SPE-177971-MS

Processing Formation Test Data to Reduce the Risk Inherent in Capturing

Representative Samples in Zones with Highly Varying Permeabilities
James Deering and Mustafa Abdul Mohsin, Saudi Aramco; Mark Proett, Aramco Services Company; Sami
Eyuboglu and Waleed Fakhry, Halliburton

Copyright 2015, Society of Petroleum Engineers  

 
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Saudi Arabia Section Annual Technical Symposium and Exhibition held in Al-Khobar, Saudi Arabia, 21-23
April 2015.  
 
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
A new method of objectively quantifying formation tester data quality has recently been developed with the aim of
optimizing the generation of fluid gradients and contacts. This paper demonstrates how this new method of processing
formation test data and integration with the open hole log data can be applied to improve job planning for sampling. By
using data that have been quality controlled, sampling operations can be improved by using the optimal sampling tool
configuration which can result in higher operational efficiencies with reduced rig time for complex logging and sampling
operations. In this case study, formation tester objectives included establishing gradients and fluid contact points,
determination of formation fluids and capturing representative samples over multiple horizons in a single 6 ⅛” wellbore. An
additional factor which increased the complexity of this operation was the length and deviation of the wellbore, raising
concerns about differential sticking due to the lengthy stationary sampling times required. The formation tester evaluation
process was divided into two runs: wireline deployed pressure testing and drill pipe conveyed sampling. This culminated in
successfully completing 22 pumpouts with 4 samples captured over 6 days without any incidents. The straddle packer was
used 17 times in varying permeability formations and is considered to be the most number of inflations in the Middle East
region.
The real-time formation tester data acquired were compared to the quality controlled data used for post processing
analysis. The results were then used to identify the optimum procedures to be followed and future best practices. The
lessons learned from the case study presented are used to demonstrate a quality control process with recently developed real-
time methods for evaluating test quality. This allowed the data to be analyzed quickly and with confidence, enabling
improved pumpout and sampling operation planning.

Introduction
Saudi Aramco regularly drills wells that penetrate multiple reservoirs of varying lithology and quality, containing fluids
that can include gas, light oil, heavy oil and water in the same wellbore. Identification and capture of these fluids are critical
to understanding the reservoir and optimizing hydrocarbon recovery. While the open hole logs and pressure testing surveys
can help reduce the uncertainty concerning predicting the fluid type, the results are not always conclusive. Because of these
factors, low contamination formation samples obtained with a Wireline Formation Tester (WFT) tool are common in the
formation evaluation process.
Formation pressure testing and sampling is usually the most time consuming formation evaluation operation and
therefore the most expensive. Efficiency in this operation is required to reduce costs and risks. Tests have shown that by
selecting the optimal drawdown volume and flow rate, the time required to obtain a stable pressure can be reduced by up to
60%. The same goes for sampling; proper analysis of the pressure data can optimize pumping time, reducing rig time (hence
cost) and reduce risks of sticking.
This paper will demonstrate new methods for automatically processing formation test data and integration with the open-
hole log data to enable improved job planning for sampling. The results can be higher efficiencies with reduced rig time for
very complex logging and sampling operations.
 2 SPE-177971-MS

Pressure Testing with Formation Tester

The most common type of transient pressure tests performed by formation testers are called “pretests” which are
characterized by short duration drawdown (usually 5 to 20 seconds) followed by a buildup of several minutes or more. The
term “pretesting” was adopted because the first formation testers were primarily sampling tools and the test was actually the
pressure transient recorded when filling and closing the sample bottle, because the main objective was the sample. Since
these early tools were limited to one or two sample chambers, only two tests were possible in a single wireline run. The
ability to test the formation before sampling or “pretesting” was added much later. This capability made it possible to
perform nearly an unlimited number of “pretests.” Now a quick preliminary test could be performed on the formation after
setting the tool to determine the quality of the test point before deciding to fill a sample chamber. However, pretesting soon
became the primary type of pressure testing performed by formation testers for measuring formation pressure and near
wellbore mobility.
When a formation tester is positioned at the selected depth in the borehole for testing, the flow line is exposed to
hydrostatic pressure. When the probe is set and is extended to press against the borehole, a pressure disturbance can occur
resulting in an increase or decrease in hydrostatic pressure, depending on the type of test tool used. After setting the probe,
the command is given to begin the pretest and a small syringe-like piston withdraws fluid from the formation at a constant
rate creating the drawdown flow rate (qdd). This drawdown period normally lasts from 5 to 20 seconds depending on the
volume of the pretest and the flow rate. In most modern testing tools the rate and volume can be specified by the engineer.
During the pretest drawdown a small amount of fluid is withdrawn from the formation through the probe and into the tool.
This causes the pressure to reduce below formation pressure creating a pressure pulse, called the pretest drawdown
differential (ΔPdd), as shown in Fig. 1. When the pretest piston stops, the pressure increases which results in a buildup
transient (see Fig. 1). The buildup in pressure is allowed to continue until it is stable, and the final pressure is considered to
be very near to the formation pressure. The combination of flow rate and probe radius determines an effective range of
operation.

Hydrostatic

Pstop
Buildup
Pressure (psi)

Drawdown ΔPdd = Pstop − Pdd

Flow rate qdd Pdd

tp Δt Time (sec)
Fig. 1 – Pressure time plot for typical pretest showing one drawdown and buildup. Before the drawdown the pressure gauge measures the
borehole hydrostatic pressure and after the buildup the flowline is again exposed to hydrostatic pressure. Most pretests have two or three
drawdown buildup sequences to verify or help improve on the testing results.

By making the assumption of pseudosteady steady-state hemispherical flow, the drawdown mobility is determined as
follows (Moran et al., 1962).
ks qdd
M sdd = = C pf .................................................................................................................................................. (1)
µ ΔPdd
Steady-state hemispherical flow during the drawdown can be observed when the drawdown pressure Pdd has nearly
stabilized and the pretest piston is moving at a constant rate. Assuming the final pressure of the buildup is formation pressure
(Pstop) and the final pressure of the drawdown (Pdd) is relatively constant, the drawdown differential is determined (i.e., ΔPdd=
Pstop – Pdd) and assumed to be the steady-state hemispherical flow pressure differential in Eq. 1 (see Fig. 1). The drawdown
flow rate qdd can be measured directly or estimated by the pretest volume and drawdown time or production time (qdd =V/tp,
cc/sec) and is assumed to be constant. With these assumptions, Eq. 1 can be used to determine the drawdown mobility (Msdd).
 SPE-177971-MS 3

The constant Cpf is the probe flow coefficient and depends on the size of the probe, geometry of the probe (circular,
elongated, multiple openings, etc.) and the borehole size. Formation anisotropy can also affect this estimate of the mobility
but it is normally not considered. With a 0.10-cc/sec to 1.5-cc/sec drawdown flow rate and a 1.0-cm probe employed, it is
possible to test formations ranging from 1,000 to 0.5 md with pressure differentials ranging from 2 psi to 5,000 psi. By
analyzing the drawdown curve and the build-up curve, it is possible to calculate the mobility of the formation.

Pretest Planning to Achieve Quality Objectives

To improve the probability of a successful pressure survey, some initial planning for the pretesting can be very
beneficial. The pretesting pressure stage precedes the sampling stage to identify fluids and fluid contacts. It can take several
days of testing for a complex reservoir, such as the one discussed in this paper, and may consist of over 100 testing stations
(depths) and 2-4 drawdowns per station. To fully understand the time requirements for pretesting in a well spanning a
complex and variable environment, it is very beneficial to estimate the testing time to obtain high quality data. The testing
time is influenced by the range of formation properties encountered such as permeability (or relative permeability), porosity,
anisotropy and other factors. The capabilities of the formation tester also need to be considered, such as probe size, probe
geometry, pressure gauge resolution, flow rate and accuracy, and flow line volume. Finally, there are test quality expectations
that can impact testing times. These quality parameters, listed below, are typically monitored during a job and can directly
impact the time required for pretesting:

1. Drawdown Mobility, such as Msdd, determined by Eq. 1

2. Pressure Stability, such as measuring the “buildup slope” over the last 60 sec of the buildup (psi/min)
3. Pressure deviation, such as the standard deviation of the pressure from the “buildup slope” (± psi)
4. Temperature stability, such as the slope of the temperature gauge sensor over the last 60 sec of the buildup (OF/min)
5. Radius of Investigation, determined by Msdd and drawdown duration (Proett et al., 2014)
6. Supercharge pressure, determined by Msdd, over-balance pressure, and invasion time (Proett et al., 2014)

Based on these testing QC criteria, formation properties and tool capabilities, a simulator was developed to estimate the
testing time, as shown in Fig. 2. This simulator uses a hemispherical model similar to the one developed by Proett et al.,
2000. The example shown in Fig. 2 is for a “typical” single probe tool but the basic tool parameters for any tool can be used.
The desired buildup stability is the primary criterion used to determine the buildup times. In the case shown below the initial
drawdown flow rate and volume are automatically determined by the simulator, however, they can be specified. In a real-
world setting the mobility is unknown and the first pretest is usually a default setting. As shown in Fig 2, the first drawdown
is short but sufficient information is gained to optimize the next test to enhance the maximum radius of investigation. This is
accomplished by adjusting the next drawdown flow rate and time to maximize the volume withdrawn from the formation
while staying within the operational limitations for the well and testing tool. After each drawdown-buildup the optimized
pretest rates, volumes and buildup times are generated for the next pretest. While the simulator can determine the buildup
time required to reach the desired pressure stability, other operational limitations can be imposed such as specifying the
maximum buildup time. When new parameters are entered or the tool type changed, the simulation is generated showing a
pressure time plot, a stability plot (0-1 psi pressure plot) and the log-log spherical and radial derivatives (Kuchuk et al., 2010;
Bourdet et al., 1989).

TYP Select FT Tool & Options Pretest 2 & 3

6000 1.2
10000
3 Ndd Number of pretests (1, 2 or 3)
1 Formation Mobility (md/cp) 5000 1
5,000 Hydrostatic Pressure (psi)
1000
1,000 Overbalance (psi) 4000 0.8
Flow Rate (cc/sec)
Pressure (psi)

20% Formation Porosity (%)

3000 0.6
3.0E-06 Fluid/Total Compressibility (1/psi)
Pressure (psi)

100
Initial rate (cc/sec), Blank for Automatic
2000 0.4
Initial volume (cc), Blank for Automatic
Max buildup time (sec), Blank for Auto… 1000 0.2 10
Automatic Inputs
1.1 Qini Initial drawdown rate (cc/sec) 0 0
0 200 400 600 800 1000
16.7 Vini Initial drawdown volume (cc) Tim e (sec) 1
0.2 Q 2nd and 3rd drawdown rate (cc/sec) 1
Stability (psi)

16.7 V 2nd and 3rd drawdown volume (cc)

180 tbu_max Maximum buildup time (sec) 0.5 0.1
1 10 100 1000
Results for Pretests Δ t Tim e (sec)

0:13.05 Total Test Time (hours:min:sec) 0 DP DP Rad Spher Spher Rad

Tim e (sec)

Fig. 2 – Pretest simulator is used to determine “Total Test Time” for a test scenario considering the tool’s specification, operating parameters
and test quality requirements.
 4 SPE-177971-MS

The most important result from a planning standpoint is the “Total Test Time” to achieve the desired test quality. By
using a simulator that considers test quality, the complete logging run time can be estimated assuming other factors such as,
formation property variations, number of testing stations, time to change depths, wireline run in and out times, depth
correlations and other operational factors. For example, in a complex pressure survey in a good quality reservoir with an
average mobility of 100 md/cp formation, 100 testing stations would take at least 22 hours for just the pretesting time. If the
testing time or costs need to be lowered, then operational parameters can be changed, such as reducing the number of pretest
drawdowns per station, or selecting a more effective tool technology.

Capturing Formation Fluid with the Formation Tester

Modern pumpout wireline sampling tools were introduced in the
early 1990’s and included single and multiple circular probes (Fig. 3).
Most of these wireline formation testers (WFT) offer probes in the ½ to
1 inch diameter range and some probes are as large as two inches. The
oval or elongated probe was introduced to enlarge the intake even more.
The ratio of the cross-sectional area to flow between an oval probe and
single circular probe is approximately 50:1. Examples of a two probe
section and oval probe section for a WFT are shown in Fig. 3. Because
of the design of the oval probe (Fig. 3-Right) it is more effective when
testing or sampling in the presence of vuggy and/or fractured carbonate
rocks. In addition, the oval shape can increase the flow rate, thus
reducing the sampling time because the pad has a focusing effect on
near-wellbore flow (El Zefzaf et al., 2006). The opening of the oval
probe that is exposed to the formation is nearly 10 inches long. The two
port openings located at each end of the pad are the same size as the
probes and are screened in much the same way as a conventional probe
(Jones et al., 2007). The larger area of the pad as well as the screens give
the oval probe a great advantage for capturing samples in low mobility
reservoirs (i.e., tight sands and formations with heavy viscous oil).
However, sampling in formations with high heterogeneity, low
mobility and fractured rocks still represented a challenge for WFT. In Fig. 3 – Comparing the dual-probe section, (left)
with the oval probe section (right) it is evident that
these environments the formation fluid can flow from thin laminations, the oval probe contacts a much larger area of the
fractures, vuggs and other fine scale features that are almost impossible borehole. This reduces flowing pressures and
to test and sample with a probe. A small circular probe is more likely to increases the flow rate in low permeability
be placed in a location that is characteristic of the rock matrix that can formations (El Zefzaf et al., 2006).
have a very low perm and result in a tight test. Therefore, soon after the
pumpout tools were introduced, straddle packers were adapted from drill
stem testing (DST). The primary advantage of a straddle packer is its
ability to cover a vertical interval where a probe is a small pinpoint by
comparison. The oval probe is similar to the straddle packer since it
spans a longer interval than a circular probe and this improves the
likelihood it will capture the fine scale features where formation fluid
can be produced. However, in formations with very low mobility the
straddle packer (Fig. 4) dramatically increases the exposed area with an
interval of 1 meter. With a surface area of over 1000 in2 it is much larger
than any probe and making it a best candidate for characterizing
formations with very low mobilities.
The straddle packer used in this case study has two inlets between
the packers, as shown in Fig. 4. This configuration has advantages when
sampling multi-phase fluids which may be present when sampling oil in
a WBM environment. Because the two fluids separate with the light oil
at the top of the straddle packer isolated interval and the water filtrate at
the bottom, a clean sample can be taken from the top inlet port. The dual
inlet configuration is also effective for miscible fluids with a high
density contrast. Field testing has shown that even with a miscible
filtrate, the heavier fluid gravitates to the bottom of the interval and the
lighter fluid rises to the top. Consequently, when sampling from the Fig. 4 – The straddle packer tool includes inflatable
upper port, the flow into the tool will favor the lighter fluid and when packers to seal a 39” (1 meter) or longer interval of
wellbore. Dual ports enable selectively sampling
sampling from the lower port, it will favor the denser fluid. This applies fluid from the upper or lower portions of the interval
to water sampling with WBM as well as heavy or light oils with OBM. when oil and water separate.
 SPE-177971-MS
Fig. 5 – Performance comparison of a typical probe, oval probe and
straddle packer systems. The simulations assume a 100 md/cp
formation. The maximum pumpout flow rates are shown where the
source curves (i.e., circular probe, oval probe or straddle packer)
intersect the pump curve. The oval probe approaches the pumping
rate of a straddle packer system in this case.
Fig. 6 – Pumpout flow rates versus formation mobility using a single
probe, dual probe, oval probe and straddle packer (SP) and the
inputs from Table 3. The set line is determined by the permeability
and viscosity inputs in Table 3.
Fig. 7 – The pumping time comparisons are based on pumping a
total of 50 liters at the rates shown in Fig. 6. The straddle packer
(SP) curve is shifted due to the additional volumes required to inflate
the packers and a portion of the fluid between them.
5
Pumpout Time Estimates for a Typical Probe, Oval
Probe, and Straddle Packer Sources
The testing and sampling “source” is the component that
provides the sealed area on the well bore where formation fluid
flows into the tool (i.e., circular probe, oval probe or straddle
packer). When making comparisons between different sources,
it is necessary to consider the pumpout tool as a system
consisting of several elements that must be matched to optimize
the operation. It is not possible to simply compare the areas or
length that a source exposes to the well bore to determine if a
probe, oval probe or straddle packer would be the best choice.
One must consider the whole system including the formation
properties, the pump performance and the sampling source (i.e.,
circular probe, oval probe or straddle packer). All of these
factors can affect the system performance to achieve the
objective of obtaining a representative low-contamination
sample or an effective pressure test.
These system considerations can be best illustrated by Fig. 5.
In this figure, an idealized pump performance curve is shown by
a solid black line. A pump’s performance depends primarily on
two factors: the maximum pumping differential and flow rate.
The maximum rate occurs when pump has very little flow
resistance (i. e., pressure differential). The maximum pumping
differential occurs when the resistance exceeds the pumps
capabilities and there is no flow. This is shown in Fig. 5 where
the pump curve starts at its maximum pressure differential of
3600 psi at 0 cc/sec and declines linearly to its maximum flow
rate of 63 cc/sec or 1 gpm at 0 psi. Actually, pump curves may
not be linear but will still demonstrate the same general
characteristics shown here. When pumping, the first hurdle the
pump must overcome is the overbalance pressure or the
difference between hydrostatic wellbore mud pressure and the
formation pressure. The overbalance pressure is illustrated by a
dashed horizontal line in Fig. 5. The maximum flow rate
possible in these conditions, regardless of the source type (i.e.,
circular probe, oval probe or straddle packer), is determined
where the overbalance line intersects the pump curve. In other
words, even if the formation offers no resistance to flow the
pump must overcome the overbalance pressure differential. The
pumping differential increases when additional resistance to
flow is introduced by factors such as the formation mobility and
the geometry of the source. This additional resistance is
represented by the lines that slope upwards from the overbalance
line, as shown in Fig. 5. Now the maximum flow rate of a
source and pump combination is determined by the intersection
of the source line to the pump curve (i.e., circular probe, oval
probe and straddle packer).
The slope of the source line is governed by the geometric
configuration of the source and by the formation permeability
and viscosity. As shown in Fig. 5, the slope (ΔPpo/qpo) can be
estimated by the probe or straddle packer shape factor divided
by the formation mobility. While this assumes spherical steady-
state flow, this assumption is actually a best-case estimate since
bed boundaries can actually increase the slope further. The
curves are linear and intersect the pressure axis at the
overbalance pressure line and then slope upward. For a given
sampling source, the formation mobility is the primary property
 6 SPE-177971-MS

governing the formation’s flow resistance, and in Fig. 5, a 100 md/cp mobility was assumed. The geometric factors for the sources
are determined using detailed simulations (Zefzaf et al., 2006) for the steady-state spherical flow case. In observing the relative
slopes in Fig. 5 it is apparent that the oval probe flow rate is closer to a straddle packer than the single probe. The flow rate is the
primary factor used to determine how quickly a low contamination formation sample can be obtained.
The pressure differential is also an important factor to consider when sampling and it is related to the flow rate by the system
performance. While a higher pressure differential can produce higher rates, this can cause phase changes when sampling and
corrupt the sample. When the pumping differential is increased, the pressure at the source is decreased from hydrostatic. If the
source pressure falls below the bubble point, the sample is no longer single phase and not considered a representative sample.
Notice that the maximum flow rates for any one of the cases shown in Fig. 5 depends on both the pump curve as well as the
source type curve. Therefore, depending on the formation conditions, overbalance and source type, the predicted maximum flow
rates can change substantially. The pumping differential rate can be reduced anywhere below the pump curve line along a
source line, but the rate is also reduced. This can be done during sampling operations if a phase change is detected to preserve
the sample quality, but sampling times are increased. These factors point out how critical the selection of the source and
pump specification can be to obtaining the highest quality samples and keeping pumping station times to a minimum.

Job Planning Simulations

Based on the relationships shown in Fig. 5, a simulator can make comparisons between sampling systems over a range of
operational conditions. Some typical results are shown in Tables 3, 4 and 5. The parameters for this analysis are shown in
Table 3 along with the results for a 100 md formation. In the case highlighted here, a pumpout volume of 100 liters was
considered sufficient for cleanup. However, pumpout volumes can exceed 100 liters and are formation and mud dependent.
The pumpout volume used for the estimates is primarily
based on prior experience in a similar reservoir or can be Table 3 – Job Planning Pumpout Time Estimates, 100md/cp
estimated by a detailed numerical simulation similar to
UTAPWels by UT Austin (Beik et al., 2010).
Pumping rates can change over the course of a pumpout
because the mobility changes as the filtrate diminishes and
the formation fluid dominates. This is accounted for with a
change in viscosity, as shown in Table 3, and pumping rates
are shown for both cases. The estimated pumping time is
based on the average of the two pumping rates. While this
may not account entirely for the effect of relative
permeability between two immiscible fluids, such as WBM
filtrate and oil, some adjustment can be made in the viscosity
to improve the estimates based on field experience or
numerical simulations (Beik et al., 2010).
The pumpout time estimates in Table 3 for a single probe
show that a little more than 1 hour of pumping is needed.
Next, two closely spaced probes are used which doubles the
flow area but the time is only reduced to 48 minutes and not
half of the single probe time (i.e., 30 minutes). This is
because of the relative slope change between the probe and
pump curves as shown in Fig 5. This apparent non-linear
relationship between probe area and pumpout time is best
illustrated by the mobility sensitivity plots shown in Figs. 6
Table 4 – Job Planning Pumpout Time Estimates, 10md/cp
and 7.
The straddle packer has a longer pumpout time than the
dual probe and the oval probe in Table 3. This difference is
due primarily to the time needed to inflate the packers and
void the volume between the packers sufficiently to allow
formation fluid to start to enter the tool at the upper port of
the straddle packer. If the straddle packer did not require the
additional time for deployment, it would always have a lower
Table 5 – Job Planning Pumpout Time Estimates, 1md/cp
pumping time. However if we assume that a larger pumpout
volume is required for cleanup, the straddle packer
inflation/deflation and voiding time become less of a factor.
Assuming the formation and well bore properties remain the
same, Tables 4 and 5 show how formation permeability
affect pumpout times. At 10 md the oval probe is close to the
pumpout time of a straddle packer (1.23 vs. 1.01 hours) and
 SPE-177971-MS 7

for lower permeabilities the straddle packer is the clear choice.

In a formation interval with a high degree of permeability variation, time can
be saved by running all three configurations for the sampling stage, as shown in
Fig 8. In this configuration the oval probe is placed above the dual probe section
and they can share the quartz gauge in the quartz gauge section. The straddle
packer is below the dual probe and has a dedicated quartz gauge. The order of the
tool section can be changed if needed. For example, it may be desirable to place
the straddle packer above the probes for interference testing so the probes can
monitor the pressures below the straddle packer during the pumpout or MiniDST.
Also, a pump can be placed above or below, depending on where the sample
chambers are located. It may also be desirable to place a pump above and below
which can enhance sampling operations in several ways. In most tools, having the
two pumps plumbed on either side of a source can double the system flow rate
capabilities, but the tool’s internal plumbing must be designed to accommodate
this option. Second, samples that gravity segregates in the straddle packer interval
can be selectively sampled from the upper or lower ports, which can improve the
sample quality and reduces sampling time. Furthermore, it can be desirable to use
one pump for the cleanup and the second for sampling. This insures that the
sampling pump does not retain some residual mud or filtrate that can contaminate
the sample.

Case History
In this case study, the logging operation was challenging due to the well bore
size, deviation and formation conditions. The 6 ⅛” open-hole section for this well
was around 4,000-5,000 ft and had an inclination around 26° which increased to
47° in one section. This presented an operational concern about the possibility of
differential sticking in the borehole when running wireline tools, especially where
extended pumpout times were expected with probe sections and a straddle packer.
The well traversed 11 different formations and not all the intervals penetrated
were at the original formation pressure. Certain horizons were already under
production and, consequently, there was a larger range of overbalance pressures
than would normally be expected. This also contributed to the risk of differential
sticking.
There was also a high degree of variability in the interval’s properties. The
formations varied from clean porous (15-30%) carbonates with low
permeabilities (0.1-20 md) and clean, high porosity (25-30%) clastic formations
with high permeability (± 2000 md), to interbedded and silty sands with varying
porosities (10-25%) and moderate permeabilities (1-100 md). This wide variance Fig. 8 – The tool configuration shown in this
in permeabilities also raised concerns over the risk of sticking, primarily due to figure has the oval probe section placed
the extended sampling times that were required. above the dual probe section. These two
In addition to the standard reservoir parameters of shale volume, porosity, sections can share the quartz gauge in the
water saturation and permeability from conventional tools, objectives of the quartz gauge section. The straddle packer is
below the oval pad and has a dedicated
formation tester runs included the determination of formation fluids, establishing quartz gauge. The order of the tool section
gradients, fluid contact points and capturing representative fluid samples. can be changed if needed.
The formation evaluation process was divided into four runs and comprised a
combination of Logging While Drilling (LWD) and wireline conveyed tools. It was considered prudent to capture the ‘basic’
data while drilling, consequently, a gamma ray, resistivity, density and neutron LWD string was run. Analysis of this data
resulted in a ‘Quicklook’ interpretation to determine the primary zones of interest for pressure testing. Once drilling was
completed, a wireline run comprising spectral gamma, caliper, sonic and neutron spectroscopy was run and logged from total
depth to the casing shoe. No operational problems were encountered in running the tools to bottom and logging up to the
shoe. This was encouraging as it indicated, along with the caliper (four arm, X-Y reading), that the well bore was in a
favorable condition for running a WFT tool. Combining the LWD and wireline data resulted in a more comprehensive
petrophysical analysis to be achieved and this was used to determine the final choice for WFT pressure points. Sample points
were initially picked with the caveat of being refined once the pressure data was acquired.
A dual probe WFT was run on wireline and successfully established 76 pressures combining to give 11 gradients in 10
separate formations. Gas, oil and water were determined from these gradients. Once the pressure data were acquired and
interpreted a refinement of the planned sample points was made. This enabled more definitive fluid identification to be
carried out using a combination of pumpout and sampling techniques, utilizing the oval probe and straddle packer in a
configuration similar to that shown in Fig. 8
 8 SPE-177971-MS

The sampling run, which was drill pipe conveyed, successfully completed 22 pumpouts with 4 samples captured and 6
mini DSTs performed within 6 days without any incidents. The straddle packer was used 17 times in varying permeability
formations with 15 pumpouts performed. Two of the straddle packer sets were abandoned after initial pressure testing
proved the points to be too low in mobility for sampling. The number of straddle packer testing and pumpout executions was
considered to be the most performed in the Middle East region at the time. This was a significant milestone, especially when
considering the conditions encountered.

Automated Data Quality and Gradient Analysis

As discussed previously, up to six quality parameters can be monitored during the pretesting operations. In a recent paper
these parameters were used to determine a score for the pretest (Proett et al., 2014). A pretest is considered “Valid” when a
threshold is met considering all of the quality criteria. Typical settings for the quality parameters and a range are summarized
in Table 6. The range is used to allow for variation of a quality parameter and assign a score from 0 to 4 with scores greater
than 2 being considered valid. The ratings are also assigned a color spectrum varying from red to green for scores of 0 to 4 as
shown in Table 6. Other settings can be established for special cases, such as thresholds for a low or tight test, supercharging
and a lost seal. Additionally, if there is very little difference between the hydrostatic pressure and the buildup pressure it
could be concluded that a seal was not established with a probe or other source and the test comment would be “lost seal” or
“mud set.” These comments are integrated into the scoring system so that most situations can be determined automatically.
The buildup plot shown in Fig. 9 can be used to illustrate some of the test quality measurements. Three stability
measurements can be made from the pressure gauge during the buildup: pressure variance, pressure stability, and temperature
stability. The variance and stability are determined from a linear least-squares regression (LSR) line using the data from the
last 60 seconds of the buildup, as shown in Fig. 9 for pressure. The slope is the stability and the deviation from the regression
is the variance in pressure. The same process is followed to obtain the temperature stability using the gauge temperature
sensor data. Ideally, the temperature stability would be zero because any transient in the pressure gauge temperature can
contribute to a pressure error (Quartzdyne, Inc., 2003). In fact, temperature stability is typically very good and normally less
than 0.01 °F/sec range and has little effect on the pressure measurement. However, depending on the testing practices used
for positioning the tool, this can be a concern and must be monitored. The other parameters such as drawdown mobility
(Msdd), radius of investigation (Rinv), and supercharge (ΔPsc) are determined from the pretest data, drilling data and log
derived formation properties. The drawdown mobility calculation is shown in Eq. 1 and the two other parameters are
documented in the earlier paper along with the scoring algorithm (Proett et al., 2014).

User  Inputs
Data  Quality Setting Range Weight
Ratings  &  Comments Norm.

Criterion Units Valid >  1 0-­‐1 High  Quality Good Valid Fair Low  Quality %
Std  dev. psia ≤ 0.5 10 0.5 ≤ 0.05 ≤ 0.158 ≤ 0.5 ≤ 1.581 ≥ 5 13.2%
Buildup  Stability Pressure psia/min ≤ 0.1 100 1 ≤ 0.001 ≤ 0.01 ≤ 0.1 ≤ 1 ≥ 10 26.3%
Temp F/min ≤ 0.01 5 0.5 ≤ 0.002 ≤ 0.004 ≤ 0.01 ≤ 0.022 ≥ 0.05 13.2%
Mobilities Msdd md/cp ≥ 1 100 0.8 ≥ 100 ≥ 10 ≥ 1 ≥ 0.1 ≤ 0.01 21.1%
Radius  of  Invest. Rinv ft ≥ 1 10 0.3 ≥ 10 ≥ 3.16 ≥ 1 ≥ 0.32 ≤ 0.1 7.9%
Supercharge Δ Psc  Avg psi ≤ 2 4 0.7 ≤ 0.5 ≤ 1 ≤ 2 ≤ 4 ≥ 8 18.4%
Test  Quality Score 4-­‐0 2 4 3 2 1 0 100.0%
Table 6 – Automatic data quality rating settings. The quality settings establish the limit desired for a “Valid Test” and the “Range” is used for
scoring the tests from 0 to 4. The “Weight” factor is used to determine the final score considering all of the criterion scores.
Additional  Comments Units Rating Stability  &  Supercharge Mobility  &  Radius  of  Investigation
Mud  Set Overbal. psia < 20
Tight Msdd md/cp < 0.1
Low  Perm Msdd md/cp < 1
Supercharged ΔPsc  Avg psia > 2
Msdd mc/cp < 1
Low  Perm  &  SC Δ
Psc  Avg psia > 2
 SPE-177971-MS 9

Hydrostatic

Pstop
Buildup

Pressure (psi)
Drawdown
Linear Regression

Flow rate qdd 60 seconds

tp Δt Time (sec)
Fig. 9 – Pressure time plot showing a linear LSR line fitted to the last 60 seconds of the buildup data to determine the pressure stability.

Case Study Examples using Automatic QC Scoring and Gradients

Of the 10 formations’ intervals logged and tested, two of the intervals are shown in this paper to illustrate the methods
used for the QC process and gradient analysis. The pretest data are summarized in Tables 7 and 8 and the gradients are
shown with the openhole log results in Figs. 10 and 11 on the following two pages. In both intervals the automatic QC
ratings were determined and tests with a rating of greater than 2 were considered for the gradients (shown in Figs. 10 and 11)
along with the gradient statistics. For interval C, high quality oil gradients were determined and confirmed by two high
quality oil samples taken in this interval. In the second interval K, the data quality was lower but this was recognized during
the testing operation and many of the tests were repeated as many as 5 times. These repeat tests resulted in being able to
obtain higher quality data in this highly variable interval and in verifying the oil gradient and water flood pressure support.

Formation Interval C Summary

Formation interval C had three layers in a 120 ft interval consisting primarily of sandstone, limestone, shale and silty
sands. As shown in Table 7 and Fig. 10, the permeability was relatively high which can account for the high QC ratings
shown in Table 7. Three oil gradients were determined (Oil-1, Oil-2 and Oil-3) using these high quality pretest pressures, as
shown in Fig. 10. The gradient statistics shown in the pressure/gradient header indicate that two are high accuracy gradients
with standard deviations of less than 2 %. In the first layer, the gradient Oil-1 was determined using the three high quality
data points. For the other test points that were attempted in this layer, the first two were considered tight (< 0.01 md/cp) and
no pressures or mobility results were reported (set 6 and 7 in Table 7). Two more pressure points were considered low quality
due to the low mobility determined and the pressure points are shown as white circles in Fig. 10. The Oil-1 gradient was
confirmed with an oil sample that was taken at the depth near two high quality data points.
It is interesting that the second gradient, Oil-2, had 7 high quality points resulting in a standard deviation of less than 1%
for the gradient. The high accuracy of these points can be confirmed by observing the very low deviation of the points from
the regression line shown in the residual track (Collins et al., 2007). The Oil-2 gradient was also confirmed with a high
quality sample. The Oil-3 gradient only had two points, but based on the results from the first two gradients and the log data
this gives confidence in the accuracy of this oil gradient. Another observation from these gradients in the C interval is that all
three layers are hydraulically isolated. This is particularly evident for the Oil-3 gradient with an offset of nearly 200 psi.

Formation Interval K Summary

This formation’s 200 ft interval has much lower permeability than the previous example and is composed primarily of
carbonates. Because of the lower permeability, the quality of the data was lower and more variable than the previous C
interval. This can be observed visually by the more yellow and red scores in Table 8 than in Table 7. As previously
mentioned, many of the pretest points were repeated by varying the depth slightly and higher quality data was obtained. As a
result, one high quality oil gradient was determined with a 1.26% standard deviation. Again, this is demonstrated by the
residual plot showing less than ±0.5 psi variations from the regression line and confirmed with a high quality sample being
taken near the midpoint of this gradient. The logs and pressure points below this gradient suggest that the water flood has
increased pressures in the lower section. While gradients were made at two lower depths these were very closely spaced
points and are not conclusive. However, because the pressures consistently repeated at these two depths, the pressure increase
is confirmed with confidence.

Summary and Conclusions

The importance of job planning for the pressure survey and sampling stages of a complex testing job was demonstrated
 10 SPE-177971-MS

in this case study. This involves careful consideration of the formation parameters, the WFT tool capabilities, and test quality
criteria. These three factors can substantially impact the total testing time and cost. These issues were analyzed using a
simulator that considered all of these aspects and how they can improve the job planning and real-time operations.
An earlier published method of objectively quantifying the pressure data was used in this case study with the aim of
optimizing the quality of the pretest data and automatically generating gradients and fluid contacts. This quality controlled
data can then be used to select sample points, estimate pumpout time for each point and optimize the tool configuration for
sampling. The choice between an Oval Probe or Straddle Packer for each point can then be made which can ultimately
reduce the overall sampling operation time.
In this case study, the real-time logging data acquired during operations was used for establishing gradients, fluid contact
points and sample points and were later compared against the quality controlled data. By reviewing the real-time operation
procedures and analysis against the post processed quality controlled data analysis, it is possible to identify improvements
that could be made if used in real-time. The lessons learned and quality control process are documented in the paper along
with recently developed real-time methods for evaluating test quality which enables the data to be analyzed quickly and with
confidence, facilitating improved pressure testing and pumpout sampling operations.

Formation Testing Summary Q C   R a tin g s

T rue  
T es t   F o rm.   M o bility   P res s   Q uality   A uto mated  Q C  
T es t   Vertic al   F o rmatio n   P res s   T emp   Q C   P res s   P res s   T emp   R adius   S uper  
S et   F lo w   D raw   Varianc e   R emarks   R emarks   M o bility
No. D epth   P res s S tability S tability R ating S tdev S tability S tability Inves t c harge
No. Unit D o wn S tdD ev S ervic e  C o . A ramc o
(T VD )
# # M nem ft md/c p ps ia ps ia ps ia/min F /min text text A vg. 0.50 1.00 0.50 0.80 0.30 0.70
≥ 1.00 ≤ 0.500 ≤ 0.100 ≤ 0.010 Good 2.87 3.13 2.73 3.12 3.31 3.71 3.28
6 1 C1 X X ,328.8 N /A NA 1.260 19.088 1.280 T ight Inv alid 0.00 1.20 0.00 0.00
7 1 C1 X X ,333.2 N /A NA 2.710 36.957 0.210 T ight Inv alid 0.00 0.53 0.00 0.00
8 1 C1 X X ,342.0 26.30 X X ,104.3 0.100 0.005 0.001 Valid Valid 3.61 3.40 3.30 4.00 3.42 4.00 4.00
9 1 C1 X X ,358.5 0.18 X X ,112.4 4.460 0.029 0.009 L o w  P erm L o w  P erm 1.44 0.10 2.54 2.13 1.25 2.75 0.00
10 1 C1 X X ,359.9 0.02 X X ,121.1 18.160 0.045 0.005 L o w  P erm T ight 1.20 0.00 2.35 2.86 0.32 1.78 0.00
11 1 C1 X X ,362.7 111.00 X X ,111.4 0.080 0.026 0.005 Valid Valid 3.42 3.59 2.59 2.86 4.00 4.00 4.00
12 1 C1 X X ,364.9 74.60 X X ,112.0 0.150 0.041 0.000 Valid Valid 3.42 3.05 2.39 4.00 3.87 4.00 4.00
13 1 C2 X X ,387.1 34.40 X X ,116.9 0.040 0.001 0.000 Valid Valid 3.90 4.00 4.00 4.00 3.54 4.00 4.00
14 1 C2 X X ,389.9 127.00 X X ,117.7 0.040 -­‐0.003 -­‐0.001 Valid Valid 3.87 4.00 3.52 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00
15 1 C2 X X ,393.2 250.00 X X ,118.9 0.020 0.003 0.001 Valid Valid 3.87 4.00 3.52 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00
16 1 C2 X X ,395.3 84.80 X X ,119.7 0.030 0.002 0.000 Valid Valid 3.91 4.00 3.70 4.00 3.93 4.00 4.00
17 1 C2 X X ,399.4 33.60 X X ,120.9 0.030 0.011 0.001 Valid Valid 3.63 4.00 2.96 4.00 3.53 4.00 4.00
18 1 C2 X X ,403.4 599.00 X X ,122.3 0.020 0.019 0.001 Valid Valid 3.66 4.00 2.72 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00
19 1 C2 X X ,407.4 455.00 X X ,123.7 0.030 0.010 0.000 Valid Valid 3.74 4.00 3.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00
20 1 C2 X X ,409.4 50.30 X X ,124.4 0.020 0.002 0.000 Valid Valid 3.86 4.00 3.70 4.00 3.70 4.00 4.00
21 1 C2 X X ,419.9 280.00 X X ,110.5 0.040 0.001 0.000 Valid Valid 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00
22 1 C2 X X ,421.2 59.80 X X ,111.0 0.040 -­‐0.008 -­‐0.001 Valid Valid 3.72 4.00 3.10 4.00 3.78 4.00 4.00
23 1 C2 X X ,424.5 49.40 X X ,115.6 0.110 0.003 0.000 Valid Valid 3.72 3.32 3.52 4.00 3.69 4.00 4.00
Table 7 – This table is a summary of the WFT pretest data from the C formation interval. In addition to formation pressures and drawdown
mobilities, the quality measurements are shown for pressure variance and stability for pressure and temperature. The QC scoring is shown in
the left hand columns for each of the six criteria and the final score is shown in the column labeled “QC Rating.” Most of the test in this interval
had high ratings with 4 of the 18 tests being “Invalid” or having a low rating. The high quality tests were used for the gradients shown in Fig. 9.
 SPE-177971-MS 11

Gradient Analysis Residuals

Oil-­‐1 Oil-­‐2 Oil-­‐3

gm/cc 0.777 0.779 0.841
±gm/cc 0.0137 0.0045
±gm/cc  % 1.77% 0.58%
R2 0.9997 0.9998

Pressure  (psi) Pressure  (psi)

XX,000 XX,030 -­‐0.5 0 0.5
XX,050

XX,050

XX,100

Fig. 10 – A formation sequence showing three layers over a 120 ft interval consisting primarily of sandstone, limestone, shale and silty sands.
Shown in the first track are the lithology volume fractions, followed by the borehole caliper with the API Gamma curves (Total and Uranium
Free) in the third track. The effective water saturation (Swe) track also shows the test points indicated by red arrows and the oil sampling
th th
points with a solid green circle. The 5 track is the interpreted oil-water volumetrics, dominated by oil in this sequence. The 6 track shows the
log interpreted permeability curve and the pretest drawdown mobilities which show a good match to the curve. The gradients were
automatically determined from the high quality points shown in Table 6 for each of the three flow units in track 7. The final track includes the
pressure residuals showing the variance of the pressure points from the gradient regression lines (Collins et al., 2007).

Formation Testing Summary Q C   R a tin g s

T rue  
T es t   F o rm.   M o bility   P res s   Quality   A uto mated  Q C  
T es t   Vertic al   F o rmatio n   P res s   T emp   QC   P res s   P res s   T emp   R adius   S uper  
S et   F lo w   D raw   Varianc e   R emarks   R emarks   M o bility
No. D epth   P res s S tability S tability R ating S tdev S tability S tability Inves t c harge
No. Unit D o wn S tdD ev S ervic e  C o . A ramc o
(T VD )
# # M nem ft md/c p ps ia ps ia ps ia/min F /min text text A vg. 0.50 1.00 0.50 0.80 0.30 0.70
≥ 1.00 ≤ 0.500 ≤ 0.100 ≤ 0.010 Good 2.87 3.13 2.73 3.12 3.31 3.71 3.28
73 1 K1 X X ,999.9 2.59 X X ,659.8 0.100 0.007 0.001 Valid Valid 3.04 3.40 3.15 4.00 2.41 3.39 2.53
74 1 K1 X X ,035.3 3.48 X X ,670.1 0.100 0.018 0.003 Valid Valid 3.00 3.40 2.74 3.50 2.54 3.82 2.91
75 1 K1 X X ,053.0 0.21 X X ,677.0 1.640 0.091 0.025 S uperc harged L o w  P erm 1.28 0.97 2.04 0.86 1.33 2.78 0.00
75 2 K1 X X ,053.9 0.31 X X ,676.4 0.180 -­‐0.021 -­‐0.002 S uperc harged L o w  P erm 2.14 2.89 2.68 4.00 1.49 2.77 0.00
75 3 K1 X X ,053.9 0.07 X X ,679.3 6.600 -­‐0.619 -­‐0.184 S uperc harged T ight 0.68 0.00 1.21 0.00 0.86 2.31 0.00
75 4 K1 X X ,054.8 1.04 X X ,676.5 0.090 -­‐0.001 0.000 Valid S uperc harged 2.98 3.49 4.00 4.00 2.02 3.52 1.30
75 5 K1 X X ,055.7 8.90 X X ,676.5 0.070 0.012 0.003 Valid Valid 3.39 3.71 2.92 3.50 2.95 4.00 4.00
113 1 K1 X X ,086.7 0.75 X X ,686.2 0.170 -­‐0.009 -­‐0.002 S uperc harged L o w  P erm 2.54 2.94 3.05 4.00 1.88 3.38 0.90
113 2 K1 X X ,087.6 9.30 X X ,686.0 0.190 0.017 0.000 Valid Valid 3.31 2.84 2.77 4.00 2.97 4.00 4.00
76 1 K1 X X ,112.4 0.03 X X ,696.1 6.050 0.135 0.047 L o w  P erm T ight 0.77 0.00 1.87 0.08 0.46 2.14 0.00
77 1 K1 X X ,121.3 0.12 X X ,700.3 3.950 -­‐0.106 -­‐0.041 L o w  P erm L o w  P erm 1.01 0.20 1.97 0.25 1.09 2.59 0.00
78 1 K1 X X ,141.7 0.78 X X ,725.2 0.260 0.004 0.000 L o w  P erm L o w  P erm 2.59 2.57 3.40 4.00 1.89 3.39 0.87
114 2 K1 X X ,142.5 1.08 X X ,726.1 0.620 0.069 0.016 Valid S uperc harged 1.92 1.81 2.16 1.42 2.03 3.31 1.28
114 3 K1 X X ,143.5 1.26 X X ,726.0 0.290 0.009 0.004 Valid S uperc harged 2.56 2.47 3.05 3.14 2.10 3.60 1.57
114 4 K1 X X ,144.4 1.40 X X ,726.2 0.650 0.148 0.036 Valid S uperc harged 1.80 1.77 1.83 0.41 2.15 3.42 1.71
115 1 K1 X X ,163.8 0.83 X X ,737.0 0.330 -­‐0.037 -­‐0.013 L o w  P erm L o w  P erm 2.02 2.36 2.43 1.67 1.92 3.20 1.04
115 2 K1 X X ,164.7 1.52 X X ,737.2 0.400 0.004 0.002 Valid S uperc harged 2.78 2.19 3.40 4.00 2.18 3.46 1.83
115 3 K1 X X ,165.7 1.77 X X ,737.3 0.570 0.050 0.001 Valid Valid 2.51 1.89 2.30 4.00 2.25 3.53 2.03
Table 8 – This summary of the WFT pretest data from the K formation interval shows more variability in the formation quality and test quality.
In this interval, 21 pretests were analyzed with 12 considered valid by the service company and 14 having scores above 2 determined by the
automatic rating system. While some of the test points with scores above 2 had additional comments like “Low Perm” and “Supercharged”
they were still considered for gradients. It is interesting that some of the test points considered with the comment “Valid” from the service
 12 SPE-177971-MS

company were automatically labeled as “Supercharged” in the auto comments. Some of the test points were repeated as many as 5 times at
nearly the same depth so there were actually only 11 depth points to be considered for the gradients.

Gradient Analysis Residuals

Oil-­‐1 Oil-­‐2 Oil-­‐3

gm/cc 0.696 0.811 0.315
±gm/cc 0.0088 0.1587 0.0213
±gm/cc  % 1.26% 19.56% 6.75%
R2 0.9992 0.9632 0.9955

Pressure  (psi) Pressure  (psi)

XX,000 XX,030 -­‐0.5 0 0.5

XX,050

XX,100

XX,150

XX,200

Fig. 11 – The K formation interval is primarily a carbonate reservoir with relatively medium to low permeability. There appears to be some
transition from water to oil. There was a clear oil gradient in the upper section where oil clearly dominates the saturation volume. In addition, a
clean oil sample was obtained. In the lower depths the pressures are higher which is likely due to the water flood increased pressures. While
the depth points are very close together for the bottom gradients they do suggest the presence of oil but their accuracy is too low to be
conclusive.

References
Beik, H., Proett, M., Torres-Verdín, C., van Zuilekom, T., Engelman, B., and Sepehrnoori, K., 2010, “Effects of Highly
Laminated Reservoirs on the Performance of Wireline and While-Drilling Formation-Tester Sampling with Oval,
Focused, and Conventional Probe Types,” Paper SPWLA-2010-93360 presented at the SPWLA 51st Annual Logging
Symposium held Perth, Australia, June 19-23.
Bourdet, D., Ayoub, J., and Pirad, Y., 1989, Use of pressure derivative in well-test interpretation, SPE Formation Evaluation,
Vol. 4, 293-302.
Collins, C., Proett, M., Storm, B., and Ugueto, G., 2007 , “An Integrated Approach to Reservoir Connectivity and Fluid
Contact Estimates by Applying Statistical Analysis Methods to Pressure Gradients,” Paper SPWLA 2007-HH presented
at the SPWLA 48th Annual Logging Symposium, Austin, Texas, USA, 3-6 June.
Jones, C., Alta, W., Singh, J., Engelman, B., Proett, M., and Pedigo, B., 2007, “Collecting Single-Phase Retrograde Gas
Samples at Near-Dewpoint Reservoir Pressure in Carbonates Using a Pump-Out Formation Tester with an Oval Pad,”
Paper SPE110831, presented at the 2007 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Anaheim, California,
U.S.A., 11–14 November.
Kuchuk, F., Onur, M., and Hollaender, F., 2010 Pressure Transient Formation and Well Testing, Elsevier, Developments in
Petroleum Science Vol 57, page 35.
Moran, J.H., and Finklea, E.E., 1962, Theoretical analysis of pressure phenomena associated with the wireline formation
tester, paper 177-PA, Journal of Petroleum Technology, Vol. 14, 899-908.
Proett, M. A., Chin, W. C., and Mandal, B., 2000, “Advanced Dual Probe Formation Tester with Transient, Harmonic, and
Pulsed Time Delay Testing Methods Determines Permeability, Skin, and Anisotropy,” Paper SPE 64650, presented at
the SPE International Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition held in Beijing, China, November 7-10.
 SPE-177971-MS 13

Proett, M. A., Musharfi N., Meridji, Y., Gill, H., Eyuboglu, S., 2014, “Objectively Quantifying Wireline and LWD Pressure
Test Quality,” paper SPWLA 2014-QQQ, presented at the SPWLA 55th Annual Logging Symposium held in Abu
Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, May 18-22.
El Zefzaf, T., El Fattah, M. A., Proett, M. A., Engelman, B., Bassiouny, A., 2006, “Formation Testing and Sampling Using
an Oval Pad in Al Hamd Field, Egypt,” Paper SPE 102366, presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition held in San Antonio, Texas, U.S.A., September 24–27.

Acknowledgement
The authors would like to thank the management of Saudi Aramco and Halliburton for their support and permission to
publish this article. The authors also acknowledge the contribution of the Saudi Aramco Reservoir Description Division and
Halliburton operations team for their efforts in providing the field examples.

Nomenclature
Cpf ......................... probe flow coefficient (md⋅psi⋅sec/cc)
ct .......................... formation total compressibility (1/psi)
ks ...........................formation spherical permeability(md)
Msdd ....................... spherical drawdown mobility (md/cp)
Pdd ........................................... drawdown pressure (psia)
Pmh .................. wellbore mud hydrostatic pressure (psia)
Pstop ..................................... final buildup pressure (psia)
ΔPdd ....................... drawdown differential pressure (psi)
ΔPpo .......................... pumpout differential pressure (psi)
qdd ............................................... drawdown rate (cc/sec)
qpo .................................................. pumpout rate (cc/sec)
Range .................. geometric scaling range for the Score
Score ............ value of the rating for a test criterion (4-0)
Δt ......................................................... buildup time (sec)
tp .............................. drawdown or production time (sec)
Vpt ...................................................... pretest volume (cc)
µ .................................................................. viscosity (cp)
φ ..............formation porosity (pore volume/total volume)