IPTC 10622
Application of Wireline Formation Tester (Openhole and Cased-Hole) Sampling
Techniques for Estimation of Nonhydrocarbon Gas Content of Khuff Reservoir Fluids
in the North Field, Qatar
A. Al-Mohsin and S. Tariq, RasGas Co. Ltd., and S.A. Haq, Schlumberger Oilfield Services
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
Qatar’s North Field is the largest non-associated gas field in
the world. The North Field is being developed primarily to
supply feedstock gas for a number of LNG (Liquefied Natural
Gas) and GTL (Gas-to-Liquid) plants. Accurate determination
of the amount of H2S and CO2 in the feedstock gas is critical
for the proper design of the LNG and GTL plants. Due to long
lead time required for the design and the construction of these
processing plants, it is necessary to establish the feedstock gas
specifications as early as possible during the FEED (Front End
Engineering & Design) process. Moreover, once the plant
design specifications are set, early estimation of H2S and CO2
content of Khuff reservoirs at the development well locations
is necessary to design a well completion scheme to meet the
plant design specification for the feedstock gas.
In 2003, RasGas decided to evaluate several sampling
techniques for early estimation of the non-hydrocarbon
(NHCG) gas content from Khuff reservoirs. After a thorough
study of available options for making reliable measurements
of H2S and CO2 content of reservoir fluids using down hole
tools, it was decided to test Wireline Formation Testers
(WFT), both open-hole (OH-WFT) and cased-hole (CH-WFT)
tools, in an appraisal well as a “proof of concept” of these
technologies for estimation of H2S and CO2 contents. The
results from both OH-WFT and CH-WFT techniques were
compared with normal DST surface recombined samples
obtained from the same well.
In this paper, the following aspects of OH-WFT and CH-
WFT sampling techniques for determining H2S and CO2
contents are discussed and the results/analysis presented:
1. Optimal tool / Sampling bottles / flow line
configuration for reducing H2S scavenging effect.
2. Comparative analysis on a relative basis between
OH-WFT & CH-WFT samples, both on-site and in
laboratory.
3. Evaluation of OH-WFT, CH-WFT and DST sample
compositional results on a relative basis.
4. Conclusions / Recommendations.
Introduction
The amount of H2S and CO2 in the feedstock gas is an
important parameter that determines the efficiency and the
production capacity of LNG plants / facilities. The current
RasGas LNG facilities are designed to handle up to a certain
H2S and CO2 content. Higher contents of H2S and CO2 in the
feedstock gas, beyond a small tolerance range, will require
costly modifications to the onshore facilities and, ultimately,
result in the loss of LNG production capacity. Since the Khuff
reservoirs fluids are known to have significant zonal and areal
variations in their H2S and CO2 contents, it is imperative to
design well completions to conform to the design H2S and
CO2 specifications.
During the development drilling of well W-1, surface
recombined samples collected from the four Khuff reservoirs
(Z1, Z2, Z3, and Z4) showed slightly higher than expected
non-hydrocarbon contents in some of the zones that may
exceed the plant facility design limit. In order to achieve the
target of balanced depletion among Khuff reservoirs and, at
the same time, meet the contractual gas demand, there was a
need to accurately determine the non-hydrocarbon
composition in each reservoir at each well location before
perforating and completing the wells.
Since OH-WFT and CH-WFT sampling provide a mean
of getting these fluid composition data months earlier than that
with a complex and time consuming DST program, several
downhole sampling tools were evaluated for the estimation of
non-Hydrocarbon gas contents (NHCG) at different well
locations before completion. A scoping study was conducted
internally in RasGas to investigate the feasibility of using OH-
WFT tool in future development wells to accurately measure
H2S and CO2 contents of the reservoir fluid. The investigation
consisted of the following:
1. Review of the existing technical literature on the use
of OH-WFT sampling technique1-14.
2. Communication with other operators in North Field
on their experiences.
2 IPTC 10622

3. Input from Schlumberger worldwide expertise on sample bottles as close as possible to the gas inlet to reduce
H2S sampling with OH-WFT through Schlumberger’s the exposure area of the flowlines. The pumpout was placed
local coordinator. above the sample chambers and reverse low shock sampling
4. Interaction with ExxonMobil Upstream Research techniques were employed. The sketch of the OH-WFT tool
Company. used in well W-2 is presented as Figure 1.
Based on our findings, it was proposed to obtain downhole
samples from the Khuff zones (Z1-Z4) using OH-WFT and
CH-WFT in the appraisal well W-2. The primary objective for
the proposed OH-WFT/CH-WFT sampling in the W-2
appraisal well was to investigate the feasibility of using OH-
WFT/CH-WFT sampling in future development wells for
accurate H2S and CO2 measurments while the secondary
objective was to obtain representative single phase samples for
fluid characterization studies. To achieve these objectives,
surface samples were also acquired in addition to the
downhole samples collected with both open-hole and cased-
hole formation testers. The H2S and CO2 contents derived
from the three techniques were compared to establish the
accuracy of the OH-WFT/CH-WFT measurements. The CH-
WFT sampling technology was evaluated because it offers the
advantages and flexibility of the OH-WFT sampling
technology at significantly lower risk than the OH-WFT
sampling. Running OH-WFT in high pressure differential
environment is a risky operation, especially in deviated wells,
and may lead to tool or cable sticking.

Sampling with Open-hole Formation Tester

The pros and cons of different OH-WFT tool configurations
were evaluated to achieve both the primary and the secondary
objectives. The OH-WFT dual packer system was selected to
be run on drill pipe in W-2 well because of the following
reasons:
1. It reduces the risk of getting stuck, especially when
high differential pressure exists15.
2. The key success factor for obtaining a representative
sample is to maintain the fluid in single phase during
sampling16. This objective may be accomplished by
accurately controlling the sample drawdown pressure
and by keeping it above the reservoir dew point
pressure. This can be achieved by using the dual
packer where the large surface area reduces the
pressure drawdown.
3. Khuff formations are highly heterogeneous. It is not
uncommon to find thin high permeability streaks
imbedded within thick low permeability intervals.
The OH-WFT probe module is often unable to locate
these “sweet spots”. The OH-WFT dual packer,
however, has a much higher probability of testing
these “sweet spots” due to its larger exposed testing
area.
4. In Khuff environment, in general, the filtrate cleanup
is faster with dual packer compared to probe due to
higher flow rate and lower drawdown.
Figure 1: Open-hole formation tester string for W-2
H2S scavenging by the uncoated bottles was also
thoroughly investigated prior to OH-WFT sampling
implementation in W-2 well. A test was conducted at the
Oilphase-Dubai laboratory to observe the H2S scavenging by
the uncoated sample bottle to be used in OH-WFT. A
separator sample from W-4 well was put in the uncoated
250cc sample bottle. After four hours, the test showed a
reduction of 0.07 mole % in the H2S contents. This test was
used as the first approximation of H2S scavenging to be
expected in the uncoated sample bottle. Due to the fact that
Sulfinert coating washes off when cleaned with a basic
solution, the use of Sulfinert coating (inert material) on sample
bottles was not undertaken as the pH of mud used is > 8. Use
of other inert coating material and the variations in pH of the
mud filtrate during cleanup are under evaluation.
Sampling Procedure for OH-WFT
The following sampling guideline procedure was devised to
obtain downhole gas samples with open-hole formation tester
in W-2 well:

1. Inflate the packer using pump-out.

Several OH-WFT dual packer tool configurations were 2. Perform packer pretest to establish/confirm
evaluated to reduce the exposed surface line that may cause communication with the formation.
any H2S scavenging17,18. Investigations showed that one main
element contributing to H2S scavenging is the pump-out
module. Therefore, the tool was configured to locate the
IPTC 10622 3

3. Start pump-out. Monitor the probe response were collected at two depth locations in Z2 & Z3 formations.
(hydrostatic pressure if unset, formation pressure if These two depths were same depth of OH-WFT. The H2S &
set). Observe cleanup process on Fluid Analyzer. CO2 estimates from the CH-WFT were compared to both the
4. Pump-out at least 100 liters (preferably 130-150 OH-WFT and DST sampling results to evaluate the accuracy
liters) of gas at the first station before taking the first of this technique.
sample in the uncompensated bottle. This is to
saturate the flowline and reduce the anticipated H2S
scavenging caused by the flowline.
5. Pump another ~ 5 minutes or until stable flowing
conditions and take the second sample in the
uncompensated bottle.
6. Pump another ~ 5 minutes or until stable flowing
conditions and take the third sample in the pressure
compensated bottle.
7. Wait for 5 minutes, deflate packer. Wait for another 5
minutes to allow for hydrostatic pressure
stabilization.
8. Circulate bottoms-up & condition the mud. Move to
next sampling location.
9. For any subsequent station, pump-out at least 100
liters gas before collecting any sample.
10. Repeat steps 1-7 in another location within the same
reservoir to get good coverage over each reservoir. Figure 2: Cased-hole formation tester string for W-2
11. Repeat steps 1-8 in each of the Khuff reservoirs (Z1
to Z4). Sampling Procedure for CH-WFT
The following sampling guideline decision tree was made to
The dual packer OH-WFT was run on drill pipe with 18 obtain downhole gas samples with cased-hole formation tester
sampling bottles in well W-2. Six stations were planned to in W-2 well:
acquire samples from the Khuff reservoirs. The exact depths
of these stations were selected based on open-hole logs
evaluation as well as OH-WFT pressure measurements
conducted in an earlier run. Whenever possible, the most
permeable interval was selected.
It was planned that 3 samples will be acquired at each
station (two 450cc uncompensated pressure bottles and one
250cc pressure compensated bottle). However, after the first
two stations, the plan was slightly modified to incorporate
operational needs. In the pressure compensated bottles, the
samples were collected at the reservoir pressure and
temperature and then the bottles were pressurized to about
1500-2000 psi above the reservoir pressure to ensure that the
samples remain in a single phase condition until opened for
analysis in the lab. The uncompensated bottles were one air
cushion and one water cushion at each station. In the
uncompensated bottles there was no provision for pressure
compensation and the sample pressure drops down with the
decline of the ambient temperature. The air cushion
uncompensated sample at each depth location was analyzed
on-site to eliminate any H2S scavenging during transportation.
All samples, including the air cushion samples that were
analyzed on-site, were then taken to the lab for accurate
Figure 3: Decision tree for sampling with cased-hole formation
measurement of gas liquid ratio, CGR and NHCG contents. tester

Sampling with Cased-hole Formation Tester Results and Discussion

The cased-hole formation tester is discussed in detail by
Burgess et al.19,20 For W-2 well, the CH-WFT was also
configured to minimize the H2S scavenging by the tool using
reverse low shock sampling technique, presented as Figure 2.
Four samples (2 pressure compensated & 2 uncompensated)
As discussed earlier, at each depth location, the air cushion
uncompensated samples for OH-WFT and CH-WFT were
analyzed on-site to eliminate any H2S scavenging during
transportation to the lab. All samples, including the air cushion
samples that were analyzed on-site, were then taken to the lab
4 IPTC 10622

for accurate measurement of condensate gas ratio, CGR and 0

NHCG contents. While consistency in the results was -0.1

observed among different methods at most of the measurement

Change in NHCG Composition (mole %)

-0.2

stations, some discrepancy in the results was observed at two -0.3

stations. These discrepancies are explained below on the basis -0.4

of operational procedure and formation characteristics. The -0.5

discrepancy in some of the results doesn’t indicate inadequacy -0.6

of the OH-WFT and/or CH-WFT sampling techniques.
-0.7
However, future OH-WFT sampling program can be
improved, as discussed in a later section, to enhance the
-0.8

accuracy of the measurement of NHCG content of the gas. -0.9

OH-WFT OH-WFT OH-WFT OH-WFT CH-WFT CH-WFT CH-WFT CH-WFT DST Lab
on-site Lab Lab Lab on-site Lab Lab Lab
(SPMC)

The NHCG results from OH-WFT (on-site and lab), CH- OH-WFT on-
site
OH-WFT Lab OH-WFT Lab
OH-WFT Lab CH-WFT on-
(SPMC) site
CH-WFT Lab CH-WFT Lab CH-WFT Lab DST Lab

WFT (on-site and lab) and DST (on-site) were compared with N2
H2S
N/A
0
-0.22
-0.10
-0.35
-0.24
-0.22
-0.16
-0.22
N/
0A
-0.27
-0.12
-0.28
-0.19
-0.20
-0.13
-0.19
0.00
0.00

the DST (lab) results. The DST lab results are considered as a CO2 -0.84 -0.57 -0.30 -0.35 -0.34 -0.27 -0.24 -0.25 0.00

reference point for the comparison. Given below is a summary

of the differences of H2S and CO2 measurements for different Figure 5: Khuff Z2 NHCG Summary
methods compared with DST (lab):

Khuff Z1: The following observations are made on Khuff Z2 samples:

Open-hole samples were collected with wireline formation
tester in Khuff Z1 in addition to the surface DST samples. 1. DST samples showed much higher H2S content (>0.2
Cased-hole samples were not collected in this Khuff mole%) than OH-WFT and CH-WFT samples. Since
formation. Figure 4 summaries the NHCG measurement for similar H2S content was measured on more than 5
each sample. All available Z1 samples collected by either OH- samples in both OH-WFT and CH-WFT, these
WFT or surface DST showed similar H2S contents with minor numbers are believed to be accurate. The discrepancy
variations which can be attributed to measurement errors. with the DST sample can be explained as follows:
from the OH-WFT pressure measurements, Z2 zone
0.2 has the lowest mobility (11.7 md/cp) among the OH-
0.1 WFT stations. During the allotted pump-out time, the
near wellbore region perhaps didn’t get cleaned
Change in NHCG Composition (mole %)

-0.1 enough of the drilling mud allowing the fluids to be

-0.2 produced through the remaining mud around the
-0.3 wellbore. As a result, these samples lost some H2S to
-0.4 the mud. During DST sampling, cleaning of the near
-0.5
wellbore region is not an issue due to the flow of
-0.6
large volume of in-situ fluid before sampling. Also,
-0.7
the possibility of variation in the H2S contents of
-0.8
OH-WFT on-site OH-WFT Lab OH-WFT Lab OH-WFT Lab DST on-site DST Lab
different streaks of the Khuff Z2 zone exists and can
explain the variation between the OH-WFT/CH-WFT
(SPMC)

OH-WFT Lab

measurements and the DST measurements.

OH-WFT on-site OH-WFT Lab OH-WFT Lab DST on-site DST Lab
(SPMC)
N2 N/A
0 -0.19 -0.30 -0.27 N/A
0 0.00
H2S
CO2
-0.03
-0.76
0.02
-0.14
-0.06
-0.22
0.02
-0.16
0.00
0.14
0.00
0.00
2. The same OH-WFT sample analyzed on-site showed
0.13 mole% higher H2S contents compared to the
Figure 4: Khuff Z1 NHCG Summary
results of its analysis done in the lab. Laboratory
analysis also showed that this particular sample was
contaminated with 10 cc of mud. This mud would
Khuff Z2: cause H2S scavenging if allowed for considerable
Samples were collected with open-hole and cased-hole time. The other two OH-WFT samples showed H2S
wireline formation testers in Khuff Z2 in addition to the contents in agreement with on-site measurements.
surface DST samples. Figure 5 summaries the NHCG
measurement for each sample.
Khuff Z3:
OH-WFT and CH-WFT samples were collected in Khuff Z3
in addition to the surface DST samples. Figure 6 summaries
the NHCG measurement for each sample.
IPTC 10622 5

4 0.1

3.5 0

Change in NHCG Composition (mole %)

Change in NHCG Composition (mole) %)

3 -0.1

2.5 -0.2

2 -0.3

1.5 -0.4

1 -0.5

0.5 -0.6

0 -0.7

-0.5 -0.8
OH-WFT OH-WFT OH-WFT CH-WFT CH-WFT CH-WFT CH-WFT DST on- DST Lab OH-WFT on-site OH-WFT Lab OH-WFT Lab OH-WFT Lab DST on-site DST Lab
on-site Lab Lab on-site * Lab Lab Lab site (SPMC)

OH-WFT on- CH-WFT on- OH-WFT Lab

OH-WFT Lab OH-WFT Lab CH-WFT Lab CH-WFT Lab CH-WFT Lab DST on-site DST Lab OH-WFT on-site OH-WFT Lab OH-WFT Lab DST on-site DST Lab
site site * (SPMC)

N2 0
N/A -0.07 -0.08 3.86 0.04 0.01 0.02 0
N/A 0.00 N2 0
N/A -0.02 -0.01 -0.01 0
N/A 0
H2S 0.07 0.01 0.10 0.57 0.06 0.06 0.01 0.11 0.00 H2S -0.30 -0.27 -0.17 -0.14 0.09 0.00
CO2 -0.32 -0.29 -0.10 0.43 -0.16 -0.16 -0.15 -0.07 0.00 CO2 -0.74 -0.50 -0.30 -0.28 -0.09 0.00

Figure 6: Khuff Z3 NHCG Summary Figure 7: Khuff Z4 NHCG Summary

* Considered inaccurate due to air contamination.

The following observations are made on Khuff Z3 samples:
1. There is good agreement between the H2S contents
obtained from the OH-WFT sample analyzed on-site
and the OH-WFT samples taken to the laboratory.
Since Z3 was the second station during the open-hole
OH-WFT run, it can be assumed that the OH-WFT
tool flowline has already been saturated with H2S and
no more scavenging exist. This gives an indication
that at least 150 liters of gas need to be pumped-out
initially to eliminate the effect of scavenging caused
by the OH-WFT tool.
2. The three CH-WFT samples analyzed on the
laboratory showed very consistent H2S content.
However, on-site measurement performed on one of
the samples showed higher H2S content and
significantly higher CO2 and N2. This one odd result
probably indicates an error in on-site analysis due to
air contamination.
3. DST sample analysis on-site as well as in the
The following observations are made on Khuff Z4 samples:
1. Khuff Z4 was the first sampling station during the
OH-WFT sampling run. The increasing percentage of
the H2S and CO2 measured in the samples with time
suggests that the OH-WFT tool and its associated
flowline were still adsorbing H2S and CO2 on its
surface during the collection of three samples at this
station, see Figure 8. Had a larger volume of gas been
allowed to flow through the tool before collecting the
sample, it is likely that we would have measured a
higher % of H2S & CO2 closer to that measured by
DST. Thus, in future sampling operations with OH-
WFT, larger pump-out volume (150 liters) should be
allowed at the first sampling station before collecting
samples.
2.7 1.20
CO2 Mole %

H2S Mole %
laboratory showed practically the same H2S
concentration as measured in OH-WFT and CH-WFT
samples.
4. Excellent match on H2S and NHCG content
measurements exist among the three methods,
indicating the feasibility of OH-WFT and CH-WFT
sampling techniques in measuring the H2S and 1.7 0.00
NHCG content. 0 50 100 150
Cumulative Pump-out Volume, Liters
CO2 H2S

Khuff Z4: Figure 8: Results of H2S and CO2 contents from OH-WFT
Downhole samples were collected with OH-WFT in Z4 in
addition to the surface DST samples. Cased-hole samples were
not collected in this Khuff formation. Figure 7 summarises the 2. The first OH-WFT sample was collected in a sample
NHCG measurement for each sample. bottle with water cushion. It was analyzed on-site for
NHCG measurements before sending to the
laboratory. On-site measurements were repeated at
least three times and showed consistent values.
3. The same water cushion sample along with the other
two samples was sent to the laboratory for further
6 IPTC 10622

analysis. Laboratory measurements on the same 1.00

sample showed H2S content similar to the on-site
estimate. However, the other two samples, collected
after longer cleanup period, showed higher H2S
content. This can be attributed to possible scavenging
by the surface area of the flow line, rubber packer,

DST
and the internal OH-WFT modules. Also, laboratory
measurements showed the presence of some filtrate
water and mud in the samples, another possible
source of scavenging.
4. A total of 110 liters were pumped into the wellbore
prior to collecting samples with open-hole OH-WFT. 0.00
This suggests that even after pumping-out 92 liters 0.00
0.00 1.00

gas through the flow line (18 liters were mud), the
scavenging effects did not completely disappear. For
future OH-WFT jobs, it is recommended to pump-out
longer at high mobility location.
5. The DST on-site measurement showed two levels of
H2S contents corresponding to two different flow
rates. At the low flow arte, the H2S content was about
0.05 mole% lower than the H2S content measured at
samples taken at high flow rate. This offers another
possible explanation for the discrepancy between the
OH-WFT sampling results and the DST results. If
differences exist in the NHCG of different streaks of
a Khuff zone, then OH-WFT sampling technique
needs to be adjusted to allow collection of samples
from different streaks/ facies in each zone. This
should provide good approximation for the range of
H2S expected from a certain zone. A single sample
collected through OH-WFT in a zone may not be able
to accurately estimate the range of NHCG contents.
OH-WFT
OH-WFT vs. DST H2S Zone 4 Zone 2
Figure 10: Comparison of results of OH-WFT and DST
Results of PVT Analysis
PVT analysis was done on five samples from OH-WFT and
two samples from CH-WFT. The computed dew point
pressures from all four uncontaminated samples (3 OH & 1
CH) were representative and as per expectations while the
three mud contaminated samples gave dew points much higher
than the expected values.
The results of detailed composition analysis of OH-WFT
were compared with DST sample collected over the same
interval, shown below in Figure 11. The results from the two
techniques were in good agreement.

Comparison of Results from different techniques

The H2S & CO2 measurements of the final sample bottles of
OH-WFT were compared with CH-WFT acquired over the
m o le %

same interval and are presented in Figure 9. The results show

excellent agreement.
1.00

N 2 O 2 H 2 S C 1 C 2 C 3 i-C 4 -C 4 i- C 5 -C 5 C 6 C 7 C 8 C 9 C 1 0 C 1 1 C 1 2 C 1 3 C 1 4 C 1 5 C 1 6 C 1 7 C 1 8 C 1 9 2 0 +
CH-WFT

C n n C
OH-WFT DST

Figure 11: Compositional analysis of OH-WFT and DST Results.

0.00
Sulfur Species & Mercaptan Analysis
0.00 1.00 The open-hole OH-WFT sampling was also evaluated with
OH-WFT
OH-WFT vs. CH-WFT H2S
respect to sulfur & mercaptan analysis. Samples were
collected in Khuff Z1 of well W-3 with OH-WFT and DST.
Figure 9: Comparison between OH-WFT and CH-WFT Results The analysis of results shows good agreement, in general,
between the two samples. Figure 12 is a mercaptan anlaysis
Figure 10 below presents a comparison of the H2S & CO2 comparison between OH-WFT and DST sample in Khuff Z1.
measurements of OH-WFT and DST samples. As shown, the
results from both techniques are in good agreement.
IPTC 10622 7

addition to the repertoire of tools for field development

Mercaptan &Sulfur Species Analysis planning and completion optimisation.
10000

Recommendations
Based on detailed analysis of the sampling conditions,
1000 reservoir characteristics and the results of NHCG contents, the
following recommendation are made to improve the quality of
the open-hole/cased-hole samples:
ppm mol

100
• The discrepancy in NHCG measurements between the
ppm

open-hole OH-WFT and surface DST is attributed to the

10 scavenging caused by tool internal flow-line surface. For
OH-WFT tool surface area similar to W-2, the
recommendation is to pump-out at least 150 liters of gas
1 through the OH-WFT flow line to reduce the effect of
scavenging before collection of samples.
D d

M l M lfid
en

a
C hy pt

er lfi
Et l M ulfi

op bon ulfi

i
f

rt- l M lf
M er p

hy p

C lD p
ro Me p
hy l M ap

-B hyl ap

• It is recommended to collect fluid samples from two

io ul
M bon Sul

pt
ph

M isu
Su
te py isu

et rca
l M ca
et ca

yl c a

hy ca
a

S
Thl S
hy yl S

lS

ca
N uty erc

Et py r c

Et erc

e
ut er

et er
hy r

lM e
ar n

til
ob M
C ge

la
Vo locations from each Khuff formation to have better
Is utyl
ro

-P l

5
ut
ar
yd

et

ro

ed
B
B
H

coverage of the possible NHCG variability due to the

c-

if i
se
Is

nt
de

heterogeneity within low / high permeability streaks.

ni
U

DST Sample OHMDT Sample • It is recommended to continue performing NHCG

Figure 12: Mercaptans & Sulfur Species Analysis
Conclusion
Total of 22 samples (14 OH-WFT, 8 CH-WFT) were collected
from Khuff reservoirs during the drilling/completion/testing of
the early-data well W-2. The results of the compositional
analysis of these samples were systematically analyzed to see
the effect of sampling procedures and formation
mobility/cleanup conditions on the accuracy of the estimation
of the H2S and the CO2 content of reservoir fluids. The salient
conclusions of this work are summarized below:
1. In general, the OH-WFT and the CH-WFT sampling
provided accurate and consistent estimate of the H2S
and the CO2 contents for all Khuff reservoirs in the
early data well W-2 and for Khuff Z1 reservoir in the
appraisal well W-3.
2. For cases where discrepancy was observed between
the OH-WFT / CH-WFT sampling and the DST
sampling results, the inaccuracy can be attributed to
sampling procedures and formation mobility/cleanup
characteristics. Such cases can be avoided in future
by adopting the recommendations presented in this
paper (lessons learned).
3. Representative PVT quality samples were obtained
by the OH-WFT and the CH-WFT sampling
technique. Sulfur species and mercaptan analysis
was performed on one of the OH-WFT sample and
the results showed good match with the DST process
samples from the same interval. However, this is a
single data point & more data are needed for a firm
conclusion in this regard.
Both the OH-WFT and CH-WFT sampling techniques are
now proven for estimation of the H2S and the CO2 contents of
a reservoir prior to perforating, and, for obtaining
representative PVT quality samples from Khuff reservoirs.
Therefore, both technologies can be applied for future RasGas
applications as needed. These technologies are significant
measurements both on-site and in the laboratory. Unlike
the W-2 well, it is recommended to perform NHCG
measurements using same methodology on-site and in the
laboratory. These methodologies include UOP-212,
Tutweiler, and Gas Chromatigraph (GC) for H2S and
Orsat and GC for CO2 measurements. This will eliminate
any uncertainties associated with the accuracy of each
method.
• It is recommended to continue collecting three fluid
samples at each station.
• With proper planning, both OH-WFT and CH-WFT can
be used for accurate NHCG measurements.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank Qatar Petroleum and RasGas
management for permission to publish this paper. The authors
would also like to acknowledge the contribution of the
management and staff of the RasGas-Petroleum Engineering
Department towards the successful completion of this work
References
1. Eyton, D.G.P.: “Practical Limitations in Obtaining PVT
Data for Gas Condensate Systems,” paper SPE 15765,
presented at the 1987 SPE Middle East Oilshow, Manama,
Bahrain, March 7-10.
2. Morris, C.W. et al.: “Evaluation of Reservoir Fluids Using
Formation Tester Tool Samples,” paper SPE-22129
presented at the 1991 International Arctic Technology
Conference, Alaska, May 29-31.
3. McCain Jr., W.D. and Alexander, R.A.: “Sampling Gas
condensate Wells”, paper SPE 19729, 1992 SPERE Eyton.
4. Zimmerman, T. et al.: “MDT Tool: A Wireline Testing
Breakthrough,” Oilfield Review (April 1992).
5. Reignier, P.J. et al.: “Management of a North sea reservoir
containing near-critical fluids using new generation
sampling and pressure technology for wireline formation
testers”, paper SPE-25014 presented at the 1992 European
Petroleum Conference, Cannes, France, November 16-18.
8 IPTC 10622

6. Badry, R. et al.:“Downhole Optical Analysis of Formation

Fluids,” Oilfield Review (January 1994).
7. Michaels, J., et al.: “Wireline Fluid Sampling”, paper SPE
30610, SPE ATCE, Dallas, October 22-25, 1995.
8. Kikani, J. et al.: “Consistency Check and Reconciliation of
PVT Data from Samples Obtained with Formation Testers
Using EOS Models”, paper SPE 36743, SPE ATCE,
Denver, Colorado, October 6-9, 1996.
9. Proett, M.A. et al.: “New Wireline Formation Testing Tool
with Advanced Sampling Technology”, paper SPE-56711
presented at the 1999 ATCE, Houston, Texas, October 3-6.
10. Witt, C.J., et al.: “ A Comparison of Wireline and Drillstem
Test Fluid Samples From a Deepwater Gas condensate
Exploration Well”, paper SPE 56714, SPE ATCE, Houston,
Texas, October 3-6, 1999.
11. Henk, K. et al.: “Testing of Gas Condensate Reservoirs -
Sampling, Test Design and Analysis”, paper SPE-68668,
presented at the 2001 SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas
Conference and Exhibition, Jakarta, Indonesia, 17–19
April.
12. Hy-Billiot, J. et al.: “Getting the best from formation tester
sampling”, paper SPE-77771, 2002
13. Mullins, O.C., et al.: "Real-Time Determination of Filtrate
Contamination During Openhole Wireline Sampling by
Optical Spectroscopy," paper SPE 63071 presented at the
2000 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
Dallas, Texas, 1–4 October 2000.
14. Betancourt, S. et al.: “Analyzing Hydrocarbons in the
Borehole,” Oilfield Review (Autumn 2003).
15. Myers, C., Vera, S., and Haq, S.A.: “Operational
considerations for open-hole wireline formation tester
sampling in a profilic gas reservoir”, paper IPTC-10624,
IPTC, Doha, November 21-23, 2005.
16. Jamaluddin, A.K.M. et al.: “Single-phase Reservoir
Sampling: Is it a Necessity or Luxury?” Paper presented at
the 1999 CSPG and Petroleum Society joint convention,
Digging Deeper, Finding a Better Bottom Line, in Calgary,
Alberta, Canada, June 14-18, 1999.
17. “Hydrogen Sulfide scavenging within the OH-WFT prior
to sample capture”, Schlumberger Internal report, July 2000
18. “H2S scavenging in OH-WFT tool string”, Schlumberger
Internal report, October 2004.
19. Burgess, K. et al.: “Wireline conveyed through casing
formation tester preserves casing integrity” paper SPE-
72371, 2001.
20. Burgess, K. et al.: “Formation Testing and Sampling
through Casing”, Pages 46-52, Oilfield Review (Sping
2002).