84086.
qxd 1/13/04 1:52 PM Page 57
W e l l Te s t i n g
Will Wireline Formation Tests
Replace Well Tests?
Well testing in exploration and appraisal
wells has become increasingly unpopu-
lar. Reasons include costs, safety, and
environmental effects. Well testing also
has become rare in production wells
because of the potential revenue loss
during the buildup tests. Alternatives for
sampling and reservoir-parameter esti-
mation include wireline formation tests
in exploration and appraisal wells and
continuous recording with permanent
pressure gauges in production wells.
Essentially, the interpretation methods
are the same as those used in well-test
analysis with the addition of the forma-
tion-rate analysis, which is particularly
useful in high-permeability formations
in which other methods are limited by
pressure-gauge resolution.
Introduction
Often, well testing is used in the exploration
and development of hydrocarbon reservoirs
to obtain representative formation-fluid
samples, measure initial reservoir pressure,
demonstrate and/or establish well produc-
tivity, determine permeability-thickness
product and skin, identify the drainage area
of the well along with boundary effects that
may exist, and identify and quantify deple-
tion. These objectives can be compared with
those of a wireline formation test, which
include determining formation pressures in
zones of interest, establishing pressure gra-
dients for fluid-type identification, identify-
ing zones in hydraulic communication or
isolation, collecting representative forma-
tion-fluid samples, and estimating forma-
tion-fluid mobility.
An overlap exists between the two tech-
niques, and whether one technique can
replace the other depends on specific-well
objectives. For example, some exploration
wells are drilled solely to confirm the exis-
tence of a hydrocarbon column, in which
case a wireline formation test is probably
sufficient. Other wells may be drilled to
prove a minimum volume of hydrocarbons
in place, for which a reservoir-limit well test
is the only option. Between these two
extremes, many cases may be unclear
whether a well test is required.
FEBRUARY 2004
The strongest reason not to perform the
well test is financial. Environmental cost is
increasingly important. The decision to test
must be made taking into account the cost
of acquiring the information. This decision
requires an understanding of the informa-
tion and whether it can be acquired by
other means.
The full-length paper focuses on informa-
tion that can be obtained from the pressure
transients recorded during a wireline forma-
tion test and how the information compares
with data recorded during a well test.
With fast PCs and properly designed
analysis software, the interpretation of pres-
sure transients from well tests has become
somewhat standard. The interpretation of
pressure transients from wireline formation
tests is a more recent development.
The established methods used in well
testing are not always applied to wireline
formation testing. In high-permeability
zones, gauge resolution may be insufficient
to record an interpretable pressure tran-
sient. Well-test analysis software has not
been adapted for use with wireline-forma-
tion-test data. Therefore, a service company
often performs the analysis using its propri-
etary software.
Wireline-Formation-Test Analysis
Fig. 1 shows the fundamental types of
wireline formation tests considered in
this study.
Single Snorkel. Several authors have inves-
tigated the theoretical
pressure-transient re-
sponse of the single-
snorkel (probe) -type con-
figuration. The approach
in this paper is to consider
the withdrawal of a slight-
ly compressible fluid at
constant rate from a spher-
ical source having storage
and skin in an infinite
homogeneous reservoir.
The difference between
the actual probe-well
geometry and the spheri-
Fig. 1—Types of wireline formation tests.
cal source is approximated
This article, written by Technology Editor
Dennis Denney, contains highlights of
paper SPE 84086, “Will Wireline
Formation Tests Replace Well Tests?,” by
T.M. Whittle, SPE, and J. Lee, SPE,
Baker Atlas, and A.C. Gringarten,
SPE, Imperial College, U.K., prepared
for the 2003 SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Denver,
5–8 October.
by the skin factor. Solutions to the spheri-
cal-source problem are well documented.
The selection of the correct independent
dimensionless parameters and the addition
of storage and skin are discussed in
Appendix A of the full-length paper.
Formation-Rate Analysis (FRA). This
technique for analyzing formation-tester
pressure data is based on the material-bal-
ance equation for the formation tester’s
flow-line volume considering pressure and
compressibility of the enclosed volume.
FRA allows for the variation in flow rate and
includes both drawdown- and buildup-
pressure data. It also assumes Darcy flow
from the reservoir to the probe.
Transient Analysis. The constant-rate
spherical-source solution with storage and
skin is adapted to a variable rate by use of
superposition. Comparing its response with
that of the FRA method indicates that a
dimensionless geometric skin of approxi-
mately 1.8 is required to obtain the same
57
84086.qxd 1/13/04 1:53 PM Page 58
mobility from each method, indicating that
FRA takes into account the nonspherical
flow geometry resulting from the presence
of the wellbore. Numerical studies that con-
sider both probe geometry and the wellbore
confirmed that the spherical-source model
matches the numerically modeled transients
with errors no greater than 13% when the
appropriate skin factor is used.
Field Example 1. Fig. 2 shows the meas-
ured pressure and rate response recorded
during a wireline formation test. The figure
also includes a match of the spherical-
source model to the data using the input
data and match parameters. The FRA yields
a higher mobility than that derived from
transient analysis, which also predicts a
lower-than-expected skin because of perme-
ability anisotropy. Normally, FRA mobility
approximates spherical mobility, but it is
affected by anisotropy. The transient analy-
sis should always predict spherical mobility
regardless of anisotropy, although the skin
will change accordingly.
In this example, the calculated radius of
investigation (120 cm), based on the entire
shut-in period (204 seconds), is probably
realistic. However, in higher permeabilities,
the pressure-gauge resolution limit will be
reached much earlier, after which no mean-
ingful transients are recorded and the
radius of investigation is reduced. In the
absence of measurable pressure transients,
the FRA method becomes the only means
to estimate mobility.
Field Example 2: Application to Thin
Beds. This example includes a repeat test to
validate pressures recorded during the ini-
tial test and demonstrates the high quality
and repeatability of data that can be
acquired during such tests. The inclusion of
upper and lower boundaries to simulate
thin beds, which is suggested by the stabi-
lization in the derivative response, necessi-
tates introducing permeability anisotropy
into the model. The FRA and spherical
mobilities are very similar, which suggests
that the formation permeability is isotropic.
Fig. 2—Single-snorkel formation test.
58
Only one of either the bed thickness or
the permeability anisotropy can be evaluat-
ed from a single-probe-type data analysis.
Assuming that one of these parameters is
available from other sources of data (usual-
ly the thickness from logs, cores, or images),
then the other (permeability anisotropy)
can be estimated from the analysis.
Dual Snorkel. In this study, a simplified
approach appears to yield adequate results.
The source probe is considered a spherical
source, and the observation probe measures
the pressure at some distance above or
below the producing-source probe. To vali-
date the model, the response of the obser-
vation probe, under different anisotropy
conditions, was compared with that of a
previously published prediction using the
same set of data. The comparison graph
showed good agreement between the two.
Straddle Packer. The model used to
describe the pressure-transient response of a
wireline formation test using inflatable
straddle packers is identical to that for a par-
tially completed well. In ideal conditions,
such a test can quantify horizontal and ver-
tical permeability.
Field Example 3: Straddle-Packer Pump-
ing Test. The derivative response showed a
negative half slope indicative of spherical
flow. However, radial flow had not devel-
oped, and, therefore, the estimate of hori-
zontal permeability thickness represents a
minimum value because any higher value
could result in an equally good match.
Because the rates are much higher during
pumping with straddle packers, the transient
response is much better than that obtained
with a probe-type pressure test. Compared
with a well test, these rates are still quite low
and, in high-permeability zones, gauge reso-
lution will limit the quality of pressure tran-
sients. In open hole, there also is a time limit
on how long the straddle packers can remain
in place safely. This limit may reduce the
available pressure-transient data and could
compromise the analysis.
Scaling Up
After several formation tests were
conducted on a well in a potential
producing interval, the challenge was
to scale up the interpreted permeabil-
ity values of each test to a single per-
meability thickness for the entire
interval in an attempt to predict the
well’s production performance. This
process could be done only with
information from other sources (e.g.,
logs, cores, and images). First, it is
assumed that the reservoir interval could be
described as a sequence of homogeneous
(but possibly anisotropic) layers. Then, the
average permeability-thickness product of
such a multilayered reservoir could be calcu-
lated from the individual-layer properties.
Assuming that the result of a wireline-for-
mation-test analysis is a description of
spherical permeability for each layer, the
additional information required to calculate
the average permeability thickness is the
permeability anisotropy and the thickness
of each layer. Permeability anisotropy may
be obtained from a wireline-formation-test
analysis, but the thickness of each layer is
obtained from other sources (usually logs,
but at the smaller scale, images may be use-
ful). It also must be assumed that the spher-
ical permeability derived from the forma-
tion-test analysis relates to a single layer and
is not influenced by adjacent layers.
Otherwise (for example, when the probe is
close to a layer boundary), FRA may pro-
vide a better esimate of permeability.
Permeability anisotropy may be derived
from resistivity logs as well as from cores.
Having estimated permeability thickness,
the prediction of well productivity can be cal-
culated. For example, the simplest expres-
sion for the productivity index assumes pseu-
dosteady-state flow to a fully completed ver-
tical well in a circular drainage area.
Conclusions
In lower-permeability reservoirs (mobilities
less than 100 md/cp), the quality of data
recorded by wireline-formation-test tools is
suitable for pressure-transient interpreta-
tion. In higher-permeability reservoirs, the
resolution of the pressure gauge limits the
quality of the data, often precluding tran-
sient analysis. In this case, the FRA method
provides the best estimate of mobility.
In general, pressure-transient analysis of
wireline formation tests provides estimates
of spherical permeability. In thin beds of
known thickness or in cases in which an
observation gauge is used to measure verti-
cal interference, the possibility to evaluate
permeability anisotropy also exists. Scaling
up the permeabilities derived from wireline
formation tests to a prediction of the perfor-
mance of a fully completed well is possible
if several assumptions are made. In particu-
lar, the permeability anisotropy must be
known or estimated. JPT
For a limited time, the full-length paper
is available free to SPE members at
www.spe.org/jpt. The paper has not
been peer reviewed.
FEBRUARY 2004