Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Abstract
The industry is focusing on cost reductions by saving on
expensive rig time and on reducing the impact on the
environment during well testing. Fluid samples for field
developments are more often taken solely by wireline
formation tester/samplers (WFT/S) and not necessarily
followed by flow to surface in a drill stem test. It has also
been more usual to drill exploration wells with oil based
mud in order to increase the drilling rate. These measures
reduce the likeliness for good quality fluid samples and
increase the uncertainty in field development projects
related to fluid data. A systematic approach to fluid
sampling is presented which discuss the different aspects
related the quality of fluid data obtained depending on the
sampling method, type of reservoir fluid system and
formation properties. Recommendations for these decisionmaking processes are presented.
Introduction
Managing efficiently the production of natural gas and oil
requires accurate data on the characteristics of the reservoir
fluid and the phase and property change as the fluid moves
from the reservoir through the transport and production
systems. The objective of reservoir fluid sampling is to
collect a sample that is representative of the reservoir fluid
at the depth and at the time of sampling and suitable for
laboratory studies of the physical and chemical properties
change during production. A non-representative sample will
not reflect the true properties of the reservoir fluid and may
result in costly errors in design and reservoir management
regardless of the accuracy in the laboratory data. One should
also keep in mind that the sample represent at the best only
the point in the reservoir where it was obtained and there is
no assurance that the sample is representative of the fluid
throughout the reservoir.
Planning
A successful sampling program in a well requires good
planning. The right sampling equipment and techniques
have to be used. Also the timing is important. In most
situations the best conditions for taking a representative
sample of the reservoir fluid is during the exploration phase
before the formation pressure has started to drop. Some
specialised fluid studies may be identified later and the
required samples taken successfully during the production
phase. There will be differences in the challenge depending
on if the reservoir fluid is an oil, a near-critical fluid, a gas
condensate or a dry gas. The well will be logged prior to any
reservoir fluid sampling is started. The logging will give
information that is very useful in the planning of the
sampling operation.
It has become more and more common in offshore wells
to plan for most of the samples to be taken in open hole by
wireline formation testers in order to save on expensive rig
time and to reduce the impact on the environment from
standard drill stem testing. The selected sampling intervals
will be based on logs. Intervals with good permeability and
good hole quality increase the chances for a successful
sampling run with a WFT. The height of the hydrocarbon
column may tell if a compositional change with depth will
be important and if several intervals have to be sampled.
One should try to draw advantage of the bubble point
gradient (typically 0.2-0.4 bar/m) in a situation were the
fluid is close to saturation. The pressure gradient in the
hydrocarbon column together with the reservoir conditions
will identify the type of reservoir fluid, Figure 1. The degree
of undersaturation may be evaluated from the use of
correlations. Wire line fluid samples should and will in most
situations be taken as a part of the well logging operation.
These samples will usually not be truly representative due to
the difficulties with well conditioning and an effective clean
up. There may also be effects on the reservoir fluid from the
decreased temperature in the vicinity of the well bore from
the mud circulation. A gas condensate can drop below the
dew point and high molecular waxes/resins may deposit
from an oil. WFT reservoir fluid samples may be of
sufficient quality for many oil developments and have the
potential of saving exploration cost by reducing the number
of drill stem tests in a gas condensate reservoir. The quality
of the obtained sample should be assessed on site by a
laboratory unit with the necessary equipment.
In any case the wire line fluid samples will be important
to optimise the sampling program if the well would be drill
stem tested. The logs and the WFT sample will make it
possible to decide on whether to take bottom hole samples
SPE 69427
SPE 69427
SPE 69427
SPE 69427
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
SPE 69427
SPE 69427
0.55
0.50
Oil
0.45
Gas Condensate
0.40
0.35
200
400
600
800
Pressure (bar)
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
10
100
Permeability (mD)
1000
CVD
30
4 mole-% OBM
25
20
2 mole % OBM
15
10
0 mole % OBM
5
0
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
Pressure (bar)
Figure 3. Calculated effect of OBM contamination on the liquid drop out during CVD on a North Sea Gas Condensate
(the contamination is given relative to reservoir fluid sample)
SPE 69427
SPE 69427
Logging
P res s ure,
T em perature
F luid T ype,
S aturation P res .
P res s ure
G radient
P oros ity,
Hole Q uality
M ud
W BM , O BM
WFT
P lan
S am pling
QC
G O R, D ens ity, O BM , P sat
N ew S am ple
D ec is ion
S am ple O K
D S T S am pling
Figure 4. Decision flow diagram of planning, sampling and evaluation of reservoir fluid samples from wireline formation testers
10
SPE 69427
Table 1. CGR versus flowing bottom hole pressure for a gas condensate (Pi = 358 bar, Psat = 247 bar based on the average CGR)
Flow
period
Pressure
bottom hole
bar
150.7
115.7
195.4
158.3
Sampling
Max
MF 1
MF 2
CGR
20 bar, 25 C
m3/KSm3
28.4
28.8
29.3
31.1
St. Dev.
CGR
%
5.3
6.7
10.8
7.8
D S T S a m pling - O il
W FT
N ature of
Res ervoir
F luid
O il
P s at < P b h
P s at
P s at ~ P i
G as c ond.
M ethod
P s at < P w h
Bottom Hole
S am ple
W ell Head
S am ple
Figure 5. Decision flow diagram for DST sampling of a reservoir oil (Psat= saturation pressure,
Pbh=flowing bottom hole pressure, Pwh=flowing well head pressure, Pi=Reservoir pressure)
S eparator
S am ple
SPE 69427
W FT
O il
N ature of
Res ervoir
F luid
P s at < P b h
P sat
P s at ~ P i
G as c ond.
M eth o d
Bottom Hole
S am ple
S eparator
S am ple
P s at < P w h
W ell Head
S am ple
Figure 6. Decision flow diagram for DST sampling of a critical fluid (Psat= saturation pressure,
Pbh=flowing bottom hole pressure, Pwh=flowing well head pressure, Pi=Reservoir pressure)
11
12
30
20
10
Test Sep.
MultiSplit
0
-10
-20
-30
0
500
1000
1500
2000
Figure 7. Comparison between isokinetic split stream GOR measurements (Multisplit) and the value
obtained from the test separator (31 individual flows, Test separator GOR +- 13.5 % Multisplit GOR +- 5.5 %)
1.00
0.25 m3/KSm3
0.95
0.50 m3/KSm3
0.90
0.85
1.00 m3/KSm3
1.25 m3/KSm3
0.80
0.75
70
80
90
100
Figure 8. Gas rate correction factor due to condensate entrainment as a function of separator
efficiency and CGR in separator outlet gas
SPE 69427
SPE 69427
13
D S T S a m pling - G a s C o nde ns a te
W FT
N atur of
res ervoir
fluid
G as Condens ate
O il
Crit. F luid
Qo
< 35 1
> 35
S m 3 /d
Qg
< 10000
S plit s tream
at w ell head
m /d @
P s, T s
T es t S eparator
1
2
> 10000
Is okinetic
m eas urem ent
s ep. effic ienc y