SPE 102571
Applying Downhole Fluid Analysis and Wireline-Formation-Testing Techniques in
Reservoir Management and Well Completion—Case Studies
M. Khalil and K.K. Maamari, SPE, Petroleum Development Oman, and R.R. Jackson and K. Cig, SPE, Schlumberger
Copyright 2006, Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2006 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition held in San Antonio, Texas, U.S.A., 24–27 September 2006.
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, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes 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 where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
The Gharif and Al Khlata Formations form significant
reservoirs in north-central Oman. The reservoirs are
multilayered, heterogeneous and highly variable in terms of
geometry, connectivity, permeability and fluid properties.
Newly drilled wells often show differential pressure depletion
between layers, which helps assess lateral and vertical
reservoir continuity. However such complexity and reservoir
heterogeneity means that conventional pressure-depth plot and
pressure gradient analysis of wireline pressure data is not easy,
and identification of in-situ fluid density changes can be
difficult.
A significant part of formation evaluation within these
reservoirs has required the application of downhole fluid
analysis (DFA) and fluid identification using a pumpout
wireline formation tester. The primary objectives being to
obtain a measurement of formation pressures, identification of
the formation fluids, capture fluid samples and determination
of fluid mobility. Such information is important input for both
reservoir management purposes and in optimizing the well
completion strategy.
We discuss testing techniques using a modular wireline
formation tester equipped with a dual packer and/or probe
modules, and latest generation optical fluid analyzers. The
tests usually comprise of extended pumpout, drawdown and
buildup periods, during which oil-based mud filtrate
contamination, and fluid composition are monitored in-situ in
real time. The techniques applied include in-situ
characterization of reservoir fluid type and composition, gas-
oil-ratio (GOR), and the use and application of fluorescence
measurements.
In this contribution we compare and demonstrate the
utilization of data from wireline downhole formation fluid
analysis and formation tests, and also their practical
application in reservoir management.. The field examples
described are from wells mainly drilled with oil-based mud.
We present some case studies and discuss how the results from
tests conducted in different flow units in individual wells, and
arealy across the field in multiple wells, have been used in
reservoir management and well completion.
Introduction
Formation pressure profiles have long been used as important
tools for determination of reservoir pressure and estimation of
fluid distributions and contacts 1,2. Wireline formation testing
and fluid sampling data in combination with geology and
openhole logs have been important for helping evaluate
reservoirs. In turn this information is vital in reservoir
development and management. Many applications of pressure
surveys for reservoir and single-well evaluations have been
described in the literature3-7. Pressure profiles provide valuable
information for optimizing field development, well completion
strategies and production schedules. Obtaining a reference
pressure profile in a reservoir before initial production startup
or prior to initiating secondary recovery schemes is good
reservoir management practice. Subsequent multiple pressure
surveys in new development wells can then be compared with
reference pressure profiles to monitor reservoir pressure
depletion and/or the efficiency of secondary recovery
schemes. Historical cases of this application of formation
testing have been described for many reservoirs in the North
Sea and Middle East3-5.
However, in some situations the quality of formation
pressure depth information is simply not sufficient to allow
determination of fluid gradients and densities of sufficient
accuracy. Typically it is challenging to acquire accurate
pressures in fractured, vuggy, and highly laminated or thin
bedded formations7. Low mobility formations with differential
supercharging, mud filtrate invasion effects and reservoirs
with mixed wettability can also effect measurements making it
difficult to acquire representative pressure data and understand
the pressure gradients8,9. For multilayered reservoirs which are
significantly affected by production and differential pressure
depletion, and where fluids are no longer in equilibrium, it
may be difficult to accurately define and analyze pressure
gradients. In these circumstances estimation of in-situ density,
fluid type and contacts becomes problematic. Other
phenomena such as reservoir compartmentalization and the
presence of compositional variation are often not identifiable
from analysis of pressure gradients alone. The presence of
2 SPE 102571
compositional gradients in hydrocarbon reservoirs is well
known, and a number of field cases and experiences of
compositional grading in oil and gas-condensate reservoirs
have been described in the literature10, 11.
Modern wireline formation testing and sampling tools have
begun to provide new measurements which can be used to
determine in-situ fluid type, and used to characterize
hydrocarbon fluid properties and composition12-15. These
methods of in-situ hydrocarbon analysis or downhole fluid
analysis (DFA) are principally made using visible and near-
infrared spectroscopy (NIR) and fluorescence15-17. The fluid
composition analyzer built on these measurement principles
currently provides the concentration of C1, C2-C5, C6+ and
CO2 of the fluid in the flowline and the gas-oil-ratio (GOR).
The fluorescence intensity and spectra measurements are
sensitive to hydrocarbon type and may be used for detection of
dew formation and any phase transitions17. A measurement of
index of refraction also provides gas detection.
Using this DFA measurement technique and methodology,
sampling and fluid analysis can be performed in real-time at
various depths across the reservoir interval to analyze
formation fluids and optimize the logging operation18-19.
Factors such as depth accuracy, number of stations, bed
thickness and supercharging can impact formation pressure
measurements – this is not the case for downhole fluid
analysis which is a direct method for measuring fluid
properties in-situ. An integrated analysis of the openhole well
logs, seismic and geological data in combination with
formation pressure measurements and fluid properties aids
reservoir characterization and provides valuable input to
reservoir management20.
Formation Testing with Downhole Fluid Analysis
For successful execution of wireline testing and sampling
operations, in-situ contamination monitoring and quantitative
fluid characterization is vital13-15. Availability of real time
variances of fluid compositions, and information about the
phases and contamination levels13,14 which are present during a
testing and sampling operation can be used for optimization of
sample acquisition and data for input in the identification of
hydraulic flow units and characterization of reservoir
architecture.
Optical fluid analysis is the most widely accepted and
advanced technique for fluid identification and quantitative
compositional analysis. The near-infrared (NIR) adsorption
spectra and optical properties of hydrocarbons has been
extensively studied and used in many industries for a variety
of monitoring and analysis purposes. Colouration of crude oils
varies over a wide range. The low-energy electronic
adsorption tail can occur in the UV for gas-condensates, the
visible for medium crude oils, and the near-infrared for heavy
oils and tars. Petroleum hydrocarbons have two types of
adsorptions: colour adsorption and molecular vibration
adsorption. Measurements of these properties and molecular
interactions can be used to distinguish oils of different
compositions and to measure GOR during openhole sample
acquisition15,16. In this paper we limit our discussion of the
experimental and theoretical background of optical fluid
analysis and NIR. References 15 to 20 provide a good
introduction to these subjects and their application, and Figure
1 displays examples of crude oil spectra in the NIR region.
During the pumpout and drawdown periods for formation
cleanup prior to fluid sampling or during downhole fluid
analysis stations, the pumpout module of the tool segregates
fluid within the displacement unit and the tool flow line
according to its density. This effect tends be more pronounced
when the fluid density contrast is large. In many situations this
fluid segregation and downhole separation within the tool can
be exploited and combined with optical monitoring to provide
improved fluid analysis and sample capture. The relative
position of the optical fluid analyzers in the flowline is an
important consideration since gravity segregation and pressure
differential will affect the spectrometer response. For our
applications described here, optical fluid analyzers were
positioned on both the inlet and outlet side of the pumpout
module. Such dual optical fluid analyzer combinations allow
monitoring of gas separation or condensate dropout on the
inlet or low pressure side of the flowline, and compositional
monitoring at the nearest entry point of the sample bottle prior
to sample capture.
In the sections which follow we briefly review selected
examples where a modular wireline formation tester equipped
with dual packer and/or probe modules, and latest generation
optical fluid analyzers was utilized to measure formation
pressures, perform fluid analysis and collect samples. The
MDT (Modular Dynamics Formation Tester)* tool provides
this capability12. The tool is wireline conveyed and can be run
in various configurations, set repeatedly, and positioned at
different locations along the wellbore in a single trip. The
MDT has been described in detail elsewhere and can be
configured for a variety of applications depending on the
logging objectives, e.g. formation pressure measurements,
fluid sampling and downhole fluid analysis. In this context
MDT-like tools are more generally known as wireline
formation testers.
Application Examples
Wireline formation testing in combination with downhole
fluid analysis and sampling has been conducted in multiple
wells (18 wells surveyed over 2002-2006) during the appraisal
and development of an oilfield in Oman. The surveyed wells
were drilled into the Gharif and Al Khlata Formations which
form significant reservoirs in north-central Oman. The
reservoirs are multilayered, heterogeneous and highly variable
in terms of geometry, connectivity, permeability and fluid
properties. Newly drilled wells often show differential
pressure depletion between layers, which helps assess lateral
and vertical reservoir continuity. However such complexity
and reservoir heterogeneity means that conventional pressure-
depth plot and pressure gradient analysis of wireline pressure
data is not easy, and identification of in-situ fluid density
changes can be difficult. Downhole fluid identification and
analysis is used to help address important fluid and reservoir
evaluation and management issues, and provide input to well
completion and selection of intervals for perforation.
Field Example A
SPE 102571
This was a vertical appraisal well drilled using WBM to assess
the hydrocarbon accumulations and pressure depletion within
the Upper, Middle and Lower Gharif Formations and the Al
Khlata Formation. Conventional wireline logging suites were
first run after drilling, followed by a combinable wireline
formation tester. The toolstring was configured with multiple
probe modules, a pump, multiple sample chamber modules,
and optical fluid and compositional fluid analyzers.
Forty-four pressure measurements were made across the
reservoir interval plus six downhole fluid analysis and
sampling stations. Figure 2 shows a composite display of the
openhole logs, together with the formation pressure and
mobility measurements against depth. The depths of the
sampling and downhole fluid analysis stations are shown by
the coloured bars which show the fluid fractions and
compositional measurements from the optical fluid analyzers.
In Figure 2 the downhole fluid analysis and sampling stations
are labeled 1 to 6, and the fluid type and GOR values from the
fluid analyzer are displayed on figure 2. From inspection of
the pressure measurements it is apparent there is considerable
differential pressure depletion and vertical reservoir
compartmentalization and significant variation in fluid type
and GOR value. Because of this differential pressure depletion
it would be difficult to recognize and define accurate pressure
gradients for estimating in-situ fluid densities; especially
across the middle (e.g. 2550 - 2600m MD) and uppermost
sections (e.g. 2350 -2400m MD) of the reservoir.
Compartmentalization here is probably due to the presence of
several barriers between stations 3 and 4 and between 4 and 5.
There are abrupt pressure changes across the intervals between
stations 3 and 4, and also stations 5 and 6. It is interesting to
note the C6+ and GOR values are different between the oils at
stations 4, 5 and 6. Oil from the lowest depth (station 3) has a
lower GOR value and more C6+ than the oils from shallower
depths (stations 4 and 5). Such variations in fluid composition
and heterogeneity within the hydrocarbon column would not
be evident from conventional pressure gradient analysis.
Field Example B
This example is from a vertical development well drilled using
OBM to assess the pressure depletion and fluid type
distributions within the Upper, Middle and Lower Gharif
Formations. Conventional logging suites were first run after
drilling, followed by a combinable wireline formation tester.
The toolstring was configured with a probe module, a pump,
multiple sample chamber modules, and optical fluid and
compositional fluid analyzers.
In total, twenty-five pressure measurements were made
across the reservoir interval plus six downhole fluid analysis
and sampling stations. The oil-based mud contamination
analysis13,14 showed that low contamination levels were
achieved. Figure 3 shows a composite display of the openhole
logs, together with the formation pressure and mobility
measurements against measured depth. Analysis of the
pressure measurements and the depletion profile indicate there
is some level of vertical reservoir compartmentalization, and
the likely presence of permeability barriers and several distinct
flow units. This level of compartmentalization is also
confirmed by the optical fluid analyzer data (Figure 3) which
3
indicates the variation of fluid type, and differences in GOR
and C6+ values between the oils and hydrocarbon gases with
depth. The GOR and C6+ values for the oils encountered at
stations 1 and 3 are different, e.g. GOR of the oil at the
deepest point (station 1) is higher than the GOR of the oil
encountered at station 3. Similarly, the hydrocarbon gases
display some differences in their GOR and C6+ content with
depth, e.g. a general trend of increasing C6+ values with
decreasing depth between stations 4 to 6. For this well the
combination of openhole logs and formation pressures with
the optical composition fluid analyzer data, enabled a proper
assessment of the hydrocarbon fluids and their spatial
variation within the reservoir intervals. This information
provided valuable input for reservoir engineering studies,
completion design and selection of optimum intervals for
perforating the well. The well was completed in the oil bearing
intervals as a single selective completion with dual perforation
zones.
Field Example C
Example C is a DFA station from the Example B well. It is
included to illustrate the use of optical fluid analyzers on the
inlet (low pressure) and outlet (high pressure) side of the pump
during sampling and downhole fluid analysis. In this particular
case a composition fluid analyzer was positioned on the outlet
side (above) of the pump, so we could exploit the residence
time of fluids in the pump and gravity segregation of the
fluids. Figure 4 shows data from a DFA station where a
multirate drawdown was performed after the fluid
composition, phase and GOR had been established. In this
case, at about 7300 seconds elapsed time the flow rate and
drawdown pressure was progressively and deliberately
increased to evaluate fluid and phase behavior, and also
provide a crude estimate of the bubble-point pressure. Free gas
broke out when the drawdown pressure was increased (fig. 4)
and there is clear mass fraction segregation and increased
fluorescence vibration (FLD0 and FLDR in fig. 4). This
demonstrates the utility of dual fluid analyzers, and the
sensitivity of fluorescence intensity measurements to detect
phase transitions.
Summary and Conclusions
Downhole fluid analysis is a technique and methodology
which is finding widespread application for in-situ
characterization of reservoir fluids and improved sampling. In
combination with other log data it can be used as a new tool to
better characterize the reservoir, and provide data for input for
both reservoir management purposes and in optimizing the
well completion and production strategy. The field examples
briefly reviewed in this contribution show the utilization of
data from wireline downhole formation fluid analysis and
formation tests, and their practical application in formation
evaluation and reservoir management.
4 SPE 102571
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank the Ministry of Oil and Gas (MOG)
of the Sultanate of Oman, the Petroleum Development Oman
LLC (PDO) and Schlumberger for their permission to publish
and present this work. Thanks to Gbenga Komolafe for
assistance with preparing the graphics for Example B.
References
1. Smolen, J. J., and Litsey, L. R: ‘Formation Evaluation
Using Wireline Formation Tester Pressure Data,’ paper
SPE 6822 prepared for presentation at the SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, held in Denver,
USA, 9-12 October 1977.
2. Stewart, G., and Wittman, M: ‘Interpretation of the
Pressure Response of the Repeat Formation Tester,’ paper
SPE 8362 presented at the SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Las Vegas, USA, 23-26
September 1979.
3. Dake, L. P: ‘Application of the Repeat Formation Tests in
Vertical and Horizontal Pulse Testing in the Middle
Jurassic Brent Sands, ‘ paper EUR 270 presented at the
1982 SPE European Petroleum Conference
4. Stewart, G., and Ayestaran, L: ‘The Interpretation of
Vertical Pressure Gradients Measured at Observation Wells
in Development Reservoirs,’ paper SPE 11132 prepared for
presentation at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, New Orleans, USA, 26-29 September 1982.
5. Pelissier-Combescure, J., Pollock, D., and Wittman, M :
‘Application of Repeat Formation Tester Measurements in
the Middle East,’ paper SPE 7775 prepared for presentation
at the Middle East Oil Technical Conference held in
Manama, Bahrain, 25-29 March 1979.
6. Reignier, P.J., and Joseph, J. A: Management of a North
Sea Reservoir Containing Near-Critical Fluids Using New
Generation Sampling and Pressure Technology for
Wireline Formation Testers, paper SPE 25014 prepared for
presentation at the European Petroleum Conference held in
Cannes, France, 16-18 November 1992.
7. Schlumberger Educational Services: RFT Essentials of
Pressure Test Interpretation, Paris, France, 1981.
8. Phelps, G. D., Stewart, G., and Peden, J. M: ‘The Analysis
of the Invaded Zone Characteristics and Their Influence on
Wireline Log and Well-Test Interpretation,’ paper SPE
13287 prepared for presentation at the SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, USA, 16-
19 September 1984.
9. Elshahawi, H., Fathy, K., and Heikal, S: ‘Capillary Pressure
and Rock Wettability Effects on Wireline Formation Tester
Measurements,’ paper SPE 56712 prepared for presentation
at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
held in Houston, USA, 3-6 October 1999.
10. Montel, F., Bickert, J., Hy-Billiot, J., and Royer, M:
‘Pressure and Compositional Gradients in Reservoirs,’
paper SPE 85668 prepared for presentation at the 27th
Annual SPE International Conference and Exhibition in
Abuja, Nigeria, 4-6 August 2003.
11. Kabir, C. S., and Pop, J: How Reliable is Fluid Gradient in
Gas-Condensate Reservoirs ? paper SPE 99386 prepared
for presentation at the SPE Gas Technology Symposium
held in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 14-17 May 2006.
12. Schlumberger Educational Services: Wireline Formation
Testing and Sampling, SMP-7058, Houston, USA, 1996.
13. Hashem, M. N., Thomas, E. C., McNeil, R. I., and Mullins,
O. C: ‘Determination of Producible Hydrocarbon Type and
Oil Quality in Wells Drilled with Synthetic Oil-Based
Muds,’ SPE Reservoir Evaluation and Engineering, 2, 125-
133, 1999.
14. Mullins, O. C., and Schroer, J: ‘Real-Time Determination
of Filtrate Contamination During Openhole Wireline
Sampling by Optical Spectroscopy,’ paper SPE 63071
prepared for presentation at the SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, USA, 1-4 October
2000.
15. Dong, C., Mullins, O. C., Hegeman, P. S., Teague, R.,
Kurkjian, A., and Elshahawi, H: ‘In-situ Contamination
Monitoring and GOR Measurement of Formation Fluid
Samples,’ paper SPE 77899 prepared for presentation at the
SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition
held in Melbourne, Australia, 8-10 October 2002.
16. Fujisawa, G., van Agthoven, M. A., Jenet, F., Rabbito, P.
A., and Mullins, O. C: ‘Near-infrared compositional
analysis of gas and condensate reservoir fluids at elevated
pressures and temperatures,’ Applied Spectroscopy, 56,
1615, 2002.
17. Betancourt, S. S., Fujisawa, G., Mullins, O. C., Eriksen, K.
O., Dong, C., and Pop, J: ‘Exploration Applications of
Downhole Measurement of Crude Oil Composition and
Fluorescence,’ paper SPE 87011 prepared for presentation
at the SPE Asia Pacific Conference on Integrated Modeling
for Asset Management held in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia,
29-30 March 2004.
18. Elshahawi, H., Hashem, M., Dong, C., Hegeman, P.,
Mullins, O. C., Fujisawa, G., and Betancourt, S: ‘In-Situ
Characterization of Formation Fluid Samples – Case
Studies,’ paper SPE 90932 prepared for presentation at the
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
Houston, USA, 26-29 September 2004.
19. Fujisawa, G., Betancourt, S. S., Mullins, O. C., Torgersen,
T., O’Keefe, M., Terabayshi, T., Dong, C., and Eriksen, K.
O: ‘Large Compositional Gradient Revealed by In-Situ
Optical Spectroscopy,’ paper SPE 89704 prepared for
presentation at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Houston, USA, 26-29 September 2004.
20. Venkataramanan, L., Weinheber, P., Mullins, O. C., Ballard
Andrews, A., and Gustavason, G: ‘Pressure Gradients and
Fluid Analysis As An Aid to Determining Reservoir
Compartmentalization,’ Transactions of the 47th Annual
SPWLA Logging Symposium 2006.
SPE 102571 5

3.0

2.5
Heavy Oil Water
OD (pathlength = 2mm)

2.0
Black Oil

1.5
Volatile Oil

1.0
Condensate
0.5

0.0
500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Wavelength (nm)

Figure 1: Absorption spectra of crude oils, hydrocarbon gases, and water display distinctive features, which
enable the computation of composition, gas-oil-ratio (GOR), contamination and water fraction.
6 SPE 102571

GOR >9000 m3/m3

Upper Gharif C1 75.6%, C2-C5 14.4%,
C6+ 10.0%

5 GOR 130.7 m3/m3

C1 9.3%, C2-C5 2.1%,
C6+ 88.6%

Middle Gharif

GOR 81.4 m3/m3

C1 5.3%, C2-C5 3.5%,
C6+ 91.2%
4

Lower Gharif
GOR 49.2 m3/m3
3 C1 3.6%, C2-C5 1.6%,
C6+ 94.8%
2

Al Khlata

Figure 2: Example Well A - Composite display of openhole logs, formation pressure measurements, and downhole fluid
analysis (DFA) station data. The downhole fluid analysis stations are labelled 1 to 6. The coloured histogram bars in each track
reflect indicate fluid type fractions, and measurements in weight percent for four group compositions (C1, C2-C5, C6+ and CO2).
Gas-oil-ratio (GOR) is also displayed for comparison.
SPE 102571 7

Upper Gharif

Middle Gharif 6

5 Gas

Oil GOR 200 m3/m3

Lower Gharif
Gas
2

Oil GOR 250 m3/m3

Al Khlata

Figure 3: Example Well B - Composite display of openhole logs, formation pressure measurements, and downhole fluid
analysis (DFA) stations against measured depth. The downhole fluid analysis stations are labelled 1 to 6, with fluid type and
oil GOR values shown for comparison.
8 SPE 102571

A B

C D

1 1

0.9 0.9

0.8 0.8
LFA Oil Fraction and CFA Mass Fractions

0.7 0.7

0.6 0.6

CFA Fluorescence
0.5 0.5

0.4 0.4

0.3 0.3

0.2 0.2

0.1 0.1

E F 0
10000 10020 10040 10060 10080 10100 10120 10140 10160 10180
0
10200
ETIM (sec)

OILF_LFA ETHR_CGA HEXR_CGA METHR_CGA FLD0_CGA FLD1_CGA FLDR_CGA

Figure 4: Example C is optical composition fluid analyzer data from a station in example well B where a multirate drawdown
experiment was performed. [A] display of optical composition fluid analyzer data with pressure and temperature vs. elapsed time, [B]
fluid composition, phase and GOR values prior to multirate drawdown test, [C] phase segregation and slugging behaviour on outlet
side of the pump due to the presence of free gas, [D] fluorescence intensity response measurements (FLD0 and FLDR), [E] schematic
of showing phase segregation and detection downstream of the pump; and [F] expanded scale plot showing the segregation of mass
fractions and the slugging behaviour of fluorescence (FLD0 – red line and FLDR – black line).