Oilphase

RESERVOIR FLUID SAMPLING Cased Hole Sampling

Cased Hole Sampling

Introduction to DST
A drillstem test (DST) or well test is a temporary well completion procedure by which
short-term flow rates, pressure data and formation fluid samples are collected and
analysed. During this procedure the downhole DST tools isolate the zone to be tested
and then allows the zone to flow and be shut-in sequentially. Temporary surface
production facilities which typically include a two-stage separation unit are used to
collect and monitor the flowrates of the produced streams. DSTs are most often
performed after the casing has been set and cemented in the hole and very occasionally
are conducted in open hole.

Once the test tools are set in the hole an initial flow (clean-up period) is allowed which is
usually short in duration and its purpose is:

• to relieve any build-up in pressure that may have occurred due to setting
the packers or supercharging.

• to clean the well by producing any debris or drilling fluid before the
production stream at the surface is directed to the test separator.

After an accurate estimate of the initial pressure Pi is obtained, a shut-in period that
typically lasts 30 to 60 min is imposed. Afterwards, the downhole valve is opened once
again for the main flow period which lasts for a few hours. If the test design does not
include additional flow and shut-in sequences then this final flow period is followed by a
final shut-in period.

Before taking samples it is important to obtain a preliminary idea of the reservoir and
well characteristics in order to adequately design the sampling programme. At this stage
estimations should be made of the phase behaviour of the reservoir fluid in relation to the
prevailing producing conditions based on the information available. These estimations
will assist in the selection of the most appropriate operating conditions for each case.
The following data are required for this purpose:

• initial and current reservoir pressure

• reservoir temperature

• flowing tubing head pressure and temperature

• gravities of oil and gas produced at surface

• flowing Bottomhole pressures

• stabilised gas-oil ratios at one or more flowrates

• surface separator conditions

• water production rate

Reservoir Fluid Sampling & Analysis 1/11
 Oilphase
RESERVOIR FLUID SAMPLING Cased Hole Sampling
The use of correlations available in the literature like Standing's6 ,can provide an
estimate of the bubble point pressure of an oil. The nomogram below presents the above
correlation.

Standing’s correlation - Prediction of Bubble Point Pressure.

Estimates using this method are reported to be accurate within +/- 5%. It is widely
accepted, however, that if the composition of the oil is considerably different from the
average composition of the Californian crudes, which have been used for the
development of the correlation, then deviations even as high as 20% can be
encountered. (i.e the bubble point pressure of a volatile oil with actual Pb=3000 psia
could be predicted in the 2400-3600 psia range). As the difference between the initial
reservoir pressure and the fluid's saturation pressure often can be as little as a few
hundred psi, conclusions based on this type of estimation of the bubble point pressure
should obviously be treated with caution.

Correlations to predict the dew point pressure of gas condensate reservoirs based on the
data that can be recorded during the DST are not available. This is because the phase
behaviour of these types of fluids is very specific to the compositional characteristics of
the hydrocarbon mixture. Therefore generalisation of the phase properties based upon
bulk properties, such as the GOR or the API gravity, can not be done on a reliable basis.

Early PVT data from wireline formation samples taken in the same well are the most
reliable source of saturation pressure especially when it is close to initial reservoir
pressure.

Reservoir Fluid Sampling & Analysis 2/11

 Oilphase
RESERVOIR FLUID SAMPLING Cased Hole Sampling
A well which produces even small amounts of water can be troublesome and it should, if
possible, be eliminated from consideration if the portion of the reservoir it penetrates
includes a water-oil contact. The contact of water with the hydrocarbon fluid can cause
alteration of the composition of the latter through selective dissolution of constituents in
the former (e.g hydrogen sulphide, carbon dioxide, aromatic components) and
consequently alteration of the fluid’s PVT properties. Collection of water in dog legs or
water slugging can result in disproportionately high water cuts when bottomhole
sampling.

Cased Hole Sampling Methods

In cased hole the sampling operation can commence as soon as the well is conditioned.
The choices are between trapping a few hundred cubic centimetre of fluid at subsurface
conditions (Bottomhole or subsurface sampling) or the recovery of individual gas and oil
samples from the primary surface separator (surface sampling). Separator samples need
to be recombined subsequently in the laboratory using the separator measured GOR.
Sometimes, the reservoir pressure is so much higher than the saturation pressure of the
reservoir fluid that even at the wellhead, the pressure is high enough to prevent any gas
from coming out of solution. In this case, the tubing is full of unaltered reservoir oil and a
valid representative sample can be obtained at the wellhead using the procedures for
taking separator oil samples (wellhead sampling).

The choice of sampling technique is influenced by a number of considerations among

which are:

• the type of the reservoir.

• the volume of the sample required.

• the physical properties of the fluid to be recovered.

• the mechanical condition of the wellbore and of the production string.

• the surface and subsurface equipment which is available.

Both types of sampling have their pros and cons and it is advisable, whenever possible,
to apply both techniques at each well to maximise the chances of ending up with a valid
sample for PVT analysis. Nevertheless, there are some cases where one technique
appears to have obvious advantages over the other. The table below summarises the
principal applications of each method.

Reservoir Fluid Sampling & Analysis 3/11

 Oilphase
RESERVOIR FLUID SAMPLING Cased Hole Sampling

Cased Hole Surface

Wet Gas/Gas Condensates + +

Oils with Pb ≈ Pi + ++

Near critical fluids +

Oils with Asphaltenic content + (SRS)

Trace Analysis required + (NRS)

Wellbore restrictions +

Large sample volume required +

Heavy (high viscosity) oils +

Unreliable Surface Separation +

Facilities/metering

Applications of cased hole Bottomhole and Surface Sampling

Sampling Wet Gas and Gas Condensate Reservoirs

Testing wet gas and gas condensate reservoirs presents some difficult choices because
from surface well test data alone one cannot establish:

• Whether it is a wet gas or gas condensate reservoir

• What the dew point pressure is if it is a gas condensate

The traditional view is that sampling these types of reservoirs should be conducted
assuming the worst conditions. i.e. Assume it is a gas condensate with a dew point
pressure equal to the initial static pressure and take surface samples only.

However if it turns out subsequently to have been an undersaturated gas condensate or

wet gas then a major opportunity to obtain a representative sample has been lost. In the
last few years SRS bottomhole sampling of gas condensates has been conducted with an
excellent correlation between the fluid properties of surface and downhole samples.

Surface sampling will always remain the primary sampling source but if the opportunity
arises to obtain bottomhole samples then they should not be discounted as they are
potentially the best samples that can be obtained.

Reservoir Fluid Sampling & Analysis 4/11

 Oilphase
RESERVOIR FLUID SAMPLING Cased Hole Sampling

Sampling Oil Reservoirs at or Near their Saturation Pressure

Since bubble point estimation by correlation from surface well test data can be quite
inaccurate it is often to difficult to know precisely with this type of reservoir whether the
flow into the wellbore is monophasic or not. The traditional view is that such reservoirs
should be sampled by surface sampling alone since there is uncertainty about downhole
conditions.

If subsequently it is proven that the well was in a monophasic condition, albeit very close
to saturation pressure, then an opportunity to obtain potentially the best sample has been
lost. Very often, in these cases, the criteria which most influences the decision is the very
high cost of well intervention for wireline bottomhole sampling. This is typically 8 to 12
hours rig time. DST-conveyed bottomhole sampling tools currently under development will
offer an economic alternative for such cases where the risk of recovering an
unrepresentative sample is high.

Sampling near critical fluids

Near critical fluids can only be representatively sampled at surface during DST because
very small changes in downhole pressure can lead to dramatic changes in phase
distribution in the wellbore. These reservoirs are often better sampled in open hole where
the drawdown can be controlled to less than 10psi.

Sampling Heavy Oil

Pressure compensated bottomhole sampling is recommended when the oil to be sampled

is very viscous because the viscosity is at it’s minimum at reservoir conditions. Several
hundred heavy oil samples have been successfully recovered with the SRS tool in
Venezuela. This includes samples with an API gravity < 8.

Sampling Large Volumes

When large volumes of oil and gas samples are required, surface sampling is the
obvious choice. Special analysis of the produced separator gas (e.g trace analysis of
heavy hydrocarbons in the stream) and oil (e.g. fractional distillation) as well as detailed
crude oil evaluation require substantial quantities of sample exceeding by far the
quantity that can be recovered with a Bottomhole tool.

Large volumes of reservoir fluid sample are also needed when several PVT analyses are
required for the same formation (e.g. Constant Volume Depletion together with
Differential Liberation studies, Separation Tests at several different sets of conditions) or if
EOR studies are planned (e.g displacement tests, core flooding).

Reservoir Fluid Sampling & Analysis 5/11

 Oilphase
RESERVOIR FLUID SAMPLING Cased Hole Sampling

Surface and Subsurface Equipment

Surface sampling will be chosen if the well completion prevents the sampler from
reaching the appropriate depth or makes its retrieval difficult. On the other hand, to
obtain a representative reservoir fluid in the PVT Laboratory, very accurate measurements
of the surface flow rates are required. If the reliability of the surface measuring
19
capabilities is questioned, Bottomhole sampling should be preferred .

Miscellaneous considerations

Bottomhole sampling involves a high cost in rig time during wireline intervention whereas
the surface samples can be taken at any time point during the flow period. Also safety
restrictions in running a Bottomhole sampler under the test valve in high pressure high
temperature (HPHT) wells would direct the choice towards surface sampling in some of
the very deep wells. Nevertheless, a subsurface sample has reason to be considered
more representative than a sample which resulted from recombination and the quality of
which depends directly on the accuracy of the field measured GOR.

Well Conditioning
Conditioning is a procedure whereby the non representative reservoir fluid located
around the wellbore is removed by displacing it into the well with fresh, unaltered fluid
from more distant parts of the reservoir. Typically, during a sampling flow period the
production rate is gradually reduced to a minimum resulting in a successively higher
7,19
Bottomhole pressure. As is pointed out in the literature , simply shutting in the well
alone is not always adequate to return the fluid around the wellbore to it’s initial
condition even over an entire build-up period.

During the progressive reduction of the production rate there is an opportunity to

observe:

• Changes in surface gas-to-oil ratio

• Changes in API and gas specific gravity

These trends give an indication of the phase behaviour properties of the original
undisturbed formation fluid and are used as an indication of when the well is ready for
sampling.

Reservoir Fluid Sampling & Analysis 6/11

 Oilphase
RESERVOIR FLUID SAMPLING Cased Hole Sampling

Conditioning Oil Reservoirs

A flowing oil well is conditioned by producing it at successively lower rates until the non-
representative oil has been produced. The well is considered to be conditioned when
further reductions in flow rate have no effect on the stabilised surface gas-oil ratio.

The interpretation of the GOR trends as the flowing pressure is varied close to the
saturation pressure during conditioning is complex and has to take account of:

• the mobility of each phase

• the changes in the thermodynamic equilibrium

• the distribution of the phases around the wellbore

If the pressure falls below Pb, then gas bubbles are formed in the pores of the reservoir
close to the wellbore. This increase in the gas saturation causes the oil permeability to
drop in that area. The difference in the oil permeability between the wellbore drainage
area and the rest of the formation causes the gas phase concentration to build-up locally.
When the flow rate is reduced for sampling and the pressure increases, gas can
redissolve in the oil phase but it is doubtful whether complete mass transfer can take
place during a well conditioning period of a few hours. It is assumed, therefore, that as
the pressure increases with time, the liquid phase should become slightly richer in volatile
components and the GOR might stabilise but very likely at a value lower than at initial
conditions. In this case stable GOR values do not guarantee that downhole the reservoir
fluid is monophasic. On the other hand compression of the free gas contributes to the
reduction of the gas phase saturation in the porous media.

If there has been a very large pressure drawdown prior to the reduction in flow rate for
sampling then free gas may have entered the wellbore (e.g. with very volatile oils
and/or tight formations). In this case, reduction of the rate and increase in pressure will
cause a:

• reduction of the volume of the free gas deposited around the wellbore from
the incoming fresh reservoir oil

• reduction of the gas phase mobility due to lower values of gas relative
permeability

• consequent stabilisation of the GOR at a new lower value

Again the stable GOR value does not provide a full guarantee for the complete re-
dissolution of the gas into the liquid phase. If no stabilisation can be achieved with
further decrease in the flowrate, such a well should not be sampled as sampling a
diphasic mixture can not result in the recovery of a fluid representative of the original oil
in place.

Reservoir Fluid Sampling & Analysis 7/11

 Oilphase
RESERVOIR FLUID SAMPLING Cased Hole Sampling

To summarise, when the production rate is reduced during the sampling flow:

• If the GOR remains constant, the flow into the wellbore is monophasic and
undersaturated oil then the well is considered ready for sampling. This the
most common case.

• If the GOR decreases it could be as described above or could also

explained by coning of a gas cap in the oil bearing zone. Either way,
samples should be taken after the GOR stabilises.

• If the GOR increases, simultaneous production of a gas and oil zone may
be indicated. The lower drawdown allows less oil and relatively more gas
to flow from separate intervals. Such wells should not be sampled, because
it is very difficult to determine when they are adequately conditioned.

Standard guidelines for analysing the trend in the producing GOR to determine the next
7
step in the well conditioning procedure are not always applicable .

At low flow rates, some wells will “head”, or produce slugs of liquid followed by gas.
This irregular flow makes it difficult to measure the GOR accurately. Some wells may
have such low productivity that even a low flow rate requires a large drawdown.
Reducing the drawdown enough to bring the flowing Bottomhole pressure above the
bubble point pressure may result in “heading”, or it may take an impractically long time.

The duration of the conditioning period depends upon the volume of reservoir fluid that
has been altered as a result of producing the well below the bubble point pressure, and
how quickly it can be produced at low rates. Most oil wells that have not been produced
for a long period of time require little conditioning; however, some wells may require up
to a week of conditioning to achieve stable GORs.

Conditioning Gas Condensate Reservoirs

A gas condensate well is also conditioned by flowing it at successively lower flow rates
and monitoring the GOR. The GOR should generally decrease as the rate is decreased.
This is because the lower rate results in a lower drawdown, which brings the wellbore
pressure back out of the two-phase region. The heavier hydrocarbons will be produced
rather than condensed in the reservoir, thus increasing the liquid volume at the surface
and decreasing the GOR. When the GOR stabilises, the well has been conditioned for
sampling.

Reservoir Fluid Sampling & Analysis 8/11

 Oilphase
RESERVOIR FLUID SAMPLING Cased Hole Sampling

When gas condensates are produced below their dew point pressure, they tend to form
a ring of condensate around the wellbore the saturation of which can quickly build to a
stable level which can be much greater than the equilibrium saturation indicated in the
8
PVT study. A study by McCain et al has shown that the saturation of the condensate ring
around the wellbore depends on three factors:

• the pressure,

• the quantity of gas passing through the ring (i.e the flowrate)

• the relative permeability to the liquid condensate.

It is thought that nearly steady-state conditions are established as long as the pressure
does not drop significantly although the ring slowly increases with time. Therefore, in this
case the stabilised GOR is not a completely safe criterion of a single phase gas
condensate and monitoring of the C7+ content of separator liquid is recommended using
a instrument such as the FPE chromatograph.

When the production rate is reduced, the pressure around the well increases. This causes
part of the condensate ring to revaporise enriching the gas flowing into the well and
causing the GOR to decrease. At the same time, part of the condensate may be dumped
into the well because the liquid saturation adjusts to the reduced rate of condensation
from the gas coming from the inner reservoir inflicting an adverse effect on the value of
the producing gas-to-oil ratio which is monitored at surface. On the other hand, both
phenomena tend to increase the presence of the heavier components in the produced
stream (e.g. C7+ fraction). Figure 17 shows the effect of the reduction in the production
8
rate on both the GOR and the heptanes plus concentration in the effluent . As the ring of
condensate adjusts to the new production rate, both properties tend to attain new
“stabilised” values.

3 DAYS 7200
7.3

100

7.2

7000

7.1
7.04
80

7.0
6800
60

6.9
6633

40
6600
6.8

20

0 6.7 6400
0 15 30 45 60 0 15 30 45 60 0 15 30 45 60
TIME (days) TIME (days) TIME (days)

Simulation Results. Well in centre of homogenous 160 acre retrograde gas reservoir produced at capacity
8
for three days followed by rate reduction to 20 percent of capacity

Production rate reduction certainly enhances the possibilities of obtaining a valid sample.
Nevertheless, as it was explained above, attention should be paid to avoid recovering
the sample at the moment that the condensate ring adjusts to the variation of the flowrate
(spikes in GOR and C7+) as short term unpredictable variations might occur.

Reservoir Fluid Sampling & Analysis 9/11

 Oilphase
RESERVOIR FLUID SAMPLING Cased Hole Sampling
A detailed record of the GOR from the very first moment that the reservoir has been put
into production and PVT data from an open hole sample would increase confidence and
possibly shorten the duration of well conditioning.

Conditioning Dry Gas Reservoirs

Sampling of dry gas reservoirs is not critical with regard to time as no phase behaviour
changes take place with pressure. These reservoirs can be sampled at any convenient
time at the surface.

Conditioning Pumping Wells

Pumping wells are generally undesirable for sampling as the rate of pumping can not be
9
changed conveniently . The criteria for judging the progress of the conditioning effort are
the same as with the flowing wells and the pumping rate should be reduced to allow the
formation phase pressure to approach the equalised formation pressure more closely.

To take surface samples, the well should be pumped for several days after the gas and
oil phase flowrate stabilisation. For bottomhole sampling, the pump and rods should be
removed after the well is conditioned and is shut in. The pump removal can lead to a
back-flow in the tubing string. which can usually be overcome by swabbing one or two
tubing volumes of fluid at a low rate.

Wells on continuous gas lift are unsuitable for surface sampling procedures.

Surface Conditioning Wet Gas and Gas Condensate Reservoirs

The representative surface sampling of wet gas and gas condensate wells requires the
liquid condensed in the production string, between the reservoir and the surface, to be
completely removed from the well and produced in the separator. This condition will be
satisfied if the gas velocity is high enough to carry the liquid phase. The chart below
gives such minimum gas flow rates versus well head pressure for different tubing sizes.

Reservoir Fluid Sampling & Analysis 10/11

 Oilphase
RESERVOIR FLUID SAMPLING Cased Hole Sampling

Prediction of Minimum Gas Flow Rate Required for Liquid Removal from Gas Wells.

Reservoir Fluid Sampling & Analysis 11/11