SPE 111911
Pressure Measurement and Pressure Gradient Analysis: How Reliable for Determining Fluid
Density and Compositional Gradients?
R.R. Jackson, A. Carnegie, and F.X. Dubost, SPE, Schlumberger
Copyright 2007, Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 31st Nigeria Annual International Conference
and Exhibition held in Abuja, Nigeria, 6-8 August 2007.
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
Pressure-depth plots have been used for over thirty years to
evaluate fluid density, fluid contacts, and pressure
compartmentalization in formation tester pressure surveys.
However in the Niger Delta region and other offshore
deepwater environments, many reservoirs are multilayered and
highly variable in terms of connectivity, permeability and fluid
properties. Such complexity and reservoir heterogeneity
means conventional pressure-depth plot and pressure gradient
analysis of wireline pressure data is not easy, and
identification of in-situ fluid type can be difficult. There is
also mounting evidence for the presence of compositional
gradients in the hydrocarbon columns of some reservoirs – this
raises questions about the conventional approach to pressure
gradient analysis and uncertainties in inferring fluid properties
and contacts from pressure gradients.
In this contribution using several field examples, we discuss
and review formation pressure measurement techniques and
data quality, and compare conventional and advanced methods
of pressure gradient analysis and fluid contact determination.
The interpretation techniques compared include traditional
pressure-depth graphical methods, the excess-pressure method
and statistical tests. Depth dependent fluid property variation
from fluid gradients, PVT properties and EOS-models are
compared and discussed. Guidelines are presented on how to
interpret wireline pressure measurements in multilayered
siliclastic reservoirs, perform connectivity and compositional
gradient assessment. We describe how to improve on these
interpretations by performing more advanced formation testing
procedures; some of which are based upon new and emerging
technology.
Introduction
Formation pressure profiles have long been used as important
tools for determination of reservoir pressure, evaluation of
fluid type from in-situ densities, identification of fluid
contacts, and differential depletion, and inter-reservoir
connectivity 1-4. Pressure profiles and fluid density gradients
provide valuable information for reservoir evaluation and
management, and input to aid decisions about well completion
strategies and field production schedules. Modern wireline
formation testers are equipped with quartz pressure gauges of
high accuracy, resolution and repeatability 4,5. Theoretically,
this higher resolution is sufficient for detection and evaluation
of small fluid density changes and pressure variations within
individual wells – this capability potentially leads to some new
applications and interpretation techniques for formation
pressure data. These new applications could include improved
integration of pressure measurements and pressure gradient
analysis with reservoir fluid and thermodynamic models.
However such an approach requires good data quality control
and data analysis, since pressure measurement problems,
supercharging, wettability effects, and depth measurement
errors can make it difficult to acquire representative pressure
data and hence limit fluid gradient accuracy and reliability 6-9.
The presence of compositional gradients and depth-
dependent fluid property variations in hydrocarbon reservoirs
has long been recognized. There have been many published
studies on the theoretical and field aspects of compositional
grading in hydrocarbon reservoirs. A concise review of this
subject is provided by Hoier and Whitson10. Contrasts in fluid
properties may also exist between formations and fault blocks
without pressure communication, as well as within reservoirs
with good pressure communication. Asphaltene segregation
typically contributes to compositional grading in 20-30 API˚
oils, and compositional gradients occur in light-hydrocarbon
(>35 API˚) columns for critical fluids. Numerous field
examples and practical experiences of compositional grading
in oil and gas-condensate reservoirs are described in the
literature 10-15. For example, large depth-dependent fluid
property variations have been observed in the Brent field in
the North Sea (UK), where the fluid composition changes
continuously from oil at the base of the reservoir to gas-
condensate at the top; without any conventional or obvious
gas-oil contact with saturation pressures equal to the reservoir
pressure 13. Similar cases of compositional gradients are
documented for reservoirs in the Norwegian sector of the
North Sea 10,11 and in offshore West Africa 16, 17. Reservoir
fluid compositional gradients have been shown to occur from
the comparison of fluid gradients from PVT properties with
wireline formation tester pressure data and equation-of-state
(EOS) models 16-18.
2 SPE 111911
However, in many cases the quality or the resolution of
formation pressure-depth information alone may not be
enough to allow determination of gradients and fluid densities
of sufficient accuracy or reliability for detecting the presence
of compositional grading. In the sections which follow, using
several field examples, we discuss the uncertainties which
inevitably exist in the interpretation of pressure data, and
review some graphical and statistical techniques for the
evaluation of pressure gradients and accuracy of fluid density.
In particular we explore how interpretations of pressure
gradients and their derived fluid densities might be used in
workflows for the detection of compositional gradients in
reservoirs. We describe how to improve on these
interpretations by performing pressure measurements in
combination with more advanced formation testing
procedures. Some of these procedures are based upon new and
emerging technology such as downhole fluid analysis (DFA)
which provides measurements which can be used to determine
in-situ fluid type, and characterize hydrocarbon fluid
properties and composition 19-22.
Pressure Measurement
The formation pressure measurements discussed throughout
this contribution are the pretest pressures acquired by wireline
formation testing tools 4,5 either standalone or in combination
with fluid sampling and analysis (DFA). The standard method
of measuring localized reservoir pressures and estimating
formation mobility is by inserting a probe against the
formation and through the mudcake, and then withdrawing a
small volume of fluid. Analysis of the resulting pressure
drawdown and buildup response allows estimation of pressure
and mobility at the sandface adjacent to the probe. There are a
variety of methods and techniques available for analysis of
this type of data, and for estimating mobility and permeability
1,4,5
. Similarly there are a variety of practical methods and
techniques for data-quality control and the recognition and
identification of pretests with suspect data or pressure-
measurement problems 4,5,23.
Typically it is challenging to acquire accurate pressures in
fractured, vuggy, and highly laminated or thin bedded
formations. Low permeability or tight reservoirs pose many
challenges for the acquisition of formation pressure data. For
the case of formation pressure measurement one of the most
significant problems is the effect commonly known as
supercharging; which can often invalidate wireline formation
tester pressure measurements from small volume (< 20 cc) and
sequential small volume probe pretests 1,4,5. As a consequence
of mud filtrate injection and invasion in the immediate vicinity
of the wellbore, the pressures which are measured by probe
pretests can sometimes be higher than the actual formation
pressure. Mud filtrate invasion effects, capillary pressure
effects and reservoirs with mixed wettability can also effect
pressure measurements, making it difficult to acquire
representative pressure data and understand the pressure
gradients 7-9. For multilayered reservoirs which are
significantly affected by production (or possibly water
injection) and differential pressure depletion - where fluids are
no longer in equilibrium, it may be difficult to accurately
define and analyze pressure gradients. In these circumstances
estimation of the in-situ fluid density, fluid type and contacts
from pressure gradient analysis becomes problematic. Other
factors which can introduce uncertainty and diminish pressure
gradient accuracy include depth measurement errors (depth
placement and well deviation), formation bed or interval
thickness, sensor characteristics and also the number of
pressure stations. A detailed discussion and error analysis of
the effect of these parameters on formation tester pressure data
and gradient accuracy is given in reference [5] and the recent
technical paper by Kabir and Pop 6.
Pressure Gradient Analysis
The most commonly used formation pressure interpretation
technique is the pressure-depth diagram – a plot of formation
pressure versus true vertical depth (Figure 1). Numerous
regression schemes and models are available for pressure
gradient analysis xx such as ordinary least squares on pressure
and/or depth, mean ordinary least squares, robust estimation,
least squares errors on pressure and depth, and polynomial
methods. The pressure gradient can be interpreted in terms of
formation fluid density, and hence it can provide an indication
of the type of fluids which are present (oil, water, gas). The
intersection of two lines corresponding to different pressure
gradients then represents the interface or fluid contact between
different phases. Pressure-depth plots and regression analysis
can be performed for multiple intervals in individual wells and
in multiple wells to determine pressure gradients, fluid
contacts and also to assess reservoir continuity and pressure
communication.
The intercept of pressure gradients for oil and water are often
referred to as the free-water-level (FWL, i.e. location where
there is zero capillary pressure between oil and water) or oil-
water contact (OWC, i.e. as depth increases below the oil zone
the location at which oil saturation becomes irreducible).
However, in some cases and especially for transition zones,
the FWL or OWC positions determined from pressure gradient
analysis may be very different to the 100% water saturation
depth derived from openhole log interpretations. In this paper
we do not discuss any further the effects of capillary pressure
and wettability on pressure measurements, and pressure
gradient behavior in transition zones. We refer the interested
reader to references [7-9] and the references contained therein
for further information.
A first observation on the use and interpretation of
conventional pressure-depth plots is that we tend to fit straight
lines to as much of the data as possible, and so often ignore
complexity in the pressure data. Hence we will tend to
overlook subtle pressure and fluid density variations which
may reflect the presence of pressure baffles and compositional
gradients - unless the pressures do not obviously fit on a
straight line. For cases when there is some evidence for the
presence of hydrocarbon compositional variation or
compositional grading from other supporting data such as PVT
properties from fluid samples and EOS-models - then a linear
relationship may no longer be appropriate to accurately
describe the pressure-depth data and the interpreted gradients,
fluid densities and contacts. A second observation on the use
of conventional pressure-depth plots is when the pressure
range for a wireline formation tester survey is large -
SPE 111911
conventional pressure-depth plots will not have sufficient
display scale to take advantage of the resolution of the
pressure gauges. Interpretation techniques to enhance the
display of formation pressure measurements and resolve small
density and pressure changes have been described by Alton 23
and Montel et al. 16. This technique which is an alternative to
the conventional pressure versus true vertical depth plot is
sometimes referred to as the “excess pressure” or the “fluid
head” method.
Excess Pressure or Fluid Head Method
Many pressure variations in conventional pressure-depth
diagrams are actually produced by the weight or gradient of
the formation fluids themselves - so by subtracting the
gradient from that present at the top of the reservoir, small or
subtle pressure and density variations will be amplified and
then revealed. This method which is sometimes known as the
“excess-pressure” method 23 or the “fluid head” method16 is a
technique which has commonly been applied in groundwater
flow and hydrologic applications. In hydrologic studies the
water or formation water density is used in the calculations.
For wireline formation pressure measurements the density of
the dominant reservoir fluid density is normally used. The
excess pressure can then be calculated and plotted against
depth using an arbitrary fluid density, datum pressure depth
and measured pressure (Figure 2). Excess pressure is the
difference between the total measured pressure and the
pressure expected from the weight of a fluid between the
datum and the depth of the pressure measurement. This
technique enhances small pressure differences caused by
density variation, where fluid contacts and minor pressure
baffles which could easily be overlooked on pressure-depth
plots. We show examples in the sections which follow to
demonstrate the utility of this technique.
Pressure Gradient Analysis - Example 1
Figure 3 presents some formation pressure data from a field
case in offshore West Africa which has been described by
Montel et al. 16, 17. In this example the water depth is 1300
meters and the reservoir intervals extend from 2370 to 2621
m/msl. The quality of the pressure data is good. Figure 3
shows that a linear pressure gradient can be fitted with an oil
density of 0.735 g/cc. At a large scale the gradient appears to
be a straight line with no obvious indicators for the presence
of any pressure barriers or vertical pressure
compartmentalization. After applying the excess pressure
method by subtracting the gradient corresponding to the fluid
at the top of the reservoir, it is clear there is significant
variation in the fluid distributions and some minor pressure
baffles are present (Figure 4). PVT properties and modeled Rs
versus depth and production data provide independent
confirmation this reservoir has a compositional fluid gradient
16,17
. Hence a simple linear pressure gradient is not appropriate
in this particular case.
Pressure Gradient Analysis - Example 2
3
Figure 5 displays formation pressure measurements alongside
openhole log data from another field in offshore West Africa.
In this field example the main reservoir interval extends from
8080 to 8240 feet TVD. Twenty-nine pressure pretests were
acquired in combination with fluid sampling and downhole
fluid analysis at 3 depths across the reservoir interval xx. The
quality of the pressure data is good, and two pressure gradients
can be identified (oil and water). Figure 5 indicates that from
linear regression a pressure gradient of 0.268 ft/psi can be
fitted with an oil density of 0.619 g/cc. From the intersection
of these two pressure gradients an oil-water-contact can then
be computed at 8166.9 feet TVD. After applying the excess
pressure method using the computed oil density as input, the
position of the oil-water-contact now becomes very obvious as
the density differences between the oil and water zones are
now much amplified. This field example demonstrates how
the excess-pressure method can be applied to aid fluid contact
identification.
Statistical Analysis and Comparison of Pressure
Gradients
There are frequently a number of reasons why pressure
gradients need to be statistically analyzed and compared. For
example we may need to perform denoising and outlier
removal on the data, or error analysis to help quantify how
uncertainty in parameters such as repeatability of depth and
pressure measurements and the number of pressure stations
can affect fluid gradient accuracy. Alternatively we may need
to compare differences between groups of pressure
measurements and multiple gradients within individual wells
to understand if observed pressure variations imply differences
in fluids such as compositional grading and
compartmentalization; or if the differences are purely
statistical.
For comparison of two or more pressure gradients to assess
whether the gradients are identical, the Student t-test is
probably the most simple and practical (see for example Kabir
and Pop). It is appropriate to use this method for gradient
comparison where straight line or linear regression
relationships apply. The basis of the t-test is to determine a
probability, p that the mean values of γ of a property from two
groups are different due to chance (statistically similar) and or
by design.
Several methods have been proposed to calculate the Student
t-statistic for comparing gradient values from multiple sets of
pressure data. One general method for expressing the t-test
statistic described by Pop and othersref is by equation [i]:
γ1−γ 2
t= [i]
Sγ 1 − γ 2
when γ1 and γ2 are the gradients for comparison in intervals 1
and 2. When the Standard Error is expressed by the formula in
equation [ii] as:
SPE 111911
grading and a continuous variation of hydrocarbon properties
and composition with depth. Hence the pressure gradient in
the hydrocarbon intervals is curved and not a straight line.
During progress of the formation testing and sampling
operations in this exploration well, the fluid analyzer
compositional data and GOR values from initial sample
stations indicated significant vertical variation and that a
compositional gradient may be present. Five sampling and
downhole fluid analysis stations in the hydrocarbon column
were used to establish the presence of a large gradient in the
GOR across a 30 m interval. Subsequent laboratory PVT
analysis of the captured samples provided independent
confirmation of the compositional gradient in this reservoir.
Both the downhole fluid analysis and laboratory analysis of
the fluid samples indicated a compositional gradient was
present which was not immediately obvious from the pressure
data alone. However, analysis of the pressure data using the
excess pressure method, and statistical analysis and
comparison of the pressure gradients did highlight the
underlying complexity in the fluid distributions which was
subsequently confirmed both by the application of downhole
fluid analysis and laboratory PVT studies.
Comparison of Pressure Gradient with Equation of State
(EoS) Modeling
Using PVT results from one of the samples, Equation of State
(EoS) modeling was initiated. It is possible to model fluid with
an equation of state, tuned on specific experiments. For
instance Psat, which we may find from knowing the reservoir
pressure at the contact, or Psat from the laboratory tests, or
perhaps only fluid density. Figure 8 shows the phase diagram
and composition of this sample. Having the fluid behavior
through depth described, we may then compare with actual
measured pressure and density data as shown in Figure 9. In
this case the differences between modeled vs. measured
formation pressures are less then 0.1 bar. Since the
measurements come from different sources, and despite the
relatively small depth interval span, this match corroborates
the model and the existence of the fluid compositional
gradient. Further discussion of this example and the
integration of pressure measurements with fluid models is
provided by Dubost et al 19. There are now recently developed
sensors with the capability of downhole or in-situ
measurements of density and viscosity, which can be
performed at station points during formation testing and
sampling operations. This means that in the near future, we
can incorporate density measurements as parameters which
can be matched on in pressure gradient analysis, or used as
constraints in fluid modeling and thermodynamic studies.
Conclusions
This paper reviews and illustrates how interpretations of
pressure gradients and their derived fluid densities might be
used in workflows for the detection of compositional gradients
in reservoirs and in integration with reservoir fluid models.
We show how compositional behaviour of the reservoir fluid
is often initially revealed by formation pressure measurements
and statistical analysis of pressure gradients; and we describe
5
how to improve on these evaluations by performing pressure
measurements in combination with more advanced formation
testing procedures. Some of these procedures are based upon
new and emerging technology known as downhole fluid
analysis (DFA) or in-situ fluid profiling, which provides
measurements which can be used to determine in-situ fluid
type, and characterize hydrocarbon fluid properties and
composition.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank all the colleagues who have contributed to
this study, and the management of Schlumberger for permission to
publish and present this work. We also acknowledge and thank staff
from Chevron, Schlumberger, Shell and Total for helpful input and
many interesting discussions - including: Jacques Bickert, Francois
Montel, Hani Elshahawi, Mohamed Hashem, Fikri Kuchuk, Oliver
Mullins, Julian Pop and Peter Weinheber.
References
1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. RFT Essentials of Pressure Test Interpretation,
Schlumberger Educational Services, M-081022,
Paris, France, 1981.
5. Wireline Formation Testing and Sampling,
Schlumberger Educational Services, SMP-7058,
Houston, USA, 1996.
6. Kabir, C. S., and Pop, J. J.: “How Reliable is Fluid
Gradient in Gas-Condensate Reservoirs ?” paper SPE
99386 presented at the SPE Gas Technology
Symposium, Calgary, Canada, 14-17 May 2006.
7. 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.
8. 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
6 SPE 111911
Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, USA,
3-6 October 1999.
9. Carnegie, A.: “Understanding the Pressure Gradients
Improves Production From Oil/Water Transition
Carbonate Zones,” paper SPE 99240 prepared for
presentation at the SPE/DOE Symposium on
Improved Oil Recovery held in Tulsa, Oklahoma,
U.S.A., 22–26 April 2006.
10. Hoier, L. and Whitson, C.: “Compositional Grading –
Theory and Practice,” paper SPE 63085 prepared for
presentation at the 2000 SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, 1-4
October 2000.
11. Geology of the Norwegian Oil and Gas Fields,
Norwegian Petroleum Society, A.M. Spencer et al.
(editors), Graham & Trotman, Ltd., U.K., 1987,
ISBN 08-6010-908-9.
12. Meisingset, K. K.: “Uncertainties in Reservoir Fluid
Description For Reservoir Modeling,” SPE Reservoir
Evaluation and Engineering, 2 (5), 431-435, 1999
13. Kingston, P.E. and Niko, H.: ‘‘Development
Planning of the Brent Field, UK,’’ Journal of
Petroleum Technology, October 1975, 1190.
14. Schulte, A. M.: “Compositional Variations Within a
Hydrocarbon Column Due to Gravity,” paper SPE
9235 presented at the Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition, Dallas, 21–24 September 1980.
15. Creek, J. L. and Schrader, M. L.: “East Painter
Reservoir: An Example of a Compositional Gradient
From a Gravitational Field,” paper SPE 14411
prepared for presentation at the 1985 SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, Las Vegas,
USA, 22-25 September 1985.
16. Montel, F., Bickert, J., Hy-Billot, J., and Royer, M.:
“Pressure and Compositional Gradients in
Reservoirs,” paper SPE 85668 presented at the 27th
Annual SPE International Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Abuja, Nigeria, 4-6 August 2003.
17. Montel, F., Bickert, J., Caillet, G., and Le Goff, C.:
“Modeling the Effect of External Gas Flux on
Reservoir Fluid Distribution,” Paper SPE 77383
presented at the 2002 SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, USA, 29
September – 2 October 2002.
18. Hanafy, H. H. and Mahgoub, I. S.: “Methodology of
Investigating the Compositional Gradient Within the
Hydrocarbon Column,” paper SPE 95670 prepared
for presentation at the SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, USA, 9-12
October 2005.
19. Dubost, F. X., Carnegie, A., Mullins, O. C., O’Keefe,
M., Betancourt, S., Zuo, J. Y., and Eriksen, K. O.:
“Integration of In-Situ Fluid Measurements for
Pressure Gradient Calculations,” paper SPE 108494
prepared for presentation at the 2007 International Oil
Conference and Exhibition in Mexico held in
Veracruz, Mexico, 27-30 June 2007.
20. 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.
21. 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.
22. 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.
23. 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.
24. Brown, A.: “Improved Interpretation of Wireline
Pressure Data,” American Association of Petroleum
Geologists Bulletin, 87, pp. 295-311.
25. Polaris User’s Guide, A Schlumberger Publication,
Austin, Texas, USA, 1998, pp394.
26. Numerical Recipes in C, Press, W. H., Cornell
University (http://www.library.cornell.edu./nr/).
27. Fujisawa, G., Betancourt, S., Mullins, O. C.,
Torgersen, T., O’Keefe, M., Terabayashi, T., and
Dong, C.: “Large Hydrocarbon Compositional
Gradient Revealed by In-Situ Optical Spectroscopy,”
paper SPE 89704 presented at the 2004 SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston,
USA, 26-29 September 2004.
28. Jackson, R. R., Diedjomahor, J., Nava, J. A., Crowe,
J., Uchebenu, F., and Ardila, M: “Increased Reserves
In Mature Provinces of Nigeria Using New Wireline
Technology – Part 2: Formation Testing and Focused
Sampling with Downhole Fluid Analysis,” paper
NAPE A12 presented at the 2006 Nigerian
Association of Petroleum Explorationists Conference
and Exhibition, Abuja, Nigeria, 13-18 November
2006.
29. 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.
 Figure 1: Conventional pressure-depth plot. Figure 2: The excess pressure or fluid head method (figure
A and B is after Browne 2003.

Figure 4: Example 1 – Excess pressure data from Montel et al.

Figure 3: Example 1 – Data from Montel et al. 2003 (fig. 4). 2003 (fig. 5).
8 SPE 111911

Figure 5: Example 2 – Formation pressure data and openhole logs.

Figure 6: Example 3 – Formation pressure data and openhole logs

SPE 111911 9

Figure 7: Regression on multiple pressure gradients.

Figure 8: Phase envelope for the sample at the contact depth

Mesured MDT Model Oil pressures Model Psat

Model Gas Pressures Expon. (Model Gas Pressures) Expon. (Model Oil pressures)
655

660

665

670

675
Depth

680

685

690

695

700

705
375 375.5 376 376.5 377 377.5 378 378.5 379 379.5 380
Bara

Figure 9: Pressure and saturation profiles of the fluid model and measured formation pressure data