IPTC 10893
Use of Advanced Reservoir Data Collection and Interpretation Techniques
M.H. Pedersen, Maersk Oil Qatar; R. Noman, Qatar Petroleum; and S. Frank and H.B. Ohrt, Maersk Oil Qatar
Copyright 2005, International Petroleum Technology Conference
This paper was prepared for presentation at the International Petroleum Technology
Conference held in Doha, Qatar, 21–23 November 2005.
This paper was selected for presentation by an IPTC Programme Committee following review
of information contained in an proposal submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the International Petroleum Technology Conference
and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily
reflect any position of the International Petroleum Technology Conference, its officers, or
members. Papers presented at IPTC are subject to publication review by Sponsor Society
Committees of IPTC. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the International Petroleum Technology
Conference 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 where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, IPTC, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
This paper presents three examples of reservoir data collection
under challenging operational conditions in carbonate and
sandstone reservoirs in the Al Shaheen Field offshore Qatar.
The examples demonstrate how Formation Pressure Testing
and Fluid Sampling can provide early and often decisive
information for field development.
Logging operations in the Al Shaheen Field are often
performed in wells with horizontal sections in excess of
20,000 ft in thin, unconsolidated sandstone reservoirs. To
accommodate these conditions, which are far outside the
normal operating envelope of the logging tools, new
procedures and techniques have been developed to address
‘extended reach logging’ and to mitigate potential problems
with unconsolidated sand. These procedures and techniques
are discussed along with the three field cases.
The first field case describes how in-situ hydrocarbon mobility
was determined, and how it justified immediate continuation
of an appraisal program. The second field case explains how a
fluid contact in a very thin sand was confirmed by fluid
sampling, and how it eliminated the need for a horizontal
sidetrack. The third field case describes how determination of
in-situ fluid properties improved saturation modeling and
allowed real-time optimization of the data collection program.
Introduction
The Al Shaheen Field, Block 5, offshore Qatar consists of
multiple carbonate and sandstone reservoirs. The reservoirs
are laterally extensive, but relatively thin and consequently the
field is optimally developed with long horizontal wells. Wells
drilled in the sandstone reservoirs are up to 22,000 ft while
wells drilled in the carbonate reservoirs exceed some 30,000
ft. Production is currently ongoing from five reservoirs, while
water injection is taking place in the three main reservoirs.
In thin laterally extensive reservoirs like those present in the
Al Shaheen Field, flow continuity can be affected by lateral
facies variations and faulting. Detailed pore pressure
information from long horizontal wells therefore provides
essential data for understanding and managing reservoir
dynamics.
Layering is prominent in most of the Al Shaheen Field
reservoirs, directly affecting reservoir performance.
Characterization of both horizontal and vertical permeability is
important for development planning and optimal well
placement. Mini-drillstem-tests (Mini-DST’s) and interference
tests provide high-resolution vertical and horizontal mobility
data which, in combination with fluid sampling, offers
accurate directional permeability data.
The properties of reservoir fluids in the Al Shaheen Field vary
significantly both areally and between the reservoirs. In-situ
oil property uncertainty may adversely affect estimation of
inflow and lift performance. Similarly, inaccurate estimation
of formation water properties could lead to poor assessment of
saturations and oil-in-place volumes. Acquiring representative
downhole samples is therefore of high importance.
Reservoir Characterization Strategy
Reservoir characterization in exploration and appraisal wells
has historically included production well testing. However, for
several years Maersk Oil Qatar AS has replaced production
well testing with Formation Pressure Testing and Fluid
Sampling to the extent possible. The main reasons are that
Formation Pressure Testing and Fluid Sampling provides:
• Improved safety and reduced environmental impact.
• Superior data resolution w.r.t. pressure gradients,
permeability anisotropies and formation fluid
variations.
• Reduced cost.
Formation Pressure Testing and Fluid Sampling procedures
have been refined over the years. This paper presents
examples of the successful application of these refined
procedures to characterize the reservoir in three recent
appraisal wells.
2 IPTC 10893

Data Gathering and Analysis Procedures

A complete Formation Pressure Testing and Fluid Sampling

program in a vertical, deviated or horizontal well includes the
following steps:

1. Pressure testing.
2. Mini-DST/Interference testing.
3. Sampling.

The different tests provide a series of data, which is available

at different times as depicted in Table 1.

Test Obtained Data Data available

Reservoir pore pressure
Pressure testing
Drawdown mobility
LFA fluid differentiation
Flowing bottomhole pressure
Mini-DST / Interference
Directional permeability
Formation water resistivity
LFA fluid differentiation
Flowing bottomhole pressure
Formation water resistivity
Sampling
Surface fluid differentiation
Reservoir fluid characterization (PVT
laboratory analysis)
Table 1. Formation pressure testing and sampling, obtained data
and time to data availability
To perform downhole testing and sampling the following
modules are routinely included in the toolstring:
• Gamma ray for depth correlation.
• Pump for dual-packer pressure testing, Mini-DST,
interference testing and sampling.
• Dual-packer for pressure testing, Mini-DST/
interference testing and sampling operations.
• Probe for pressure testing and monitoring during
interference testing.
• Resisitivity probe for determination of water
resisitivity.
• PVT sample chambers for collection of pressurized
samples.
• Atmospheric sample chambers for collection of
large-volume, non-pressurized samples and for
carriage/storage of water for packer inflation.
• Fluid analyzer for qualitative downhole
differentiation of fluids
Dependent on the objectives of the Formation Pressure Testing
and Fluid Sampling campaign, selected modules and tests may
be omitted.
A typical toolstring configuration is depicted in Figure 1.
Real-time
Real-time
Real-time
Real-time
Hours to days
Real-time
Real-time
Real-time
Real-time
Figure 1. Example of Formation Pressure Testing and Fluid
Hours to days Sampling toolstring
Weeks
Pressure testing. Pressure testing provides real-time
information about reservoir pore pressure. Multiple tests are
performed to identify possible supercharging and to test
repeatability of the measured pressure.
The test is performed with the probe or the dual packer. In
relatively low permeability carbonate reservoirs the probe is
used to limit fluid extraction and thereby the required pressure
build-up time. The typical fluid extraction volume by the
probe is 6 to 20 cc. In high-permeability sandstone reservoirs
the dual-packer and the pump is used to create sufficient
drawdown. The typical fluid extraction volume with the dual
packer is in excess of 500 cc.
Mini-DST/Interference testing. The Mini-DST provides
information about permeability, typically on a meter scale.
Dependent on reservoir architecture, interpretation of a
pressure response can take a few hours or up to several days.
The Mini-DST utilizes the dual-packer and the pump to
perform a ‘well test’, i.e. a drawdown followed by a pressure
build-up. By adding an observation probe, measuring the
pressure change created by fluid extraction from the packer
interval, an interference test can be performed. Typically, the
distance between the probe and the packer module is 6 to 15
feet dependent on reservoir geometry.
The probe pressure measurement can be used to determine
directional permeability, vertical or horizontal. The
interpretation of data from Mini-DST’s and interference tests
is comprehensively discussed by Kuchuk (Reference 1).
IPTC 10893
The required drawdown and pressure build-up times in the Al
Shaheen reservoirs are typically 30 minutes and 60 to 120
minutes, respectively.
Sampling. Collection of downhole fluid samples and
subsequent laboratory work provides detailed information
regarding in-situ properties of gas, oil and water.
Sampling is performed utilizing the dual-packer and the pump
module. To the extent possible, pump rate is controlled to
maintain a flowing pressure higher than the estimated
saturation pressure of the fluid to ensure sample integrity.
The fluid analyzer, which delivers real-time differentiation of
the pumped fluid, is typically placed downstream of the pump.
Retention time in the pump allows gravity segregation, which
subsequently can be observed using the fluid analyzer.
Observation of segregation is used to indicate that the fluid
analyzer is working properly. The influence of gravity
segregation in fluid sampling is discussed by Soraya et. al
(Reference 2).
For the collection of pressurized samples, the chamber is over-
pressured by some 4,000 psi to ensure retrieval of a single-
phase sample to surface. The pressurization profile is normally
used to identify the type of sampled fluid as gas, oil and water
will behave differently due to compressibility differences.
Typically 2 to 3 pressurized samples are collected from each
station. Collection of multiple samples caters for bottle failure
and lower-than-expected volumes of sampled hydrocarbon.
For water sampling where pressurization is less critical,
atmospheric sample chambers can be used.
Pumping through the probe during sampling operations is not
viable in the Al Shaheen reservoirs. In the generally low
permeability carbonates the small flow area of the probe
combined with a high-throughput pump creates excessive
drawdown and undesired liberation of dissolved gas. In the
high-permeability and unconsolidated sandstone reservoirs,
sand grains are liberated even at low drawdown. Historically
this has caused almost immediate plugging of the probe.
Operational Considerations
The Al Shaheen Field is developed with long horizontal wells
and logging operations are often performed under challenging
conditions. Logging at extended reach in unconsolidated
sandstone reservoirs constitutes a significant operational
challenge. In order to mitigate the operational challenges,
Maersk Oil Qatar AS has developed new procedures for
Formation Pressure Testing and Fluid Sampling.
Extended reach logging. Logging in the Al Shaheen Field
often takes place at depths beyond 20,000 ft MDRT. As it is
generally not possible to slide further than some 12,000 ft
MDRT, tools are rotated to logging depth. Rotation prevents
the electrical cable from being latched while tripping and the
normal side-entry-sub operation cannot be used. Therefore, for
extended reach logging, Maersk Oil Qatar AS latch and
3
retrieve the electrical cable at each reservoir interval being
tested.
Inflation of dual-packer elements. Operation of Formation
Pressure Testing and Fluid Sampling tools in unconsolidated
sandstone reservoirs has historically been affected by
problems with plugging of valves and internal flowlines. The
problem has been particularly pronounced during inflation of
packer elements as this was performed with mud from the
wellbore. Today, a 6-gallons sample chamber is filled with
fresh water and included in the toolstring. Rather than inflating
the packer elements with the mud, clean water from the
sample chamber is used. On campaigns where multiple packer
settings are required, the sample chamber is re-filled with
clean filtrate or formation water during pump-out operations.
The quality of the water is closely monitored with the fluid
analyzer to ensure that the chamber is filled with clean fluid.
Case Studies
The following three case studies exemplify how pressure
testing and sampling has been successfully applied in the Al
Shaheen Field to provide high-resolution real-time reservoir
data. The gathered data has been used to perform real-time
operational optimizations and led to significant cost savings.
Case 1
Introduction. Formation Pressure Testing and Fluid Sampling
was performed in a horizontal appraisal well in a carbonate
reservoir. The evaluated log is depicted in Figure 2. The
interpretation was performed using a resistivity of the
formation water of 0.04 ohm-m in accordance with
observations from the vertical pilothole.
The log interpretation suggested water saturations from 30%
to 70% reflecting well placement in a transition zone. In order
to determine mobility of oil and water along the well and to
evaluate horizontal permeabilities, a pressure testing and fluid
sampling campaign was planned including interference testing
at three stations. The stations are marked in Figure 2.
Logging operation and results. The interference test data
from the three stations are depicted in Table 2.
Flow Drawdown Drawdown Volume
Build-up
Station period Packer probe pumped
(mins) (psi) (psi) (litres) (mins)
1 30 135 no seal 9.9 82
2 30 101 5.4 10.0 61
3 45 338 9.7 14.0 127
Table 2. Mini-DST and Interference test data
On Station 1 the probe seal failed and the test was
consequently analyzed as a Mini-DST.
Interpretation of the pressure responses from the three stations
provided effective directional mobilities. In order to calculate
4 IPTC 10893

absolute rock permeability, corrections for in-situ fluid Case 2

viscosities and relative permeability effects were applied.
Introduction. Fluid sampling was performed in a vertical
0
GR
100
DEPTH
FT 0.5
PHIT
0 1
SW_0.04
0 appraisal well drilled through a thin, high-permeability
3300
TVDSS
FT 3200 0.5
BVW
0 sandstone reservoir. The objective of the well was to
determine the depth of a regional gas-oil contact and to
delineate the areal extent of the gas.

The likelihood of penetrating a gas-oil contact with a vertical

St 1
8000 well in a thin, structurally dipping reservoir is relatively small.
Therefore, the appraisal well was planned targeting the oil
column close to the gas-oil-contact. A contingent horizontal
sidetrack up-structure towards the gas was planned in case the
contact was not encountered in the vertical well.
9000

The log evaluation suggested that the vertical well had, in fact,
St 2 penetrated the gas-oil-contact (Figure 3). However, in a
reservoir with layers thinner than the resolution of the logging
tools, the log interpretation can be influenced by averaging
10000
effects, disguising true reservoir features. Furthermore, the
presence of heavy minerals can mask light hydrocarbon effects
on the radioactive logging tools. In order to confirm that a gas-
oil-contact existed, fluid sampling was performed.
11000
GR NEUT DEPTH BVWQ SWQ
0 gAPI 150 0.6 0 FT 0.5 dec 0 1 dec 0
DENS MDT PHIEQ
1.7 2.7 5 0 0.5 dec 0

12000

St 3 3260

Figure 2. Log interpretation based on formation water resistivity

of 0.04 ohm-m St 1

Extended pump-out at Station 2 was performed to investigate

mobile fluids at a water saturation of 70%. A total of 500 liters
of formation water was pumped at a drawdown of 500 psi
St 2
without traces of oil detected by the fluid analyzer.

Subsequently, pump-out and sampling was performed at

Station 3 to investigate mobile fluids at a water saturation of
30%. First oil was observed by the fluid analyzer after
pumping some 180 liters with a drawdown in excess of 1,200
psi. The oil signal gradually increased to 35% to 55% at which
point three PVT samples were obtained. Upon transfer of the
fluids from downhole to laboratory cylinders, the fraction of
oil was confirmed.
Conclusion. Formation Pressure Testing and Fluid Sampling
was successfully used to:
3270
Figure 3. Log interpretation
Logging operation and results. Pressure testing and fluid
sampling were performed with the dual packer at two different
stations as marked in Figure 3. The fluid analyzer clearly
showed gas at the upper station and oil at the lower station.
This was subsequently confirmed at surface where sub-
samples were retrieved.

• Determine directional permeability data along the Conclusion. Fluid sampling was successfully used to
horizontal well. determine that the vertical well had penetrated the gas-oil
contact. Based on the result, the contingent horizontal
• Determine fractional flow of oil and water at 30% Sw
sidetrack was cancelled.
and 70% Sw.
Case 3
The confirmation of mobile hydrocarbons was used as
immediate justification to continue an appraisal program. This
Introduction. Formation Pressure Testing and Fluid Sampling
saved a rig move thus inducing a significant cost saving.
was performed in a deviated appraisal well drilled through a
IPTC 10893 5

sandstone reservoir. The log evaluation generated using a related to limited thickness of the reservoir layers and the
formation water resistivity of 0.05 ohm-m derived from presence of heavy minerals.
regional mapping of salinity, is depicted in Figure 4. The log
includes a track displaying hydrocarbon shows on a scale from On Station 2, oil was sampled at a drawdown of some 300 psi
‘0’ to ‘6’, with ‘6’ representing good shows. while 1,800 liters of formation water was pumped at a
drawdown of 10-15 psi on Station 3 before the test was
DEPTH
FT 1
SW_0.05
0
SHOWS
6 0
abandoned.

On Station 4, some 1,200 liters of water was pumped with no

traces of oil. During pump-out, the flow was routed through
Station
3170
1 the resistivity probe every 30 to 60 minutes to monitor the
Station 2 properties of the water. The results are depicted in Figure 5.
Station 3
0.20 2000
Station 4 0.18 1800
3180
0.16 1600

Volume pumped (litres)

Resisitivity (ohm-m)
0.14 1400

0.12 1200

0.10 1000
Station
3190 5
0.08 800

0.06 600

0.04 400

0.02 200
3200
0.00 0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Elapsed time (mins)

Rw Volume pumped
Station 6
3210
Figure 5. Measurement of water resistivity at Station 4

The water resistivity increased from 0.03 ohm-m to 0.10 ohm-

Figure 4. Log interpretation based on formation water resistivity
of 0.05 ohm-m
Shows suggested optimal oil saturations at the top of the
logged interval gradually deteriorating towards the base as
compared to the log evaluation, which suggested oil
saturations decreasing from 70% to 40%.
m where production of filtrate started to level off. From the
clean-up profile it was concluded that the formation water
resistivity was 0.10 ohm-m rather than 0.05 ohm-m as
estimated before the logging. A water salinity corresponding
to the formation water resistivity of 0.10 ohm-m translates into
a pressure gradient of 0.441 psi/ft.
The new estimate of formation water resistivity was used to
re-interpret fluid saturations as illustrated in Figure 6.

A comprehensive Mini-DST and fluid sampling program was
designed to test the high oil saturations in the upper part of the
logged interval, and to investigate the discrepancy between oil
saturations and shows in the lower part of the sequence. The
stations are marked in Figure 4. In order to accommodate the
need of differentiating between formation water (Rw = 0.05
ohm.m) and mud filtrate (Rw = 0.03 ohm-m), a resisitivity
probe was included in the tool string.
Logging operation and results. After pumping some 150
liters of clean filtrate at Station 1, gas was identified by the
fluid analyzer at a drawdown of some 50 psi. As pumping
continued, the gas signal became dominant and two gas
samples were collected. The presence of free gas at the top of
the reservoir illustrates the capability of the sampling tool to
capture features not identified by log responses and oil shows.
The absence of a clear log response to the gas is most likely
The log interpretation suggested significantly lower oil
saturations particularly in the lower part of the logged interval
where values resembled residual saturations observed in other
parts of the field. Based on the gathered information it was
decided to obtain pressures and omit further fluid sampling
across this interval (Stations 5 and 6).
Measured pore pressures, obtained using the probe, suggested
a gradient of 0.447 psi/ft. This gradient was in good agreement
with the specific gravity estimated from the resistivity
measurement.
Despite the lower oil saturations it was anticipated that oil
would be moveable at Station 3 and Station 4. Although
pumping through the probe in unconsolidated sandstone
reservoirs incurs significant risk of plugging, it was decided to
make an attempt to create a higher drawdown than previously
achieved with the dual-packer. After pumping 1 liter through
6 IPTC 10893

the probe, oil was identified at the fluid analyzer at a • Identify a gas cap that was not captured with log
drawdown of some 500 psi. This emphasizes the importance responses.
of creating a substantial drawdown when the mobility ratio is • Perform real-time determination of formation water
unfavorable. resistivity, which was used to improve the accuracy
of the saturation evaluation.
DEPTH
FT 1
SW_0.10
0
SHOWS
6 0 • Perform real-time optimization of the Formation
Pressure Testing and Fluid Sampling program to
reflect the new log interpretation.
• Verify the presence of water as the mobile phase in
Station
3170
1 the lower part of the logged interval through accurate
Station 2 determination of the vertical formation fluid pressure
Station 3 gradient.
• Verify the presence of mobile oil in the upper part of
Station 4 the sand logged interval.
3180

Furthermore, the case illustrated the importance of drawdown

at unfavorable mobility ratios and the operational problems
related to pump-out through the probe in unconsolidated
Station
3190 5 sandstone reservoirs.

Conclusion

Three case studies have demonstrated how Formation Pressure

3200
Testing and Fluid Sampling delivered real-time data with high
quality and resolution. The collected data was used to make
real-time decisions leading to operational optimizations and
Station 6 significant cost savings. Conventional production well testing
3210 was avoided, safety was improved and environmental impact
reduced.

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank Qatar Petroleum and Maersk Oil

Figure 6. Log interpretation based on formation water resistivity Qatar AS for their permission to publish this paper.
of 0.10 ohm-m

A similar attempt on Station 4 was unsuccessful as the probe References

was plugging up with formation fines immediately after
pumping was initiated.
Laboratory analyses of the oil and water samples confirmed
the low mobility of the oil and the field measured
gravity/resistivity of the formation water.
Conclusion. Formation Pressure Testing and Fluid Sampling
was successfully used to:
1. Fikri J. Kuchuk, Mustafa Onur: “Estimating permeability
distribution from 3D interval pressure transient tests”,
Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 39 (2003) 5-
27.
2. Soraya Betancourt, Go Fujisawa, Oliver C. Mullins:
“Analyzing Hydrocarbons in the Borehole”, OFR-autumn
2003.