Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Introduction
One key to meeting our future energy requirements is
more efficient production of new and remaining reserves.
To this end, information is needed on conditions down
hole, including accurate down-hole formation pressures.
The Schlumberger Repeat Formation TestetrM' (RFT) is
an open-hole wireline device capable of providing such
pressure data with minimal demands for drilling-rig time.
The RFT may be set any number of times during a
single logging run. At each setting depth, a "pretest" is
made in which small samples offluid are withdrawn from
the formation. During this pretest, the fluid pressure in
the formation adjacent to the wellbore is monitored until
equilibrium formation pressure is reached. These RFT
pressure data are recorded at the surface on both analog
and high-resolution digital scales.
The pretest fluid samples are not saved. However,
after the pretests in a zone of interest, another larger fluid
sample can be taken optionally and retained, with the
possibility of retrieving two such fluid samples per trip in
the hole. In this paper, however, interest is directed to the
large number of pressure measurements that can be made
by setting the tool and going through the pretest cycle at
successively different levels.
Recent experience of Chevron U.S.A. Inc., in the
Rangely Field of Colorado is described to demonstrate
the quality of the pressure measurements and the reliability of tool operation. Chevron applies the pressure
information to the planning and monitoring of a sec0149-2136n9/0001-6822$OO.25
1979 Society of PetrolelJll Engineers of AIME
This paper describes the Repeat Formation Tester, @) a tool that can make on one open-hole trip
an unlimited number ofpressure determinations. Down-hole pressure data from the tool are
used to monitor and enhance the effectiveness ofa waterflood in Rangeley Field, CO. Datafrom
this tool also are used in a technique to evaluate permeability; results in U.S. Gulf Coast wells
are compared with those from sidewall cores.
JANUARY 1979
25
ANTI STICK
PAD
b
Fig. 1-Setting section of the Repeat Formation Tester<fil' (RFT)
in retracted and set positions.
PACKER
r---""'i~FILTER
FLOW
LINE
EOUALIZING i
VALVE
(to mud
column)
SEAL VALVE
(to lower
sample chamber)
PROBE
PRESSURE
'GAGE
CHAMBER# I
CHAMBER# 2
PRETEST
CHAMBER
SEAL VALVE
(to upper
sample chamber)
FORMATION
PRESSURE
Fig. 3-Schematic of RFT analog-pressure recording.
26
Any number
1,23/ 4 ,6, and 12
Accuracy
(%)
Resolution
(psi)
Repeatability
(%)
0.98
0.29
1.0
1.0
0.05
0.05
0.18
1.0
0.05
No temperature correction
With temperature correction
Special "at temperature"
calibration
'Based on percent/ulf-scale, 10,OOO-psi gauge.
10000
,1
Te~INo
1000
,I
1()(J()(
__
100
r~
1
o---~
HYDROSTATIC PRESSURE-
40901
EiS1
r=~
!-=
1.
I 0
~p.
p~
I
J -, . 'I I
fCD
t
-1.12
""t
lJ
1=:::=
!:..r-.
'" .. "':=
STUOY AREA
~
1'~
rl...
I
i
i
i
-1=
i
i
::;t:: F-
i
I
.~~~
iO~=
1300
TOOL SETTING
6 Sec
It
SHUT-IN PRESSURE
FIitOM PRETEST
JANUARY 1979
ANALOG PRESSURE
RECORDING, psi
0
PROOUCING WELLS
"
INJECTION WELLS
27
9
16
18
21
22
23
24
Depth
~
5,767
5,768
6,055
6,055
6,063
6,064
6,165
6,165
6,166
6,135
6,135.5
6,276
6,276
6,520
6,520
6,551
6,551
~785
5,785
6,100
6,100
6,276
6,276
5,980
5,980
5,967.5
5,968
5,995
5,997
6,104.5
6,105
Porosity,
(%)
q,
17.0
18.0
15.5
15.5
16.0
16.0
15.5
15.5
14.0
15.5
15.0
17.0
17.0
14.5
14.5
14.5
14.5
15
15
16.0
16.0
8.0
8.0
13.5
13.5
14
14
13
13
12
12
Pressure
(psi)
Buildup
Time
(minutes)
1,619
1,618
2,625
2,625
2,627
2,629
2,535
2,533
2,535
2,909
2,908
2,809
2,810
3,236
3,147
1,436
1,437
2,876
2,864
3,018
3,020
3,060
2,810
2,913
2,909
2,035
2,037
3,010
2,953
892
870
0.5
3.5
2.0
2.5
2.0
1.0
2.0
2.0
1.5
3.0
3.5
1.0
1.0
3.9
8.3
0.9
0.8
1.0
1.3
1.3
3.1
3.0
11.4
2.0
1.8
1.8
1.9
0.9
4.6
4.6
4.0
Pressure
Difference
(psi)
o
2
89
12
2
250
4
2
57
22
COMPENSATED
FORMATION DENSITY LOG
GAMMA RAY
BULK DENSITY
PRESS~E
PROFILE
RESERVOIR PRESSURE
(psi)
2.0
2000
PRESSURE
OVERBALANCE
1000
2000
PSI
3000
'<==--I: j
J-----
f-----"J-----t;r1 ----
-~
~.11-------~---++--+--+-----1
8T
~----~1
Fig. 6-Density log and pressure profile showing typical Weber
reservoir and Reservoir Zones A through E.
JANUARY 1979
29
WELL II
WELL 12
2000
2000
WELL 14
WELL 8
(psi)
0 1000 2000 3000
WELL 5
2000
WELL 4
2000
WELL 24
WELL 2
WELL I
2000
2000
2000
2000
O~-L-tT~O==P~W~E~B~E~R=r~--~~~-L----L-~-L--~--r-~--~-t~L---~~~----~i-~--~--r-~,
100
200
300
500
600
ft.
Fig. 8-Cross-section (along line of section shown in Fig. 9) illustrating lateral and vertical pressure variations.
further study of the cross-sections and with average pressure data displayed and contoured on maps, coherent
trends appear.
Some anomalous pressures are exemplified by the tests
in the lowermost sand of Zone B in Wells 11 and 12 in
Fig. 8. While these sands occur at the same stratigraphic
position, their pressures differ by about 1,000 psi (6.9
MPa) in these adjacent wells. They also differ greatly in
pressure from the sands above and below this zone. These
sands apparently are isolated from the main reservoir and
from each other.
Maps of average pressure in the various reservoir
zones portray reasonable patterns and trends of pressure
variation, in spite of the radical local pressure changes
noted above. A pressure-contour map of Zone D (Fig. 9)
illustrates trends established in the area of study. Similar
trends of low- and high-pressure areas persist through all
reservoir zones, although significant deviations from the
trends do occur. The pressures and variations in pressure
(as demonstrated by profIles, cross-sections, and maps)
,.
,.
,.
---~-
,.
LINE OF SECTION
FOR FIGURE 8
,.
-------.-
.----~--,-
----~-
,.
,.
20
~~
@15
2361
2.
0':
,. 0
0
0
,.
@13/'
1377
/..
.'~
854
,.
29
~
~
.'
Fig. 9-Contour map showing average pressures in Zone 0 of Weber reservoir. Pressures corrected to datum of -900ft (- 274m).
30
Fqf-t
21T1't::.p
, ......................... (la)
Permeability Evaluation
The pressure differentials during the pretests (indicated
by t::.Pl and t::.P2 in Fig. 3) are sensitive to the formation
permeability. Generally, the greater the pressure decrease required to maintain the pretest flow rate, the
lower the permeability. For very low permeabilities, the
chambers are drawn to near-vacuum conditions since the
formation is not capable of producing at the required rate
and flow rate is reduced. If the formation is isotropic and
the flow is spherical in character, the analog pressure
record may be used for a quick indication of permeability
(Fig. 10). (Compare the difference values between drawdown and final formation pressures.)
Quantitative evaluation of permeability is based on
steady-state spherical type flow into the probe. The per-
I
ABOUT
IOO~d
--
I
I
I II
...................... (lb)
k = 22.75 qf-t ,
t::.p
L
1
k = 3,300 qf-t ,
t::.p
'~
ABOUT IOmd
b
.i
\/
......
--
III
C
I
F =.5
F = 1.0
1IIIIIIIIIlllil
ABOUT.I md
~ 10.1
a::
::>
til
SPHERICAL
FLOW
HEMISPHERICAL
FLOW
'-
--
/\
ABOUT I md
(/)
(/)
10.1
a::
15
>- a..
x
~ ..
TIGHT-I-
I-a::
::>
til(/)
~~oa::
>-0..
,x I
-10.1
e -[--
.-1-
\
\
..1.
F =.75
BOREHOLE CORRECTED
FLOW
Fig. 11-Aow regimes and associated flow shape factors, F.
31
..\,:
.".
+
100
ct"{'"
+t
.t ; + k"",i....
f
~
10
r.
..
rq
l", /~;i
It'."
,.,)"'"
j
i""""""""""'"
ii""
I.
Summary
l,,)'/"
. Cor. Data Point
AverOQe
1"""",,""""""/'
0.11"""",)'
0.1
at
Cor. Data
100
10
1.0
PRETEST DRAWDOWN
1000
PERMEABILITY (md.)
x (0.625)
(0.5)
2,000
0 52
=.
d
m,
(0.625)(0.5)
13.79
Acknowledgments
We thank Chevron U.S.A. Inc. for permission touse and
publish pressure data acquired in Rangely Field, CO,
during 1976 and 1977. We also thank R. E. Hobart of
Chevron, who is responsible for developing much of the
pressure-mud log applications in Rangely Field, and
T. H. Zimmerman of Schlumberger for his assistance
with the RFT permeability evaluations.
References
0.52 md.
32