SPWLA 46

th
Annual Logging Symposium, June 26-29, 2005

1
A NEW GENERATION OF WIRELINE FORMATION TESTER

Y. Manin, A. Jacobson, J.R. Cordera, Schlumberger


Copyright 2005, held jointly by the Society of Petrophysicists and Well Log
Analysts (SPWLA) and the submitting authors.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPWLA 46
th
Annual Logging
Symposium held in New Orleans, Louisiana, United States, June 26-29, 2005.


ABSTRACT

Wireline formation testing measurements have long
been recognized as important for collecting essential
information on the nature of the fluids in place, the
pressure regimes, and on formation dynamic properties
such as permeability. However, because previous
techniques have required that the wireline tool be
stationary for relatively long periods of time while
testing the formation, especially in low-permeability
zones, rig-time and tool-sticking considerations have
limited data gathering.

In this paper we present a new generation of wireline
formation tester dedicated only to pressure
measurement, whose design was geared towards
decreasing rig time, reducing the risk of sticking, and
improving the pretesting of tight formations. The
pretest improvement uses a novel electromechanically
controlled device that provides accurate control of the
pretest flow rate down to extremely low values,
enabling the pretest sequence to be tailored to the
formation mobility.
When combined with the standard openhole tool string,
the tool provides even greater efficiency.

After a description of the tool performance and
characteristics, we present the results of several months
of field tests, performed in a wide variety of
environments, with emphasis on the gain in both
operation time and quality of results. A particular focus
is on pressure acquisition in an ultralow-mobility
environment.


INTRODUCTION

At an early stage during the well life single probe
formation testers, run on wireline or on drill pipe
(Meister et al., 2004), are often run to obtain formation
pressure as well as an indication of fluid mobility.

The application of such a measurement in exploration
wells is mainly to identify fluid type and fluid contacts

(Pelissier-Combescure et al., 1979), both requiring a
high degree of stabilization of the pressure
measurement and often a large number of pretests to
establish clearly the fluid gradients.

In a more mature environment the formation pressure
measurement is more likely to be used to quantify
depletion, assess pressure support, or identify reservoir
communication. In this type of application, the ability
to perform the measurement over a wide range of rock
permeability values, including well below the
millidarcy range will be the criteria of choice when
looking for a formation tester.

Using previously available tools with special techniques
has permitted testing in formations with permeability
values as low as 0.1 mD (Neville and Hookway, 1998).
There are, however, a number of reservoirs in which
permeability is below that value and for which
traditional formation testers fail to deliver any answer.

The single-probe pressure-only tool described in this
paper was designed with the above in mind, thus,
focusing on operation efficiency and extending the use
of this type of measurement in the low-permeability
range.


TOOL AND MEASUREMENT DESCRIPTIONS

Tool Characteristics -
Table 1 summarizes the tool characteristics.

Table 1 New Generation Wireline Formation Tester
Operating
range
Max. temperature (F)
Max. pressure (psi)
Wellbore diameter (in.)
350
20,000
4 to 15
Dimensions Tool body O.D. (in.)
Probe section O.D. (in.)
Length (ft)
3
3
21
Pretest Rate (cm
3
/s)
Volume (cm
3
)
0.05 to 2.00
0.1 to 37.0
Pressure gauge
resolution
(1-s sampling)
Sapphire sensors
Quartz sensor

0.05 psi
0.005 psi

The new tool can be equipped with three pressure
gauges: one strain gauge sensor to measure the wellbore
pressure and a second strain gauge sensor plus a quartz
sensor to measure the flowline pressure.

M
SPWLA 46
th
Annual Logging Symposium, June 26-29, 2005
2
Pretest Mechanism -
Most of the existing formation testers rely on
hydraulically driven pretest systems that are monitored
and controlled from the surface. Replacing the
hydraulic system with an electromechanical motor
coupled to a planetary roller screw mechanism and
high-reduction gearbox such as shown in Fig. 1 has
greatly improved the stability and accuracy of both the
pretest rate and volume. Furthermore, transferring the
controls and commands from the surface to the
downhole electronic cartridge has greatly improved the
response time, making it possible to achieve pretest
volumes as low as 0.1 cm
3
(previous hydraulic systems
did not allow less than a few cm
3
).

Tool Combinability -
Formation testers have traditionally been run alone or
on the bottom of the wireline toolstring, owing to their
inability to pass telemetry of other wireline tools.
Implementation of new through-wiring hardware and a
new software telemetry system now permits
combinations with all other wireline tools that can be
run anywhere above or below the new tool. The new
tool operates by means of an enhanced fast tool bus
(EFTB), that is faster, more versatile, and FTB-upward
compatible.

Pretest Measurements -
A typical pretest is shown on Fig. 2 below.


The green curve at the bottom of the plot represents the
hydraulic motor speed during the setting and unsetting
operation and the electromechanical motor speed during
the pretest phase. The dashed line is the mud
hydrostatic pressure during the test.

The initial pressure drop observed at the end of the set
sequence is caused by the filter valve piston retracting
inside the probe barrel to let the formation fluid access
the flowline. The purpose of this piston is to plug the
flowline until the tool is set and the probe extended,
thus preventing the mudcake to plug the flowline.

On the example shown in Fig. 2, the pretest was
repeated twice, and the second buildup confirmed the
reading of the first stabilized pressure within 0.1 psi.
There is no limit in the number of repeats that can be
done within a given tool set, as long as the cumulative
volume does not exceed the pretest chamber volume of
37 cm
3
.

Mobility Computation -
The computation of fluid mobility
|
|
.
|

\
|

k
derived from
the new tool uses the same formulation as previous
tools:

,
) (
4

=
e
b
t
t
p
f
d p
r
V
k

(1)

where p() is the flowline pressure at time , V
f
is the
volume of fluid produced by the formation between the
beginning of the drawdown and the end of the buildup
(t
b
and t
e
), r
p
is the probe radius, and is a geometrical
correction factor.

V
f
can be substantially different from the pretest
volume in situations of high mud overbalance where a
large part of the pretest volume is used in
decompressing the flowline to the formation pressure,
as shown in Fig. 3. In this particular example, out of 4
cm
3
of pretest volume, only 1 cm
3
is left to produce the
formation, as identified on Fig. 4. Using the pretest
volume for V
f
instead of the formation flow volume will
result in a mobility value overestimated by a factor of 3
in this case.
With the new tool the pretest volume is accurately
monitored during the pretest and the proper V
f
value is
used in the mobility computation.


Fig. 1 Pretest mechanism.
Fig. 2 Typical pretest.
set
retract
pretests
SPWLA 46
th
Annual Logging Symposium, June 26-29, 2005

3


FIELD TEST

Environment -
The field test was carried out during 2004 on a total of
57 jobs and over 1,300 pretests, covering a wide variety
of environments, including sandstone and carbonate
rocks and fluids ranging from gas to heavy oil under
steam recovery.
The field test was performed in fluid mobilities ranging
from as low as 0.004 mD/cp to several hundreds of
mD/cp. The range of bottomhole temperatures and
pressures is shown in Fig. 5.



Results: Faster Pretests -
In mobilities greater than about 1 mD/cp, the new tool
can perform a test (which includes the complete
sequence of getting on depth to moving to the next
station) in less than 1 min, as shown in the example in
Fig. 6. This 4- to 5-fold gain in performance was
obtained from a hydraulic system designed to allow fast
setting and unsetting of the tool (each operation takes
about 10 s) combined with the ability to take a very
small pretest volume (0.1 cm
3
in this example).


Intelligent pretest system -
With most wireline formation testers, a pretest can be
controlled manually by setting its volume, rate, and
the minimum pressure allowed during the drawdown.
The choice of the optimal parameters, especially the
volume of pretest to be used, however, is arbitrary and
may not be adapted to the formation being tested. On
Fig. 3 Pretest with high mud overbalance.
FLOWLINE
DECOMPRESSION
(3 CC)
FORMATION FLOW
(1 CC)
FLOWLINE
DECOMPRESSION
(3 CC)
FORMATION FLOW
(1 CC)
Figure 4 Magnified view of part of Fig 3 showing
decompression and formation flow volumes.
Fig. 6 Example of a 1-min pretest.
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
0 5000 10000 15000
Wellbore Pressure (psi)
T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

(
d
e
g
F
)
Tool 1
Tool 2
Tool 3
Tool 4

Fig. 5 Field test (P, T) environment.
M
SPWLA 46
th
Annual Logging Symposium, June 26-29, 2005
4
the one hand, producing too much volume from a very
tight formation will lead to prohibitive buildup time
before pressure stabilization can be achieved; on the
other hand, in highly permeable formations the pressure
will stabilize quickly and a larger fluid volume can
adequately be withdrawn during the pretest.

The dynamically controlled intelligent pressure
pretesting system automatically finds the best possible
compromise between the formation produced volume
and the buildup time, hence optimizing the time on
station for each measurement. This goal is achieved by
the automatic test sequence described schematically in
Fig. 7 and composed of four flow periods:
10-, 30-, or 50-s drawdown at a rate
q
1
= 0.05 cm
3
/s.
10-s drawdown at a rate q
2
= 0.1 cm
3
/s.
10-s drawdown at a rate q
3

40-s buildup


The purpose of the first flow period is to decompress
the flowline from the wellbore mud pressure to a value
below formation pressure. Its duration is adjustable to
cope with various amounts of mud overbalance (from
10 s, for a few hundred psi overbalance, to up 50 s,
when the estimated overbalance is in the order of 3,000
psi).

During the second flow period the fluid mobility is
evaluated by applying the square-root approximation of
the spherical flow equation (superposition from the first
flow period is neglected):

( ) ( ) ,
1
453 , 2
*
2 . 141
2
3
1 2 2 1
(
(

|
.
|

\
|
|
.
|

\
|
=
t k
c B
k r
B
q q p p
t

(2)
With (q
2
- q
1
) = 0.05 cm
3
/s, B = 1, = 0.2, t = 10 s,
and c
t
= 5 E 06 psi
-1
, the above expression reduces to:
( )
2
3
2 1
27 . 1 320 |
.
|

\
|
|
.
|

\
|
=
k k
p p

, (3)
which is solved iteratively for the mobility,
|
|
.
|

\
|

k
.
The third rate q
3
can then be computed so that the
buildup that follows reaches within 0.1 psi of reservoir
pressure after t seconds of build up. Writing the
buildup equation for 0.1 =p
r
- p(t):

,
1
) (
1
2453
) (
1
) (
1 2453
1 . 0
2 3
3
2 / 3
2 3 1 3
2
2 / 3
|
|
.
|

\
|

|
|
.
|

\
|
+

=
t t t t
q
k
c B
t t t t t t
q
k
c B
s
t
s
t



(4)

Solving the above for q
3,
with t
3
- t
2
= 10 s, t
3
- t
1
= 20 s,
t = 40 s, and the mobility evaluated from Eq. (3),
yields the following expression for q
3
in cm
3
/s:

, 0739 . 0 075 . 0
2 / 3
3

|
|
.
|

\
|
=

k
q
(5)

From Eq. (5), q
3
is negative for mobilities less than
1 mD/cp; in this case, the buildup will initiate at the end
of the second flow period.
For fluid mobilities between 0.1 mD/cp and 1 mD/cp,
the new pretest system can still be used, but the
stabilization criteria will be achieved after more than 40
s of buildup.

Pretest in a Low-Mobility Environment -
When used in tight formations, the new pretest system
described in the previous section will use pretest
volumes as low as 1 cm
3
. However, this may still be
too large in an extremely low mobility environment, as
it will result in excessive buildup time.
The duration of the build up for different pretest
volumes is illustrated in Fig. 8 where the difference
between the reservoir pressure and the actual flowline
pressure is plotted as a function of time. The fluid
mobility is assumed to be 1 mD/cp and the pretest rate
1 cm
3
/s. For a 0.1-cm
3
pretest volume, the buildup will
require 30 s to reach within 0.1 psi of the reservoir
pressure, compared to 380 s for a 5-cm
3
pretest volume.
PRESSURE
TIME (S)
p
1
FLOW#1
(0.05CC/S)
0
FLOW#2
(0.1CC/S)
20
FLOW#3
30 70 10
BuildUp
p
2
PRESSURE
TIME (S)
p
1
FLOW#1
(0.05CC/S)
0
FLOW#2
(0.1CC/S)
20
FLOW#3
30 70 10
BuildUp
p
2
Fig. 7 Intelligent pretest principle.
SPWLA 46
th
Annual Logging Symposium, June 26-29, 2005

5


Because the electromechanical pretest system allows us
to extract volumes as low as 0.1 cm
3
from the
formation, it reduces buildup times and allows testing
within a reasonable time in formations with mobility
values of a few D/cp. Such an example is shown in
Fig. 9 where a formation with a fluid mobility as low as
0.01 mD/cp was tested, and the pressure nearly
stabilized within 10 min.


Tool Combinations -
During the field test period the new tool was run in
combination with most open hole logging services,
including the triple combo, various types of sonic tools,
formation imaging tools, and nuclear magnetic
resonance tools.

Multiple benefits result from running the formation
tester in combination with other services:
reduction in rig time
limitation of tool sticking (running the tool in
the hole soon after the last circulation)
improved temperature stabilization of the
pressure gauges (the formation tester is at
bottomhole temperature during the logging
with other tools).


EXAMPLE APPLICATION:
TIGHT GAS SAND RESERVOIR

In this Texas tight sandstone, gas-bearing reservoir with
permeability ranging from a few microdarcies to tens of
millidarcies, gas production relies on massive hydraulic
fracturing. In this mature environment, past production
and depletion created large differential pressures
between the various reservoir layers. Therefore,
knowing the profile of reservoir pressure versus depth
was of paramount importance when designing the
fracture program.
Several attempts had been made to obtain such a
pressure profile in this formation using other testers, but
the low-mobility character of the fluid combined with
the relatively large pretest volume of 5 cm3 or more
lead to prohibitive buildup time and truncated buildups;
therefore, this type of measurement was eventually
abandoned.
Failure to characterize the pressure distribution will
often lead to fracturing of the entire reservoir thickness,
including zones that are already depleted, resulting in
unnecessary completion expenses and lost production.

The new tool was run and the ability to pretest with a
very small volume was extensively used.
In less than 7 hr, 58 pretests were attempted and 56
valid formation pressures were recovered (2 tests were
dry). The plot shown in Fig. 10 presents the results in
terms of mud-gradient, in green, and formation pressure
distribution in red.

Those results clearly identify a highly depleted zone in
the middle section of the reservoir, while the last 500 ft
of pay is still at a relatively high pressure. A fracturing
stimulation design based on this pressure profile
indicated that 4 fracturing stages were to be performed
instead of the 10 stages normally run on this field. This
resulted in a saving of US$400,000. Moreover, the post
fracture well production has been 50% more prolific
than similar wells in this area.



Fig. 9 Low-mobility, low-volume pretest.
Fig. 8 Buildup time for various pretest volumes.
M
SPWLA 46
th
Annual Logging Symposium, June 26-29, 2005
6





CONCLUSIONS

Extensive field testing conducted in a variety of
environmental conditions has demonstrated that the
wireline single-probe formation tester can
measure formation pressure and calculate fluid
mobility in formations with fluid mobility
values down to 0.01 mD/cP
perform automatic pretests with an optimal
volume-time combination, using the intelligent
pretest mode
acquire 1-min pretests in a wide range of fluid
mobility scenarios above 1 mD/cP.
be run combined with other open-hole logging
services
reduce both the rig time and the risk of tool
sticking by limiting the time spent on each tool
station.



NOMENCLATURE

B = Formation volume factor
c
t
= Compressibility of the fluid
t = Duration of the buildup
= Porosity of the reservoir
k = Permeability of the formation
= Fluid viscosity
P
r
= Pressure of the formation
q
1
= Flow rate (flow period # 1)
q
2
= Flow rate (flow period # 2)
q
3
= Flow rate (flow period # 3)
r* = Equivalent probe radius
t
b
= Time - beginning of pretest
t
e
= Time - end of build up
t
1
= Time - end of flow period # 1
t
2
= Time - end of flow period # 2
t
3
= Time - end of flow period # 3
t
e
= Time - end of build up



REFERENCES

Meister, M., Pragt, J., Buysch, A., Witte, J., Due, G.N.,
and Hope, R., 2004, Pressure gradient testing with a
new formation pressure testing during drilling tool: SPE
paper 90425 presented at the Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Houston, TX, September
2629.

Parkes R., Carnegie A., Neville, T., and Hookway, S.,
1998, New techniques in wireline formation testing in
tight reservoirs: SPE paper 50128 presented at the Asia
Pacific Oil and Gas Conference, Perth, Australia,
October 1214.

Pelissier-Combescure, J., Pollock, D., and Wittmann,
M., 1979, Application of repeat formation tester
pressure measurements in the Middle East: SPE paper
7775 presented at the Middle East Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Bahrain, February 2528.



ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Yves Manin is a principal reservoir engineer at
Schlumberger-Riboud Product Center in Clamart,
France, where he works in the tool evaluation group.
Previously he had various assignments in Africa and
Europe, initially as a field engineer, later as a reservoir
engineer in charge of several field studies involving
numerical simulations and working on well testing and
production logging interpretation. He holds an
engineering degree from Ecole Nationale Superieure
des Mines dAles, France and a MS degree in

mud gr adient
0.493 psi/f t
8500
9000
9500
10000
10500
11000
0 2000 4000 6000
pr e s s ur e ( ps i)
d
e
p
t
h

(
f
t
)
Figure 10 Formation and mud pressure gradients.
SPWLA 46
th
Annual Logging Symposium, June 26-29, 2005

7
Petroleum Engineering from Heriot-Watt University,
Edinburgh, Scotland.

Aaron Jacobson is a project manager at Schlumberger-
Riboud Product Center in Clamart, France, where he
works in the formation evaluation wireline department.
Previously he had various assignments in the United
States as a tool development engineer and manager of
various wireline and drilling products and technologies.
He holds an engineering degree from the University of
Pennsylvania, USA, a MS in mechanical engineering
from the University of Michigan, USA, a MEM from
Northwestern University USA, and an MBA from the
University of Houston USA.

Jeffrey Cordera is a worldwide product champion at the
Schlumberger-Riboud Product Center in Clamart,
France. Previously he has held various operation
assignments in the USA, both land and offshore, from
field engineer to service delivery manager. He holds a
BS in petroleum engineering from Texas A&M
University, College Station, Texas.



M