SPE 94708

The Power of Real-Time Monitoring and Interpretation in Wireline Formation

TestingCase Studies
H. Elshahawi, SPE, M. Hashem, SPE, and D. McKinney, Shell Intl. E&P Inc., and M. Ardila, SPE, and C. Ayan,
SPE, Schlumberger Oilfield Services
Copyright 2005, Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2005 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition held in Dallas, Texas, U.S.A., 9 12 October 2005.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in a proposal 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 a proposal of not more than 300
words; illustrations may not be copied. The proposal 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
Modern wireline formation testers (WFTs) are able to collect
a massive amount of data at multiple depths, thus helping to
quantify changes in rock and fluid properties along the
wellbore, to define hydraulic flow units, and to understand the
reservoir architecture. They are being routinely used in a wide
range of applications that spans pressure and mobility
profiling vs. depth, fluid sampling, downhole fluid analysis;
interval pressure transient testing (IPTT), and micro
fracturing. Due to the complex tool strings and the elaborate
operational aspects involved in wireline formation testing,
success requires detailed upfront planning and procedural
design as well as real-time operational and interpretational
support.
It is becoming increasingly critical for operating and service
company experts to remotely monitor and interpret WFT
surveys in real-time through web-based systems. The
importance of meeting all rock and fluid data acquisition
objectives cannot be overstated, given the high cost of
offshore operations and the implications of obtaining false or
misleading information. The main objective of real-time
monitoring remains to assure that the planned data is acquired
according to pre-established procedures and contingency
plans. However, even in developed reservoirs, unexpected
circumstances arise, requiring immediate response and
modifications to the pre-planned job procedures.
Unexpectedly low or high mobilities, probe plugging,
unanticipated fluid types, presence of multiple phases, and
excessive fluid contamination are but a few examples of such
circumstances that would require real-time decision making
and procedural modifications. Real-time decisions may

include acquiring more pressure data points, extending

sampling depths to several zones, extending or shortening
sampling times, repeating micro-hydraulic fracture reopening/closure cycles, as well as real-time permeability,
composition, or anisotropy interpretation to determine
optimum transient durations.
This paper describes several examples of formation tester
surveys that have been remotely monitored in real-time to
ensure that all WFT evaluation objectives are met. The power
of real-time monitoring and interpretation will be illustrated
through these case studies.
Introduction
It is a common practice to have wireline formation tester
(WFT) surveys in the evaluation program of newly drilled or
existing cased wells. The applications vary from offshore
deepwater exploration and appraisal wells, to old cased and
hole development wells later in the life of a field. Given the
wide range of objectives and combinations, each WFT
evaluation program is unique. Some may only include a
pressure gradient survey for reservoir depletion and
communication information whereas others may seek
information on the precise nature of the hydrocarbon fluids
and water in terms of chemical and physical properties, phase
behavior, and commingling tendencies. Cased hole surveys
might look for bypassed hydrocarbon zones or have
objectives, which could not be achieved during the open hole
phase. Regardless of the type of surveys performed,
understanding the exploration and appraisal or field
development objectives and translating these into acquisition
objectives is essential for success.
Figures 1 and 2 schematically illustrate the real-time
monitoring concept in which data is viewed by authorized
personnel in real-time anywhere around the world and via
which the logging field engineer and wellsite witness virtually
collaborate with service and operating company experts
throughout the job. This paper includes several examples of
WFT surveys that were monitored and supervised in real-time.
The cases presented span the entire spectrum of WFT
applications including pressures and gradients, sampling and
downhole fluid analysis, interval pressure transient testing,
and microFracturing.

Downhole Fluid Analysis

Understanding the nature of reservoir fluids is essential for the
optimization of completion and facilities design and reservoir
production strategies. Gas-to-Oil ratios, saturation pressures
and viscosities are among the fluid parameters that determine
the economic viability of a prospect. Water sampling is also
emerging as an important, although often neglected
application, which has profound effects on projects with
possible corrosion and scale issues. Getting representative
fluid properties early in the life of a reservoir is a must,
especially in deep water and expensive projects.
Downhole fluid analysis (DFA) is emerging as a powerful
technique to help identify compartmentalization. Fluid
comparisons conducted in real-time and at downhole
conditions help identify compartments, which may not be
achieved by pressure gradients or seismic information.
Moreover, downhole analysis is performed with live fluids at
in-situ conditions, avoiding the possible alteration that may
affect surface samples during sample handling, transfer,
restoration, recombination, or storage.

SPE 94708

measurement is described in the literature.7 The recently

developed Composition Fluid Analyzer has been described
elsewhere including the validation of its measurements in
laboratory and field conditions.10 The CFA provides the
weight percentages of methane (CH4), other hydrocarbon
gases (C2-C5), hydrocarbon liquids (C6+), and CO2. The
CFA also provides downhole GOR for light crudes to
condensates in the range of 1500 - 25,000 scf/bbl. In general,
the CFA is more accurate for GOR determination for fluids
with GOR>2000 scf/bbl, while the LFA is more accurate for
GOR<1500 scf/bbl.
Figure 3 shows a schematic of a common WFT configuration
used for sampling, fluid analysis and transient testing. Both
the LFA and the CFA are utilized in this configuration. Their
position with respect to the pump can change for different
applications. The two tools together provide compositional
analysis over a broad range of crude oils and condensates.
Below are several examples that demonstrate the power of real
time downhole fluid analysis and the utility of having two
complementary analyzer tools in the WFT string.
Case I: Fluid analysis, oil example

During any sampling operation, including surface sampling

while testing, two main risks exist. These are excessive
miscible contamination of reservoir fluids with mud filtrate
and phase alteration due to excessive drawdown. As the
pumping operation progresses, the corresponding fraction of
mud filtrate contamination generally decreases. It is
imperative to monitor the level of contamination to ensure that
the fluid sample collected is of adequate quantity and quality.
At high enough miscible contamination levels, the sampled
fluid properties become corrupted and the value of the sample
is greatly reduced. To discriminate between OBM filtrate and
crude oil, color, methane content and GOR are measured
during WFT sampling.3-7 The OCM algorithm (Oil based mud
filtrate Contamination Monitoring) is used to quantitatively
predict the level of OBM contamination at past, current, and
future times during a given pumping station.
For water
sampling, a recent technique to monitor miscible WBM
contamination involves a water-soluble dye added into the
drilling fluid8. The colored WBM filtrate can be easily
identified in the flow stream with the LFA* (Live Fluid
Analyzer) which can perform downhole optical spectroscopy.
Pressure drawdown is necessary to induce flow from the
formation. If the pressure drawdown is excessive, phase
separation can occur, which usually affects sample quality.
Gas phase can come out of solution or liquid dew can drop out
of a retrograde gas. Flowing free gas can be detected with the
LFA by index of refraction.9 It is also possible to detect dew
formation by measuring fluorescence of the flowline fluids
using the CFA* (Composition Fluid Analyzer).10,11
Following quantification of miscible OBM filtrate
contamination, the first in-situ measurement of formation fluid
properties was the Gas Oil Ratio (GOR). This was achieved
by measuring the dissolved methane vs. liquid oil fraction in a
single-phase crude oil.6 The LFA can measure the GOR in the
range of 0-2500 scf/bbl. The physical basis of this

This survey was run using the two-probe string shown in

Figure 3 to sample and test for compartmentalization.12 An
LFA-CFA combination was run, with the LFA upstream of the
pump module and the CFA above. The lower probe was
placed below a potential flow barrier while the top probe was
placed above it. Both probes were used during the operation.
For t <5000 seconds, flow was occurring through the lower
probe, while for t>5000 seconds, it was taking place through
the upper probe. The OCM technique was used to monitor
contamination real time. The contamination results (Figure 4)
show that while pumping from each probe the contamination
levels were very low, around 2.5%, which was later confirmed
at the laboratory.12
Figure 5 shows the individual optical density channels and the
real time GOR buildup profile. The mobilized sand plugged
the lower probe at around 3400 seconds into the test causing
the pressure to drop below bubble point as evidenced by LFA
gas flags (not shown) and the sudden decrease in GOR. Real
time monitoring was essential to recognize plugging and to
take necessary steps to clean the flowing probe. Once the
sand plug was successfully cleaned using appropriate action
decided during the job, all values returned to normal levels,
and the pressure and GOR were allowed to buildup to
establish a stable level. It was then decided to stop the flow
and start it again from the top probe and to continue for the
same duration. For the same pumping duration (~2000
seconds each), the fluid from below (at 3400 seconds) and
above (at 7000 seconds) the potential barrier are nearly
identical. Note that producing from both probes with the same
duration does not ensure the same contamination levels, but in
this particular case, the contamination levels above and below
the barrier were very low and were quite close. It was
concluded, therefore, that the two zones were in flow
communication.

SPE 94708

The CFA results for the same station are presented in Figure 6,
showing GOR, component partial densities, and fluid
composition in weight %. The fluids sampled above and
below the potential flow barrier again look nearly identical on
the CFA, implying flow communication. It is worth noting
that strong fluorescence was observed by the CFA in contrast
to a very low fluorescence observed when the tools are seeing
only mud (for elapsed time t <1500 sec). (not shown). This
served as an additional indication of cleanup.
Case II: Fluid analysis, gas example
This sampling survey was run with a tool string similar to the
one shown in Figure 3 but the positions of the LFA and CFA
were reversed12. By examining the logs (Figure 7) especially
the density-neutron crossover as well as mud gas log data, the
real-time witness suspected a dry gas zone. He computed what
density this composition would correspond to under downhole
temperature and pressure and then ensured that sufficient
pressure points were acquired to construct a reliable pressure
gradient. The pressure gradient line yielded a density that is
very close to the estimate (in this case 0.235 g/cc) confirming
that this was indeed a dry gas zone (Figure 8). He then looked
for the right signature on the DFA logs while sampling. The
low optical density on the LFA log and the gas detector (pink
stripe) also confirmed that the fluid is gas. The CFA
composition shown in Figure 9 indicated methane with a
partial density of 0.23 g/cc, almost identical to the measured
in-situ density and to subsequent lab measurements. The
fluorescence signature of this fluid (not shown) was minimal,
as the fluid was a lean gas.
There is more complexity to this survey than meets the eye,
however. Earlier during the sampling sequence, missing gas
flags and strong coloration were noted on the LFA until 4000
seconds (Figure 8). Since the CFA did not show much filtrate
signal below the pump during that same period, the oil signal
seen at the LFA above the pump was attributed to fluid
trapped in the pump and in the flowline above rather than
filtrate or particle influx from the formation or condensate
liquid dropout. Due to the momentum of the flowing gas
phase, the gas detector window of the LFA was not cleared of
these fluids. When this was noted in real time, the remote
witness instructed the logging engineer to abruptly increase
the flow rate to blow off the contents of the flowline. This was
repeated a couple of times after 4000 seconds into the test.
Gas flags and LFA optical densities then started to read as
expected. The presence of two spectral analysis modules in the
string was key to recognize the phenomenon and take
necessary action.
In this case, everything fit together nicely at the end. The CFA
composition and density were almost identical to the density
inferred from the pressure gradient, to the in-situ density
computed from a PVT model at the reservoir pressure and
temperature, and to subsequent lab analysis results, but this
would never have been the case if the job were not monitored
in real time. Such consistency checks are valuable only when
performed in real time because corrective action can be taken
when it matters not after the fact when it is too late.

Compositional Grading
Though
the
industry
has
long
recognized
compartmentalization and fluid compositional grading as
realities, it is now becoming increasingly clear that
compositional grading is more of the rule rather than the
exception.1,2 Several operators now account for the possibility
of compositionally graded hydrocarbon fluid columns.
Compositional grading can be due to gravity, biodegradation,
leaky seals, multiple charges, real time reservoir charging,
water stripping, thermal gradients and convective mixing and
cannot be readily modeled. Proper identification and
understanding of compositional changes thus requires accurate
measurements sampled at the appropriate density.
Case III: Compositional grading example
In this example, multiple oil sands were found as indicated by
the pressure-gradient derived densities and CFA densities
shown in Figure 10. Note that higher in the column around
x060 ft, the gradient density is 0.67 g/cc while lower in the
column around x250 ft, the gradient density is 0.61 g/cc. Only
the CFA log data is shown in this figure. The top DFA station
at x070 ft shows the gas and liquid masses for this oil are 0.12
g/cc to 0.60 g/cc; and thus the gas to liquid mass ratio is 0.20.
The CFA log quality indicator is green indicating good log
quality. A close look at the third DFA station at x250 ft
indicates the gas and liquid masses for this oil are 0.14 g/cc
and 0.57 g/cc, and so the gas to liquid mass ratio is 0.25.
Comparing the two DFA stations indicates the presence of
lower density oil further down the oil column. This implies
there is an intervening sealing barrier between x060 feet and
x250 ft. This is in concert with the pressure-derived density as
well as mud gas log data.
Moving further down the column, still on Figure 10, the CFA
gas and liquid mass densities at x270 ft are 0.14 g/cc and 0.58
g/cc, while at x370 ft, the CFA gas and liquid mass densities
are 0.12 g/cc and 0.62 g/cc. That is, there is a lower gas
fraction lower in the column between x250 ft and x370 ft. This
kind of GOR change is expected for an oil column in vertical
communication. The open hole logs show this vertical span is
fairly homogenous. Analyses of the gradient densities are in
agreement with this assessment. At x250 ft the gradient
density is 0.61 g/cc while at x370 ft, the gradient density is
0.67 g/cc. Vertical communication is suggested for this section
of the log.
Using this type of data in real-time, the team can optimize the
sampling program so as to effectively and efficiently describe
the vertical distribution of hydrocarbons. Moreover, such
information about vertical fluid distribution and flow
communication provides invaluable insights into the HC
charging, migration and entrapment mechanisms in the
reservoir.
Interval Pressure Transient Testing
Interval Pressure Transient Testing (IPTT) with formation
testers has been covered extensively in the literature.13-29.

Figure 11 shows a schematic of possible WFT configurations

for IPTT. A probe or dual packer is used to produce fluids
while other probes serve as observation points. Transients
may last from a few minutes to a few hours, and the acquired
pressure and rate data are analyzed for horizontal and vertical
permeabilities. The volumes investigated are small compared
to full-scale well tests, usually tens of feet around the
wellbore, but due to the localized nature of such tests, IPTT
surveys have the unique capability to capture medium-scale
heterogeneities and anisotropy, which would be hard or
impossible to identify with full scale well tests.
Heterogeneities such as the thin layers of super-permeability
streaks found in some Middle Eastern reservoirs may not be
critical during single-phase flow but can drastically affect
long-term reservoir performance when multiphase production
commences.
Case IV: IPTT example using dual packer with two
vertical observation probes
In this example, we describe the largest and most complex
formation tester string run to date. The string consisted of 18
WFT modules as shown in Figure 12. Two dual-packer
modules with 4 packer elements enabled IPTT, pressures,
sampling, fluid analysis and microFrac in a single run. The
toolstring had 5 multisample modules carrying 30 sample
chambers, 12 of them being single phase bottles. Moreover, 2
pumps, a Live Fluid Analyzer, a Compositional Fluid
Analyzer, 2 probes, Flow Control (used for microFrac), and
one sample chamber with a special cushion to pulse the
formation completed the string. The recovered samples were
validated on the rig. The string was conveyed on drill pipe,
and the survey took 113 hours. Real time monitoring by
experts at several different locations was key to success where
25 samples were recovered out of 25 attempts at 5 different
depths. IPTT tests were conducted successfully at 8 stations
followed by 2 successful microFrac tests. The outstanding
quality of the IPTT data allowed the operator to cancel a
planned well testing program, saving nearly 10 million dollars
in the process.
Figure 13 shows the Flow Regime Identification plot for one
of the transients monitored real time. Note that the pressure
derivatives for the packer and two observation probes stabilize
at the same level during late times, indicating that all show the
same average permeability in the whole formation. Having
noticed a good response on all probes and the dual packer via
real time monitoring, and noting that radial flow is not a prerequisite to obtain permeability anisotropy from an IPTT, the
decision was taken to stop the transient. Figure 14 shows the
history match of the packer and observation probe pressures
using a two-layer model.
Case V: IPTT example using multiprobes
In this example, multiple IPTT and fluid analysis stations were
conducted simultaneously. The tool string had a dual probe
module combined with two single probe modules. The
objective was to identify the nature of a tight zone suspected
to be a barrier. Figure 15 shows the tests conducted across

SPE 94708

and around the suspected barrier. During this test, shown as

file 75, all probes were set and flow was initiated from the
sink probe of the dual probe module. The near vertical and
horizontal probes showed a clear response and were analyzed
to obtain formation permeability and anisotropy using a threelayer model. Figure 16 shows the match of the recorded data
at all probes. The far vertical probe did not show a response,
suggesting that the tight layer is likely to be a barrier. This was
verified by other data including strontium salt analysis and
mud gas analysis. In general, however, the lack of response by
itself, however, does not necessarily mean an extensive flow
barrier; the test duration could be simply too short.
Nevertheless, a nil response still enables the interpreter to
compute an upper limit on the tight layer permeability. Flow
was then initiated from the upper probe above the barrier.
Figures 17 and 18 show the response of CFA composition and
fluorescence to flow. At early times before the pump started,
the fluid inside the tool had come through the sink probe from
beneath the suspected barrier. After the pump restarted and
cleanup proceeded until very low contamination levels, the
CFA compositions, GOR as well as fluorescence were
significantly different from the starting values, confirming
what had been suspected from the IPTT that the tight zone is a
likely vertical flow barrier. The job was monitored real time to
make decisions on when to stop the transients, when to
increase flow rates, when to commence flow from the top
probe, and how long to wait before starting the pump from
alternate probes. The outcome of close monitoring was
confirmation of a barrier as well as reliable permeability,
anisotropy, and fluid analysis information.
Detection of Compartmentalization
Well testing is a technique traditionally used to identify
compartmentalization. However, in deep water and other high
cost operating environments, well testing can be prohibitively
costly. Thus, compartments often have to be identified by
some other means. 3D Seismic imaging is an invaluable aid,
but sub-seismic faults or stratigraphic traps might be missed,
and various factors may adversely affect seismic data quality.
Single or multi-well WFT pressure vs. true vertical depth plot
is effective in identifying compartments, provided that a
sufficient pressure difference exists between compartments.
In a single well, being able to fit a single linear pressure
gradient to a number of small compartments does not
necessarily mean that they are in flow communication. Subtle
fluid density differences may not be evident on a pressure
gradient plot because pressure gradient accuracy is a function
of layer thickness, the number of pressure points, gauge
accuracy and quality, depth control procedures, capillary
pressure and wettability effects, etc. The consequences of not
recognizing different compartments early in the life of a
prospect can be dramatic and may render a prospect
uneconomic.
Case VI: Compartmentalization example
In this example well, the logs show several hydrocarbon
bearing zones in the range X630 feet to X730 feet (Fig. 19).
The density-neutron crossover implies a very light

SPE 94708

hydrocarbon in the top lower reservoir @X640 ft and a heavy

oil in the bottom lower reservoir @X700 ft. A third
hydrocarbon was observed at X670 feet further complicating
the picture. Because of the rapid and sharp changes in the
nature of the fluids over small vertical distances, vertical
compartmentalization was deemed to be highly likely. A
remarkable observation was made while sampling at X645
feet. The pressure gradient for this sand body was established
prior to sampling as shown in Fig. 20. The sampling sequence
involved pumping out approximately 30 gallons, after which
the pressure was again measured. A 50-psi pressure drop was
then observed. To verify this large pressure drop and confirm
that the pressure gauge did not somehow simply drift during
the sampling process, two pressure measurements were then
repeated in the interval X620-X630 feet. The pressures and
pressure gradient obtained were virtually identical to those
before sampling at X645 feet. Thus, gauge drift and similar
sources of error could be excluded. Another pressure point
was acquired in the same sand that has been sampled at X634
feet and indeed, the 50 psi pressure drop replicated here too
yet the pressure gradient was the same as that obtained before
sampling. The most likely explanation for these observations
is that a pressure depletion of 50 psi occurred. One can
estimate the volume of the compartment knowing the volume
produced (30 gallons) and the pressure drop (~50 psi). Using a
rough estimate of the compressibility of this gaseous
hydrocarbon, one obtains that the compartment size is a few
thousand barrels (approximately 6000 bbls or 33.7 MCF). This
is a very small compartment indeed. Note that this
compartment is not in flow communication with the formation
several feet higher in the column as these zones are not even
in pressure communication (Fig. 20) nor did the depletion
pressure drop register in the formation above. The existence of
a 6000-barrel compartment implies that there could be lots of
other tiny compartments in this reservoir, many of which
could still remain unrecognized.
MicroFracturing
Direct measurements of minimum horizontal stress can be
achieved using WFT equipped with a dual packer assembly
The technique30-33 consists of setting the dual packer assembly
over the interval to be tested, performing a number of leak-off,
hydraulic fracturing and flow back cycles. The measured
pressure and rate data are then interpreted to obtain the
magnitude of the minimum horizontal stress. A microFrac
or stress test starts with setting the dual packer module on
the desired depth. Following packer inflation, the wellbore
fluid is injected into the interval, gradually increasing the
pressure. This is followed by shut-in to observe the pressure
leak off. After a few leak off steps, the interval pressure is
increased above the estimated breakdown pressure and the
rock is fractured. The flow is then stopped and the interval is
depressurized using natural leak-off or controlled flow back
experiments. The sequence of re-opening, propagation and
shut-in depressurization is repeated a few times to propagate
the fracture away from the wellbore in order to get a better
estimate for far field minimum horizontal stress. It is also
possible to initiate a fracture behind a packer element, referred
as sleeve fracturing. At the end of each stress test, a

reconciliation plot is provided to summarize instantaneous

shut-in, closure, rebound, propagation, and re-opening
pressures from successive cycles to help select the best
estimate of minimum horizontal stress.
Case VII: MicroFracturing example
In this example, a WFT microFrac test was carried out in a
heterogeneous lithology consisting of primarily shale with
traces of shaly sand and calcareous sandstones. The test
consisted of ten cycles and five depressurization events. The
pump was used in all cycles. Depressurization was
accomplished using a variety of devices, including the flow
control (MRFC), the 450 cc sampling chamber (MPSR), the
pump, and by exposing the interval to hydrostatic pressure.
Because the tests were performed in soft sediments close to
the mud line, problems with seal integrity, fracture initiation,
and fracture alignment were anticipated and planned for.
Sealing problems did in fact occur during the early stages of
the test but were successfully managed in real time and so did
not influence the inferred in-situ stresses. A variety of devices
were used to influence the pressure within the sealed interval.
In the proceeding discussion we adopt the convention that all
episodes consisting of pressurization of the interval followed
by shut-in and pressure decline are referred to as a cycle.
All other episodes, such as those involving packer inflation or
evacuation of fluid from the interval are referred to as
events. The entire sequence is shown in Figure 21.
Special care was taken to ensure that flow rates generated by
the dual pump-out modules were accurately computed.
Corrections were introduced to remove irregularities in
computed flow rates due to half-stroking of the piston,
disruption of flow by shutting of valves, and incomplete piston
strokes at the commencement and termination of pumping
cycles. The correction procedure involved characterizing the
pump output at each station using reliable pump strokes. With
the pump fully characterized, it was then possible to estimate
the volumes pumped during irregular or incomplete strokes.
All this would not have been possible if the whole process was
not being driven and quality controlled in real time.
Figure 22 shows the reconciliation plot for the microFrac test.
As the strength of this rock was very low, fracturing occurred
while inflating the packers to straddle the interval to be
fractured, which elevated the pressure up to 5400 psi, enough
to initiate a fracture. This was recognized in time thanks to
real time monitoring. It was then decided to proceed to the
next phase of the microFrac operation. The leak off pressure
(LOP) for Cycle 1 falls below the trend established by later
cycles as well as the suspected fracture initiation pressure of
5400 psi observed during packer inflation. This told the
experts that this feature is not a real LOP and is due instead to
changes in the pump performance. The figure also shows
wellbore stiffness as a function of cycle. Beyond event 8.1, the
stiffness drops noticeably, most likely due to the disintegration
of mud cake during the suction phase of cycle 8.1.
The declining closure and propagation pressures were deemed
to be the result of the fracture turning to orient itself along the

preferred fracture plane as it propagated away from the

wellbore. For that reason, it was decided to perform more
propagation/flow back cycles. As expected, the rebound
pressures started to form an envelope constituting a lower
bound on the closure pressure. This figure represents the best
estimate of the far-field minimum principal stress. The closure
pressure appears to stabilize at 5220 psi, which is equivalent to
a mud weight of 9.76 ppg, very close to what was measured
on a formation integrity test (FIT) while drilling this section.

SPE 94708

8-

9Conclusions
Modern wireline formation testers are capable of providing a
wide range of downhole rock and fluid properties at in-situ
reservoir conditions and can help identify subtleties such as
compartmentalization and compositional grading. Increasingly
more massive and complex WFT strings are being run to
obtain a wealth of information under ever more challenging
conditions. For conventional logs, it may suffice to send
capable field engineers and experienced witnesses to the rig to
acquire excellent log data. But WFT surveys are very
different; they are much more about real-time command and
control than about acquisition. To ensure that all necessary
data is gathered and all the objectives are met on any critical
or high profile well, connecting operating and service
company experts to the wellsite via real-time virtual systems is
a must. This paper includes several examples to illustrate the
(real) power of real time monitoring and interpretation.

10-

11-

12-

13-

References
1- Ratulowski J., Fuex, A.N., Westrich, J.T., Sieler, J.J.:
Theoretical and experimental investigation of isothermal
compositional grading, SPE REE (June 2003), 168.
2- Hoier, L. Whitson, C.H.: Compositional gradingtheory
and practice, paper SPE 63085 presented at the 2000
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
Dallas, Texas, October 14,.
3- Hashem, M.N., Thomas, E.C., McNeil, R.I., Mullins,
O.C.: Determination of producible hydrocarbon type and
oil quality in wells drilled with synthetic oil-based muds,
SPE REE (April 1999).
4- Mullins, O.C., Schroer, J.: 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, October 14, 2000.
5- Dong, C., Mullins, O.C., Hegeman, P.S., Teague, R.,
Kurkjian, A., and Elshahawi, H.: In-situ contamination
monitoring and GOR measurement of formation
samples, paper 77899 presented at the 2002 SPE Asia
Pacific Oil & Gas Conference and Exhibition, Melbourne,
Australia, Oct 8-10.
6- Mullins, O.C., Beck, G., Cribbs, M.Y., Terabayshi, T.,
Kegasawa, K.: Downhole determination of GOR on
single-phase fluids by optical spectroscopy, SPWLA
paper M presented at the 42nd Annual Logging
Symposium, Houston, Texas, June 17-20, 2001.
7- Mullins, O.C., Daigle, T., Crowell, C., Groenzin, H, and

14-

15-

161718-

19-

Joshi, N.B.: Gas-oil ratio of live crude oils determined

by near-infrared spectroscopy, Applied Spectroscopy,
2001b, Vol. 55, p. 197.
Hodder, M. H., Samir, M., Holm, G. Holm and Segret,
G.: Obtaining Formation Water Chemistry Using a Mud
Tracer and Formation Tester in a North Sea Subsea Field
Development, paper SPE 88637 presented at the 2004
Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition,
Perth, Australia, 1820 October.
Mullins, O.C., Hines, D.R., Niwa, M., Safinya, K., 1993,
Apparatus and method for detecting the presence of gas
in a borehole flow stream, US Patent #5,167,149.
Betancourt, S., et al. Exploration Applications of
Downhole Measurement of Crude Oil Composition and
Fluorescence, paper SPE 87011, presented at the 2004
Asia Pacific Conference on Integrated Modeling for Asset
Management, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 29-30 March.
Fujisawa, G., Van Agthoven, M.A., Rabbito, P., Mullins,
O.C.: Near-infrared compositional analysis of gas and
condensate reservoir fluids at elevated pressures and
temperatures, Applied Spectroscopy, Vol. 56, p. 1615,
2002.
Elshahawi, H. et al. Insitu Characterization of Formation
Fluid Samples - Case Studies, paper SPE 90932
presented at the 2004 SPE Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition Houston, Texas, U.S.A., 2629
September.
Zimmerman, T., MacInnis, J., Hoppe, J. and Pop, J. :
Application of Emerging Wireline Formation Testing
Technologies, paper OSEA 90105 presented at the
Offshore South East Asia Conference, Singapore, Dec. 47, 1990.
Pop, J. J., Badry, R. A., Morris, C. W., Wilkinson, D. J.,
Tottrup, P. and Jonas, J. K. : Vertical Interference
Testing With a Wireline-Conveyed Straddle-Packer
Tool, paper SPE 26481, presented at the 1993 SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston,
Oct. 3-6.
Kuchuk, F.J., Ramakrishnan, T.S., and Dave, Y.:
Interpretation of Wireline Formation Tester Packer and
Probe Pressures, paper SPE 28404 presented at the 1994
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New
Orleans, LA, 25-28 September.
Goode,
P.A.,
and
Thambynayagam,
R.K.M.:
Permeability Determination With a Multiple Probe
Formation Tester, SPEFE (December 1992) 297.
Kuchuk, F. J. Multiprobe Wireline Formation Tester
Pressure Behavior in Crossflow-Multilayer Reservoirs,
In Situ, 20 (1) (1996) 1-40.
Ayan, C. and Kuchuk, F. J. : Determination of
Horizontal and Vertical Permeabilities Using Multiprobe
Wireline Formation Tester in Layered Formations, paper
SPE 29835 presented at the 1995 SPE Middle East Oil
Show and Conference, Bahrain, March 11-14.
Kuchuk, F. J., Ramakrishnan, T. S., Ayan, C., Akbar, M.,
Mahmoud, Y., Young, N. and Al-Matroushi, S. :
Multilayer Reservoir Testing with Multiprobe Wireline
Formation Tester, paper SPE 36176 presented at the
1996 Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition and
Conference, Abu Dhabi, U.A.E., October 13-16.

SPE 94708

20- Ayan, C., Douglas, A. A. and Kuchuk, F. J. A

Revolution in Reservoir Characterization, Middle East
Well Evaluation Review, (1996) 42-455.
21- Ayan, C. and Nicolle, G.:Reservoir Fluid Identification
and Testing with a Modular Formation Tester in a Aging
Field, paper SPE 49528 presented at 1998 Abu Dhabi
International Petroleum and Exhibition and Conference,
Abu Dhabi, UAE, 11-14 October.
22- Badaam H. et al. : Estimation of Formation Properties
Using Multiprobe Formation Tester in Layered
Reservoirs, paper SPE 49141 presented at the 1998
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New
Orleans, Sept. 27-30.
23- Ayan C., Haq, S. A., Boyd. A. and Hamawi, M. :
Integration of NMR, Wireline Tester, Core and Open
Hole Log Data for Dynamic Reservoir Properties, paper
SPE 53273 presented at the 1999 SPE Middle East Oil
Show and Conference, Bahrain, Feb. 20-23.
24- Onur. M., Kuchuk, F. J. : Integrated Nonlinear
Regression Analysis of Multiprobe Wireline Formation
Tester Packer and Probe Pressures and Flow Rate
Measurements, paper SPE 56616 presented at the 1999
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston,
Oct. 3-6.
25- Kuchuk, F.J.: Interval Pressure Transient Testing With
MDT Packer-Probe Module in Horizontal Wells,
SPEREE (December 1998) 509.
26- Onur, M., Hegeman, P.S., and Kuchuk, F.J.: PressurePressure Convolution Analysis of Multiprobe and PackerProbe Wireline Formation Tester Data, paper SPE 77343
presented at the 2002 SPE Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition, San Antonio, TX, 29 September-2
October.
27- Jackson, R.R., Banerjee, R., and Thambynayagam,
R.K.M.: An Integrated Approach to Interval Pressure
Transient Analysis Using Analytical and Numerical
Methods, paper SPE 81515 presented at the 2003 SPE
Middle East Oil Show and Conference, Bahrain, 5-8
April.
28- Gok, I.M. et al.: Effect of an Invaded Zone on Pressure
Transient Data From Multi-Probe and Packer-Probe
Wireline Formation Testers in Single and Multilayer
Layer Systems, paper SPE 84093 presented at the 2003
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
Denver, CO, 5-8 October.
29- Ayan, C., Banerjee, R. and Gurpinar, O. : Simultaneous
Analysis of Multiple Formation Tester Transients and
Well Tests With an Integrated Well Model, paper SPE
89993, presented at the 2004 SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Houston, Texas, U.S.A., 26
29 September.
30- Thiercelin, M.J., Desroches, J. and Kurkjian, A.L.: Open
Hole Stress Tests in Shales, SPE 28144, Proceedings of
the joint SPE/ISRM Conference on Rock Mechanics in
Petroleum Engineering, Eurock 94, Delft, The
Netherlands, 29-31 August 1994.
31- Desroches, J., Marsden, J.R. and Colley, N.M.: Wireline
Open-Hole Stress Tests in a Tight Gas Sandstone,
Proceedings of the 1995 International Gas Research
Conference, Cannes, France, 6-9 November.

32- Desroches, J. and Kurkjian, A.L.: Applications of

Wireline Stress Measurements, SPE 48960, presented at
the 1998 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, New Orleans, Louisiana, 27-30 September.
33- Russell, K., Ayan, C., Tribe, I., Hart, N., Rodriguez, J.,
Scholey, H., Sugden, C. K., and Davidson, J. Predicting
and Preventing Wellbore Instability Using Latest Drilling
and Logging Technologies: Tullich Field Development,
North Sea, paper SPE 84269 presented at the 2003 SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition Denver,
Colorado, U.S.A., 5 8 October .

SPE 94708

Fig.1 Illustration of real time-monitoring linking

Wellsite, operating and service company centers

Fig.4 LFA OCM model fits, case I

Fig.2 Wireline logging engineer posting data and communicating

via the remote wellsite witnessing system

Fig. 5 LFA log showing GOR and optical densities, case I

CFA

LFA

Fig.3 WFT Tool Configuration with two Downhole Fluid Analysis

modules

Fig. 6 CFA log showing GOR, optical and partial densities, case I

SPE 94708

Pressure (Psi)
TVD (ft)X40
X41 X42 X43
x180

g/cc
C1
0.23
C2-C5 0.00
C6+ 0.00

CFA Log

C AL GR
x190

g/c c

C F A L ogs

C F A g/c c

C1
0.09
C 2-C 5 0.03
C 6+ 0.60

0.235 g/cc

0.67

x200

X100

LFA Log

x210
CAL

DE N SHE AR
R E 10-90 NE UT COMP

GR

0.67
X200

DFA
Station
X150

0.61
0.65
X200

X400
X300

0.67
X500
X400

Fig.7. Pressure gradient and CFA showing dry gas, case II

C1
0.09
C 2-C 5 0.03
C 6+ 0.60

0.81

C1
0.10
C 2-C 5 0.04
C 6+ 0.57
C1
0.10
C 2-C 5 0.04
C 6+ 0.58
C1
0.09
C 2-C 5 0.03
C 6+ 0.62
C1
Gas
C 2-C 5
C 6+
L iquid

Fig.10 Pressure gradients and DFA stations, case III

Fig.8 LFA log showing optical densities and gas flags, case II

Fig.9 CFA log showing mainly pumping methane, case II

10

SPE 94708

Fig.13 Flow regime identification plot for packer and two

observation probes, case IV
Fig.11 Various WFT-IPTT Configurations

Fig.14 Pressure history match with a two-layer model, case IV

Fig.12 Largest WFT string ever run; Includes two packers, two
probes, two analyzers, two pumps, a flow control and five
multisamplers, case IV

SPE 94708

11

Fig.17 CFA response across suspected barrier. The fluids across

the suspected barrier have different compositions, Case V

Fig.15 IPPT Tool and layer configuration, case V

Fig.18 CFA fluorescence response across suspected barrier.

Fluids across the suspected barrier have different fluorescence
signal, Case V

Fig.16 IPTT three-layer modeling results, case V

12

SPE 94708

Depth
Feet
(TVD)

X600

X650
X

Fig.21 MicroFrac sequence, case VII

X700

Fig.19 Wireline logs corresponding to case VI

TopLower Reservoir

Fig.22 MicroFrac reconciliation plot, case VII

MiddleLower Reservoir

BottomLower Reservoir

Evidenceof depletion
betweenupper and
lower reservoirs

Fig. 20 OH Logs and Pressure gradients, case VI