. Recent developments, however, may thrust the

Nick Colley Simon Richardson

British Gas Exploration & Marathon Oil UK Ltd.
Production Ltd London, England
Reading, England
Patrick Reignier
Total Oil Marine plc
Aberdeen, Scotland

Wireline formation testers have evolved
through a series of innovations. The first
tools to be introduced, in the 1950s, con-
centrated on fluid sampling. Then in 1975,
the RFT Repeat Formation Tester added the
capability to repeatedly measure formation
pressure during a single trip. Today, wireline
formation test tools are used to determine
formation permeability from pressure tran-
sients created by a known drawdown pulse.
Now comes the next evolutionary step: the
MDT Modular Formation Dynamics Tester
(next page).
The MDT tool offers multiple sampling
during a single wireline run and rapid pres-
sure measurement using a new-generation
In this article, Acoustic TeleScanner, CQG (Combinable
Quartz Gauge), FMI (Fullbore Formation MicroImager),
Formation MicroScanner, MAXIS (Multitask Acquisition
and Imaging System), MDT (Modular Formation Dynam-
ics Tester), MicroSFL, RFT (Repeat Formation Tester), and
ZODIAC (Zoned Dynamic Interpretation Analysis and
Computation) are marks of Schlumberger.
For their help in interpreting some of the data used in
this article, thanks to: Mike Pearson and Graeme David-
son, Schlumberger Evaluation and Production Services
(UK) Ltd, Aberdeen, Scotland; and Heather James and
Rachel Kornberg, Schlumberger Evaluation and Produc-
tion Services (UK) Ltd, London, England.
1. Zimmerman T, MacInnis J, Hoppe J, Pop J and Long T:
“Application of Emerging Wireline Formation Testing
Technologies,” paper OSEA 90105, presented at the
8th Offshore Southeast Asia Conference, Singapore,
December 4-7, 1990.
quartz gauge that stabilizes quickly to accu-
rately measure formation pressure.
Improved electrohydraulic control more
easily minimizes the drawdown pressure
drop, enhancing delicate sampling opera-
tions. A variable drawdown volume
improves permeability measurement, espe-
cially in tight formations.
Further, the tool can be configured to pro-
vide a range of options not previously avail-
able from a wireline tester. For example, by
monitoring the fluid resistivity as it is drawn
into the tool and rejecting contaminated
fluid, the operator can ensure that only
uncontaminated formation fluid samples are
collected. Or, by measuring pressure inter-
ference during drawdown, horizontal and
vertical permeabilities can be determined.
As the name suggests, the MDT system
comprises a number of modules. This article
explains the modules and how they work,
and, using field examples, shows how these
modules can be configured to collect data.1

58 Oilfield Review
 Tom Zimmerman
Houston, Texas, USA

technique to the forefront of testing strategy. Astley Hastings

Aberdeen, Scotland

Ian Traboulay
Montrouge, France

nThe Modular
Formation Dynam-
ics Tester in multi-
probe mode.

April 1992 59
The Basic Tool
At the center of most MDT configurations
are four modules making up the basic tool.
Electrical module—This module
provides the power to drive all
the downhole electronics and a
1-kilowatt supply for the electro-
hydraulic system.
Hydraulic power module—This
provides hydraulic power to the
probe modules (see below).
Single-probe module—This
module establishes pressure and
fluid communication between
the tool and the formation. A
hydraulically-operated retractable probe
embedded in a circular rubber packer is
forced through the mudcake to make a seal
with the formation. Two opposing backup
pistons on the other side of the tool push the
probe against the formation and help main-
tain a good seal. The pistons also center the
tool body in the well, reducing the risk of
differential pressure sticking. An advanced
electrohydraulic system means that the
MDT probe can be set up to three times
faster than previous testers.
After hydraulic connection is made, for-
mation pressure can be measured by either
a strain gauge or the highly accurate CQG
Combinable Quartz Gauge. First-generation
quartz gauges employed in the earlier for-
mation testers like the RFT tool are accurate
but respond slowly to pressure and, particu-
larly, temperature transients. These gauges
had to stabilize for up to 30 minutes, slow-
ing operation and providing only static pres-
sure measurements. However, the CQG
gauge stabilizes in seconds, removing this
limitation (next page, top and see “Gauges
Through the Ages,” page 23).
To ensure that a good seal has been estab-
lished between probe and formation, a
’pretest’ is carried out, which yields a draw-
down pressure transient. Formation fluid is
drawn into a chamber at a rate and volume
controlled from surface. Up to 20 milliliters
(mL) can be extracted against a differential
between the mud weight and the flowing
formation pressure of up to 20,000 psi. An
60
unlimited number of pretests may be carried
out using different drawdown rates and vol-
umes to optimize the transient.
The temperature of the fluid entering the
tool may be measured and the fluid’s nature
assessed. Inside the MDT probe module’s
flowline, electrodes measure fluid resistivity.
The first fluids to flow out of the formation
are usually mud and mud filtrate. These are
followed later by formation fluid. As long as
there is a resistivity contrast between the for-
mation fluid and the mud, the transition
between fluids can be detected. Based on
pretest results and fluid analysis, the engi-
neer may elect to take samples.
Sample chamber modules—Any
combination of sample chambers
with capacities of 1 and 2.75 gal
[3.8 and 10.4 liters] can be assembled. A
single flowline serves all the chambers—
fluid routing is controlled from surface. A
single, 6-gal [22.7-liter] chamber can be
mounted at the bottom of the tool. Theoreti-
cally, the tool can handle 12 separate 1- or
2.75-gal chambers , but weight and length
considerations keep the practical limit to
about six chambers. The sample chambers
can be located above the probe module,
allowing sampling to take place just 0.53 m
[21 in.] from the bottom of the well.
Other modules may be added to this basic
tool to substantially increase its capabilities.
Multisample module—Each of
these modules can collect six
450-mL [0.12-gal] samples, suit-
able for PVT (pressure-volume-temperature)
laboratory analysis, from one or more
downhole locations during a single trip.
Each sample is stored in an individual con-
tainer that can be removed intact at surface
and safely and legally transported for analy-
sis without fluid transfer. Up to two modules
may be included in an MDT test string. To
ensure a representative sample of formation
fluid, initial flow shown to be contaminated
by the fluid resistivity monitor is discarded.
To take a sample, an isolation valve in the
probe module is opened, allowing commu-
nication between the formation and the top
of the sample chamber. During the pretest
pressure measurement, this valve is closed
to limit flowline storage effects. Formation
fluid is drawn into each sample chamber by
a piston that strictly controls the pressure or
flow rate under real-time MAXIS Multitask
Acquisition and Imaging System control,
helping to prevent monophasic samples
from becoming multiphasic.
Pumpout module—As the
name suggests, this module
pumps formation fluid that has
entered the tool out into the borehole. The
module is used to dump contaminated fluid
prior to sampling. It has to pump against the
differential between formation flowing pres-
sure and hydrostatic pressure in the well-
bore. At a differential of 800 psi, the module
pumps at about 0.6 gal/min [38 mL/sec].
Flow control module—This
module provides 1-liter pressure
drawdown tests with accurately
controlled pressure or flow rate
(1 mL/sec to 200 mL/sec). In this way, a
larger drawdown than that offered by the
pretest can be controlled from surface, giv-
ing extended transients and therefore
improved formation pressure measurement
and permeability determination.
Multiprobe module—Added to
the basic probe module, this
creates a tool with three
probes—a sink for drawing fluid and two
pressure-observation probes, the horizontal
probe opposite the sink, and the vertical
probe 70 cm [28 in.] above the sink.
The system is usually configured with the
flow control module, drawing 1 liter of for-
mation fluid through the sink probe to set
up a pressure disturbance in the formation.
Analysis of transients measured at the two
observation probes yields vertical and hori-
zontal permeability estimates and enhances
pressure gradient information.
Dual-packer module—This
module, still under development
and awaiting commercial intro-
duction in late 1992, has two packers, about
86 cm [34 in.] apart. These are inflated by
the pumpout module to isolate a zone of
borehole from the column of mud. This
allows drillstem tests (DSTs) and, if the probe
module is included, interference tests to be
carried out. The packers allow zones to be
tested where the probe cannot seal—like
fractured and fissured formations. The larger
area of reservoir isolated by the packers,
compared to a probe, allows a greater flow
rate to be achieved, increasing the depth of
investigation to perhaps 30 m [100 ft].
Oilfield Review
Peak Error 8010 nComparing the
stabilization char-
Strain gauge acteristics of CQG,
4 psi conventional quartz
Strain gauge and strain gauges.
+1 psi This example of a
CQG gauge 10°C thermal shock
2.5 psi at a constant pres-
Pressure, psi

–1 psi sure of 8000 psi

shows how the CQG
7995
gauge stabilizes
CQG gauge much more rapidly
and has a much
Conventional smaller peak error
quartz gauge than a conven-
Conventional
quartz gauge tional quartz gauge.
15 psi

7980
0 24 48
Time, min
Conventional quartz
Strain gauge gauge, 39 min
17 min
CQG gauge, 18 min
Stabilization time

The MDT Tool in Action Comparison of Pressure Gradients Derived from

Pressure measurement—The basic single-
probe configuration can measure reservoir
pressure with a high degree of accuracy.
Reservoir fluid pressure measurements can
be plotted versus true vertical depth (TVD)
and used to infer the position of gas/oil and
oil/water contacts.
The speed and accuracy of measuring
pressure was recently proved in a well oper-
ated by Marathon Oil UK Ltd in the UK
North Sea. The MDT tool was deployed to
take pressures at 45 depths in the well, of
which 33 provided usable pretest data (the
friable nature of the formation adversely
affected the rejected measurements). In all
cases, the CQG gauge stabilized rapidly,
tracking the strain gauge included in the
downhole package, but producing much
more accurate measurements.
Plotting the data versus TVD shows
striking linear trends corresponding to gas,
oil and water (next page). The oil/water con-
tact correlates precisely with that indicated
by openhole logs. The interpreted fluids
agree well with those observed during sub-
sequent cased-hole DSTs (see “Comparison
MDT tests and DSTs
Zone MDT DST
psi/ft Result
Upper 0.092 flowed gas
Middle 0.367 flowed oil
Lower 0.441 flowed water
of Pressure Gradients Derived from MDT
tests and DSTs,” above).
The MDT pressures from this well (Well 2)
were combined with pressures gathered
using an RFT tester in Well 2 and adjacent
Well 1. Marathon, for the first time, was
able to demonstrate that the field contained
two different gas accumulations—the two
wells had each penetrated a different accu-
mulation. Previous data had not proved
accurate enough to make this distinction.
Detailed plots of the data clearly revealed
gas, oil and water gradients (page 63, top).
The data from the water leg of the test in
Wells 1 and 2 overlie each other—to be
expected in this normally-pressured envi-
ronment. However, if Wells 1 and 2 pene-
trated the same gas-bearing interval, the
reservoir pressure at any given depth in that
interval would be the same in both wells.
The formation pressure data gathered by the
MDT and RFT tests showed that this was not
Surface DST
SG psi/ft
0.625 0.047
0.848 0.367
1.052 0.455
the case, with a 22-psi discrepancy between
the two wells. Because the data quality had
been shown to be highly accurate, separate
gas intervals were diagnosed.
Before accepting this diagnosis, one other
possibility had to be eliminated: that the
sand in Well 1 was not gas-bearing but oil-
bearing. This scenario was discounted on
the basis of density and neutron logs which
showed a clear gas effect.
Sampling—Traditional wireline formation
test tools are limited in recovering reservoir
fluids because initial flow is usually contam-
inated with drilling mud filtrate. A contami-

April 1992 61
nated sample can be used to prove the pres-
ence of hydrocarbons, but has limited appli-
cation for PVT analysis.
If water-base mud has been used during
drilling, uncontaminated samples can be
gathered using the resistivity measurement
in the single-probe module to detect mud in
the formation fluid and the pumpout mod-
ule to eject contaminated samples. If PVT-
quality samples are specified, the multisam-
ple module must also be added.
A spectacular example of MDT sampling
took place in two adjacent wells in Total’s
Alwyn field in the UK North Sea. The data
shown here are from one of the wells. The
reservoir contains fluids that are close to the
critical point, at which they cannot be
defined as gas or liquid (near-critical fluids).
These are notoriously difficult to sample
downhole, and reconstituted surface sam-
ples may fail to yield consistent results. To
avoid the possibility of pumping gas into the
borehole, the pumpout module was not
used. Instead, initial fluid intake was
dumped into a special 36-gal [136-liter]
container attached below the 1-gal sample
chambers. Because of the dump chamber’s
weight and the deviation of the well, the
tester was conveyed on drillpipe, rather
than on wireline.
Through careful pressure control, the sam-
ples in the first well were drawn with a
maximum pressure difference of 8 psi
between formation and sample chamber, far
beyond the most optimistic expectations of
operator or service company. Six 450-mL
samples were obtained.
Since these samples were retreived at near
virgin conditions, results from laboratory
analysis of four of the samples were
expected to be more consistent than is usual
for conventionally sampled near-critical flu-
ids. Expectations were exceeded. Small
flash separation was carried out in the
lab—where a small volume of fluid in single
phase is rapidly exposed to atmospheric
conditions and the resulting gas and liquid
collected for compositional and fingerprint
analysis. The liquid sample densities and
gas/liquid ratios showed extraordinary con-
sistency (see “Comparison of Sample PVT
Properties,” next page, middle ).
A reliable way of checking whether repre-
sentative samples of a near-critical fluid
have been taken is by comparing their dew-
point pressures at reservoir temperature. The
consistency in the results obtained by
observing the sample in a windowed cell,
used in the PVT laboratory to determine a
sample’s dewpoint, is self-evident.
Final corroboration of fluid sampling
repeatability was obtained by the gel per-
meation chromatography fingerprinting
technique, in which infrared and ultraviolet
detectors are used to measure the number of
carbon-hydrogen bonds versus alkane

Bit Size Enhanced Vertical Resolution ILd ∆t, FMD Laterolog Deep
10 in 20 Density ohm-m
1.95 g/cm3 2.95
0.2 20 140 µsec/ft 40 0.2 ohm-m 2000
Caliper Neutron Porosity, Computed ILm Laterolog Shallow
10 in 20 45 p.u. -15 0.2 ohm-m 20
∆t, STC 0.2 ohm-m 2000
Photoelectric Factor MicroSFL
Gamma Ray 0 10 140 µsec/ft 40 MicroSFL
0 API 150 Bulk Density Correction 0.2 ohm-m 20
0.2 ohm-m 2000
-0.35 g/cm3 0.15

x500
Depth, ft

x600

x700

x800

nFormation pressures measured using a CQG gauge in an MDT tester together with openhole wireline logs. In this example from a
North Sea well, operated by Marathon Oil UK, both fluid type and contacts are clearly identifiable from the pressure profile.

62 Oilfield Review
 molar mass. The samples had a virtually
identical fingerprint (next page, top). To
clinch consistency, compositional analysis of nA plot of MDT
Gas, Well 2 and RFT pressures
the samples revealed identical amounts of
0.065 psi/ft for Wells 1 and 2 to
the hydrocarbon components and of carbon demonstrate that
dioxide and nitrogen (next page, far right). Gas, Well 1 the field contained
Permeability measurement—Formation x600 two different gas
permeability may be estimated by analyzing accumulations.
the drawdown pressure response during
each pretest. However, it is important that
Well 1
the rate and pressure of the drawdown be
RFT
controlled. For example, if the drawdown x800

Depth, ft
flow rate is too high for the formation per- Well 2
meability, the flowing pressure of the fluid Water,
MDT
might fall below its bubblepoint, ruling out Wells 1 and 2
RFT
analysis of the resultant transient. 0.449 psi/ft
In the MDT tester, drawdown can be x1000
accurately controlled from surface. The
engineer has the flexibility of establishing
the flow rate and either defining the volume
of fluid to be drawn off or setting a maxi- Oil, Well 2
mum pressure drop. x1200 0.368 psi/ft

x450 x550 x650 x750

Pressure, psi

Comparison of Sample PVT Properties

Sample 1 2 3 4
Liquid Density, g/cm3 0.811 0.809 0.811 0.809
Pressure, psi
x450 x550 Gas/Liquid Ratio, Sm3/cm3 1030 1028 1013 1010
Dewpoint Pressure,
397.0 397.5 397.5 396.5
bar-gauge

x500
Measuring permeability anisotropy
requires deployment of the more sophisti-
cated multiprobe system—comprising basic
Gas tool, multiprobe module, flow control mod-
Depth, ft
fied as light-colored sinusoids on the Forma-
tion MicroScanner image.
The reservoir contains a lower layer with
reduced permeability which is caused by

ule and usually sample chambers. The tool’s
probes are first used to monitor reservoir
pressure—information that can sometimes
be used to locate formation barriers
between the probes. Then, near-wellbore
interference tests are run. The flow control
Oil module extracts up to 1 liter of formation
fluid through the sink probe. The isolation
x700 valve between the sink valve and the flow-
line is then shut, setting up pressure distur-
bances in the formation. The process of cre-
ating pressure disturbances can be repeated
Water as many times and in as many locations in
the well as necessary.
For example, in British Gas’s South More-
cambe field, offshore UK, multiprobe tests
were conducted at 42 locations in the well
during a single run (next page, middle). This
example shows one of the tests, from a
water-bearing zone below the gas. The tool
was set near low-permeability streaks identi-
platy illite blocking the pore throats. The gas
in this layer will be produced from the
higher permeability upper layer through
vertical movement. The MDT test program
was designed to measure a vertical perme-
ability profile through both layers and into
the aquifer below. The test under considera-
tion was carried out in the aquifer.
As the sink probe accepts fluid and is then
shut in, the horizontal probe shows an
immediate and quite large pressure change
(∆p), while the vertical probe registers a
much smaller and delayed ∆p. That there is
a reaction at the vertical probe, however,
indicates some vertical permeability. The
question is how much?

April 1992 63
 nGel permeation With an interpretation package that ana-
Sample 1 chromatograph lyzes MDT multiprobe tests, the data were
Sample 2 fingerprints of matched to a formation model comprising a
Sample 3 near-critical fluids
showing that homogeneous formation with upper and
Sample 4
repeatable sam- lower boundaries some distance from the
C-H bonds

ples have been tool. The match gave horizontal and vertical
IR response captured from permeabilities of 5.50 and 0.22 millidarcies
Total’s North Sea
Alwyn field. respectively.2 This proves that across the
zone seen on the Formation MicroScanner
image, there is some vertical communica-
tion despite a large permeability anisotropy
in the formation being tested. More com-
UV response plex models are under development to allow
more sophisticated multilayer analysis.
10 102 103 104
Equivalent alkane molar mass, g/mol

Flow
CO2
22.5

17.8
Flow rate, cm3/sec

C1
13.1 Drawdown

8.3 C2

3.6
Buildup C3
-1.1

Component
718.1 796.7 875.3 954.0 1032.6 1111.3
Time, sec i-C4

Pressure
384.8
n-C4
303.7
∆p, psi

222.5 i-C5

141.4 Horizontal probe

n-C5
60.2
Vertical probe
–20.9 C6
718.1 796.7 875.3 954.0 1032.6 1111.3
Time, sec
Formation MicroScanner MDT
C7+
nDetermining vertical flow characteristics in shaley sand in the South Morecambe
field, operated by British Gas, to assess the likely impact of water coning. The MDT 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
tester in multiprobe configuration was deployed to measure drawdown and buildup
Composition mole %
transients across shaly streaks identified on the Formation MicroScanner log. The tran-
sients are shown with the interpretation model (orange line). Flow rate, measured using Sample 1 Sample 3
the flow control module, was incorporated into the match using continuous convolution.
Sample 2 Sample 4

nCompositional analysis of Alwyn

samples corroborating that near-
identical samples were captured.

64 Oilfield Review
 Mini-DSTs With the Dual Packer
Module—The experimental MDT packer
module may open up a radically new direc-
tion for wireline testing, in which a small
zone can be tested yielding data that can be
interpreted using traditional techniques.
With use of a transient test lasting just a few
minutes, formation information may be
determined with a depth of investigation of
tens of meters.
In a recent test for UK Nirex Ltd and
British Nuclear Fuels plc in West Cumbria,
England, an MDT tool with dual-packer
module was positioned over a naturally
occurring fracture. The fracture was
identified on both FMI Formation MicroIm-
ager and Acoustic TeleScanner images (left ).
Several fluid samples were taken from the
fracture, with a buildup pressure transient
lasting about 6 minutes recorded between
each. The first buildup illustrates the quality
of the CQG gauge pressure data—both final
interpreted log-log and generalized Horner-
type plots are shown (below and see “Test-
ing Design and Analysis,” page 28). The
derivative data were usable without smooth-
ing and the radial-flow regime plateau
clearly emerges at the end of the 6-minute
period.
Analysis, with Schlumberger’s ZODIAC
Zoned Dynamic Interpretation Analysis and
Computation program, provided an excel-
lent match for the test, yielding estimates for
parameters such as formation transmissivity
and reservoir pressure. The match shown
uses a new model for a situation in which
wellbore storage changes during the course
of the test3 —in this case, the changing well-
bore storage is associated with fluid stored
within the predominantly horizontal fracture
itself, within the packed-off wellbore and
within the tool’s flowline.
From this analysis, storage was found to
have stabilized at about five orders of mag-
nitude smaller than would have been
obtained by conventional DST. It is mainly
for this reason that radial flow can develop
after just 6 minutes of shut-in. —CF, HE

Pressure and derivative

nPlots of data from
103 a mini-DST carried
out using the MDT
Pressure change packer module.
∆p and Derivative, psi

The radial-flow
regime plateau
102 Pressure derivative clearly emerges
at the end of the
6-minute test.

101 Radial flow regime

nLocating a suitable fracture for testing
using images from the Acoustic TeleScan-
ner (left) and FMI Fullbore Formation
MicroImager (right).
100

2. Goode PA and Thambynayagam RKM: “Analytic Generalized Horner

Models for Multiple Probe Formation Tester,” paper
SPE 20737, presented at the 65th SPE Annual Techni-
cal Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, 400
Louisiana, USA, September 23-26, 1990.
Goode PA and Thambynayagam RKM: “Influence of
an Invaded Zone on a Multiple Probe Formation
Tester,” paper SPE 23030, presented at the SPE Asia- 300
Pacific Conference, Perth, Australia, 4-7 November
∆p, psi

1991.
Goode PA, Pop JJ and Murphy WF III: “Multiple-Probe
Formation Testing and Vertical Reservoir Continuity,” 200
paper SPE 22738, presented at the 66th SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Texas,
USA, October 6-9, 1991.
3. Hegeman PS, Hallford DL and Joseph JA: “Well Test 100
Analysis with Changing Wellbore Storage,” paper SPE
21829, presented at 1991 Rocky Mountain Regional
Meeting and Low Permeability Reservoirs Symposium,
Denver, Colorado, USA, April 15-17, 1991. 0
10-4 10-3 10-2 10-1 10-0
∆t, hr

April 1992 65