Formation Multi-Tester (FMT)

Principles, Theory, and Interpretation

01987 Western Atlas International

 CONTENTS
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Operation of the FMT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Calibrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Strain Gauge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Quartz Gauge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Qualitative Indications from FMT Pretest. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Reservoir Fluid Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Density or Specific Gravity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Resistivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Viscosity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Fluid SampleTest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Variable Pressure Control (VPC). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Segregated Samples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Estimating Sampling Time. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Evaluating Recovered Fluid Samples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
When Sample Recovery is Primary Native Formation Fluids . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Prediction of Water Cut . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Recovery of Small Volumes of Formation Fluid or No Formation Fluid. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Technique for Various Size Recoveries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Fluid Flow in Porous Media . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Darcy’s Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Pressure Drawdown - Permeability Estimate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Pressure Buildup - Permeability Estimate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Spherical Pressure Buildup - Permeability and Formation Pressure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Cylindrical Buildup - Permeability and Formation Pressure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Comparison of Permeability Estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Bed Thickness Definition During Buildup. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Subsurface Pressure Regimes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Hydrostatic Pressure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Overburden Pressure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Formation Pressure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Applications of FMT Pressure Measurements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Measured Depth vs. True Vertical Depth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Pressure Regimes in Water-Bearing Reservoirs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Supercharging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Selection of Test Intervals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Pressure Gradients and Particular Pressure Regimes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Determination of Movable Formation Fluid Density
in Zones with High Connate Water Resistivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Defining Gas/Liquid and Oil/Water Contacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Zone Isolation or Communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Determination of Oil/Water Contact Below Total Depth of the Borehole. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Reservoir and Zonal Depletion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Monitor Injection Program in In-Field Wells . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Fracture Detection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Extremely Tight Formations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Grain Size Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
FMT Pulse Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
FMTREALITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
List of Symbols, Including Subscripts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Appendix A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Permeability from Drawdown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Permeability from Spherical Buildup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Effective Bed Thickness Computation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Permeability from Cylindrical Buildup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Time Estimate for Sampling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
 Formation Multi-Tester (FMT)
Principles, Theory, and Interpretation
INTRODUCTION

The Formation Multi-Tester (FMT) is a sophisticated

system of wireline testing equipment designed to
measure formation pressures at any number of depth
locations per single trip into an uncased wellbore. These
pretest pressure measurements also provide a means of
confirming adequate packer seal and a quick qualitative
estimate of formation permeability prior to making a
decision regarding the opening of one or both of the fluid
sample chambers.

Run on a multi-conductor logging cable, the FMT can

be accurately positioned at selected depths by reference
to a sequentially recorded spontaneous potential (SP)
or gamma ray (GR). Formation testing normally follows
the recording and evaluation of openhole logs from
which potential target intervals are identified. Wireline
test information provides a fast and economical method
for identifying theproduction potential of the targeted
reservoirs.

The FMT provides more detailed and reliable vertical

pressure profiles than can be expected from drillstem
tests (DST). The ability to acquire multiple pressure
readings provides a much quicker and less expensive
method for obtaining a reasonably accurate profile of
vertical pressure gradients. FMT pressure measurements
are acquired from specific depth intervals while DST
gauges are commonly located in the test tool string above
the interval tested. The nature of the fluid between the
zone being tested and the DST gauge depth provides for
some uncertainty.
A profile of several DST pressures through a common
pressure regime may not always define an accurate gra-
dient. In a similar environment, FMT pressure data often
provides descriptive gradients for gas or fluid type. The
data given in Fig. 1 exemplify such a case.
FMT pressure data are recorded on film and presented
in both analog and easy-to-read digital formats. The sta-
tionary recordings at individual depths are a plot of
pressure vs. time. Direct digital readouts are observable
on surface instrumentation during the test, allowing for
quick decisions on whether or not to open the fluid sam-
ple chambers. Two sample chambers can be filled at the
same depth and segregated, or the two chambers can be
filled at two different depths per trip in the borehole.
Several chamber sizes are available for sampling. A
Comparison of FMT pretest pressures and drillstem test
pressures.
unique variablepressurecontrol (VPC) provides forim-
proved sampling by avoiding excessive differential
pressure across the packer seal. An analysis of the
recovered fluids is provided to aid in prediction of reser-
voir production characteristics.
The capability for multiple pretest pressure recordings
has made the FMT the primary openhole system for
measuring vertical pressure distribution in a wellbore.
The numerous pressure readings have been used to
establish the hydrostatic gradients of mud columns, fluid
and gas gradients in reservoir rocks, and vertical
permeability barriers. Comparisons of FMT gradients
on adjacent wells have been found useful in describing
the presence or absence of lateral communication. In-
formation from the pressure measurements can be
significant in association with lost returns during cemen-
ting operations. Selective perforating and selection of
methods to best control acid or frac fluid placement can
also be improved through the use of FMT data. The in-
formation derived from the FMT can therefore be used
to optimize completion methods and maximize ultimate
reservoir recovery.

1
OPERATION OF THE FMT
The FMT makes pressure measurements while the tool
is stationary at selected depths in an uncased borehole.
If the pretest pressures indicate a good packer seal to the
formation and a relatively permeable zone, fluid samples
may be recovered by opening a sample valve and allow-
ing one of the two sample chambers to fill. Photographs
of the FMT packer section are shown in Fig. 2.
FIGURE 2
Three views of the FMT packer section.
2
The downhole tool system includes the control elec-
tronics, a hydraulic section, and the test sample
chambers. A schematic diagram of the subsurface
assembly is shown in Fig. 3. The control electronics and
hydraulics are located in the upper part of the tool string,
with the packer seal section and pistons directly below.
Sample chambers are attached to the lower end of the
tool assembly. A number of different chamber sizes are
currently available (e. g., 1 gallon, 4 liter, 10 liter, and 20
liter). Other unique sizes may be found, depending upon
geographical location. Without sample chambers on the
tool string, the packer section is located approximately
5.5 ft off bottom, or 9 ft if the Hewlett-Packard quartz
gauge is run. With two chambers of 10-liter capacity
each, the packer section is located approximately 31 ft
off bottom (34.5 ft with the H-P gauge).
FIGURE 3
Schematic diagram of the subsurface assembly of FMT with
Variable Pressure Control.
Operation of the downhole equipment is controlled from
thesurfacelogging unit. A film recording is made of each
complete cycle of operation. Recorded measurements are
in time (seconds) rather than depth as the tool is sta-
tionary (see Fig. 4). The time grids or time lines are com-
parable to the depth grid on traditional log recordings
with each line representing two seconds (rather than two
feet) when English depth measurements are used.
Pressures are recorded as an analog trace in Track I, pro-
viding a quick-look profile of packoff effectiveness and
permeability indication. Tracks II and III are divided
into half-track digital scales of pressure (1000’s, 100’s,
10’s, units), providing for a more accurate reading of the
recorded pressures. Hydraulic pressure may also be
presented in Track I (dashed trace) to help identify the
various stages in the tool’s set and retract cycles. Pressure
listings are also available. Temperature may also be
presented in Track I when the series 1966 electronics is
run.

STATION DEPTH - XX840

PUMP PRESSURE HYDROSTATIC PRESSURE - 4546 psi

.---------------
I FORMATION PRESSURE - 3978 Dsi
3001

RECORDED DIGITAL SAMPLING PRESSURE

(psi)

ANALOG
(psi)

.......
.......
.......
.......
.......
.......
SET
,PACKER
I---.\
HYDR( ‘ATIC
PRES su‘RE I
\
1

t0
...............
...............
t = 8 set
...............
.................
.................
IO set
.................
.................
.................
.................
.................
.................
.................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................

...............

HYDROtTATlC
PRES+lRE

FIGURE 4
Example of pretest pressure recording.
At each designated test depth, operational practice in- from entering the tool. The sleeve is easily removed at
cludes both a before and after recording of hydrostatic the surface for cleaning between runs.
mud pressure, i. e., before actuating and after retracting
the hydraulic packoff section (see Fig. 4). The FMT has
PRESSURE
an internal motor, pump, and hydraulic system which are TRANSDUCER
used in actuating and retracting of the packoff section.
Hydraulically activated setting pistons cause a rubber
donut-shaped packer element to press tightly against the
borehole wall. A special nitrile rubber, which is sulphur
cured, with peroxide-cured o-rings, is available for use
in H2S environments. Hydraulic pressure is recorded at
the surface, indicating proper (or improper) setting of
the tool. The tool mandrel is held away from the borehole
wall to reduce the possibility of differential sticking. PRETEST
PISTON

A snorkel tube is then forced into, or pressed tightly

against, the formation. This is followed by the movement u
of a small piston, called the pretest piston, allowing 10
cm3 of formation fluid to enter the pretest chamber at
I J
EQUALIZING
VALVE

--L WELLBORE
a more or less constant flow rate. The effect of this
volume extraction on the formation pressure is observed SAMPLE VALVES
and recorded at the surface (see Fig. 4). A 5-cm3 plug is
available for use in wells where extremely tight forma- SAMPLE TANK#l
tions are expected.

At this point the logging engineer must be patient and

p SAMPLE TANK#2
allow the pressure to build up adequately to formation
shut-in pressure (see Fig. 4). It is essential that shut-in FIGURE 5
pressure be recorded as long after the flowing portion Schematic of FMT system.
of the pretest as possible in order to allow the buildup
to approach actual formation pressure. If the pressure
test is terminated too early, the shut-in pressure reading
will be too low since sufficient buildup did not occur.
Early termination of the pretest will also prevent later
use of spherical and/or cylindrical model analysis.
Pretest shut-in pressure is often referred to as initial shut-
in pressure.
The tool is then (1) retracted prior to moving the tool,
or (2) a sample valve is opened to allow formation fluid
to flow into a sample chamber. In either of these cases
the tool is ultimately retracted, at which time an equaliz-
ing valve is opened and the pretest fluid is expelled from
the tool. A system schematic is shown in Fig. 5.

Operation of the pretest piston and the concurrent

measurement of pressure are the keystones to determina-
tion of formation pressure and inferences of permeabili-
ty. Formation fluid enters the tool through the probe dur-
ing the pretest. As the probe is pressed against the face
of the formation (it may even penetrate softer, uncon-
solidated rock) it also defines the area of flow from the
formation as well as eliminating lateral mud cake entry
into the tool. A schematic of the probe in both the retract
and set position is given in Fig. 6. A sleeve, inserted in
FIGURE 6
the probe, is slotted to function as a filter. The slits are Schematic of the FMT probe in both the retract (upper) and
0.015 in. wide to prevent any debris larger than the slits set (lower) positions.

4
If the pretest data indicates adequate conditions for fluid
sampling of the formation, a sample valve may be SECTION OF
LOG REMOVED
opened. As many as two fluid samples may be recovered
per descent into the wellbore. These samples may be
taken at the same depth or at different depths. If both
sample chambers are filled at the same set depth, they
will be segregated from one another.

Atlas Wireline Services has developed a unique Variable

Pressure Control (VPC) system for use with the FMT
The VPC is a variable orifice valve located upstream
from the sample tank valve. Both valves are closed when
no sample is being taken. To obtain a sample, the tank
valve is opened first, followed by the variable orifice
valve. The variable orifice valve is controlled from the
surface and is opened only until a suitable flowing
pressure is attained. The VPC avoids excessive pressure
differentials and samples are obtained successfully
without guesswork. This feature also prevents formation
plugging in unconsolidated sands. The logging engineer
can adjust the VPC to pressure increments as small as
5 to 10 psi. Samples can be obtained without damage or
plugging from formation collapse. In addition, samples
can also be taken above bubble point pressure, thereby
eliminating non-representative gas/oil ratios caused by
the effects of relative permeability.

Testing at multiple flow rates and multiple drawdown

pressures may be useful in evaluating formation
mechanical properties relating to sand control and con-
solidation. An analog pressure record showing VPC
sampling at three different flow rates is shown in Fig. 7.

Segregated sampling at the same set depth usually in-

volves filling the larger sample chamber first, the idea
I
-----me -i
being to drain the flushed zone (mud filtrate) as much
as possible. The second sample chamber is then ideally Analog pressure record showing VPC sampling at three dif-
filled with representative reservoir fluids. ferent flow rates.

The tank valves in the VPC-FMT system can be opened
and closed as often as required. This feature allows the
logging engineer to check for plugging and enables him
to reuse the first sample tank in the event of an early
packoff failure during segregated fluid sampling.
After a sample chamber is filled, the sample valve is
closed by a spring and kept closed because of the bal-
anced seal design, thereby sealing the fluid in the sam-
ple chamber at formation pressure. The pressure
transducer transmits the final shut-in pressure to the sur-
face where it is recorded. A film record of the pretest and
sampling steps is illustrated in Fig. 8.
After completion of the sampling, the hydraulic system
pressure is released and hydraulic pressure reversed in
order to retract the packer and backup shoes from the
face of the formation. As with a standard pretest,
hydrostatic pressure is again recorded to provide a
verification of transducer stability, repeatability, and
reliability. Hydrostatic pressures recorded before and
after tool setting should read within +l psi of one
another (assuming no change in the mud column) (see
Fig. 8).
After the FMT tool and sealed samples are returned to
the surface, apressureregulator, separator, andgasmeter
are used to extract the samples individually. Recovered
gas is bled from the sample chamber through the
separator and measured by the gas meter (in ft3 at sur-
face conditions). Water and oil are drawn off in the
separator and then poured into a calibrated vessel where
their volumes are measured in cm3. When H,S is
suspected in the sample, the gas is bubbled through an

5
 RECORDED DIGITAL SAMPLING PRESSURE
ANALOG (PSI)
(PW

~ I~i’-i~~~
:i_ : : :
FIGURE 8.
Film record of pretest and sampling steps.

6
H,S scavenging bottle to remove the H,S. The remaining
gas is vented into the atmosphere. Recovered water is
routinely tested for chloride concentration and any
recovered oil is measured in terms of ‘API gravity. An
example of a sample evaluation is shown in Fig. 9. Fur-
ther analysis, if needed, can be made in the laboratory.
logging tools in that they provide a basis for correcting
strain gauge measurements for temperature effects en-
countered in the borehole environment. A high-quality
deadweight tester is used. A calibration test strip is shown
in Fig. 10.

If an undisturbed sample is required for laboratory

analysis, a breakoff tank can be utilized. The breakoff
tank is a 4-liter capacity high-pressure tank which can
be detached from the FMT at the surface without
bleeding off any pressure or fluids. The breakoff tank
meets U. S. Department of Transportation safety stan-
dards for transport by any common carrier.

CALIBRATIONS
Strain Gauge

The routine shop calibration of FMT strain gauges is

essential to obtaining accurate pressure measurements
in the borehole environment. These routine checks
should be performed within a 30-day period and are FIGURE 10
analogous to shop calibrations performed on other Calibration test strip for the FMT strain gauge.

FORMATION TESTER RECOVERY & INTERPRETATION DATA

TEST NUMBER 3 Depth 2588.0 -0RMATION and MUD DATA

Test Type: 0 Open Hole 0 Cased Hole Formation SWAN HILLS

Porosity % Source
TOOL DATA Rt “C
RW zi “C
Tool Type 1965 Source of Rw
Probe Type DUAL PASSAGE NaCl (Chart) ppm; Cl (Titrated) PPn
Sample Unit Size 3550 cm3 Water Saturation
Flow Control OPEN Rmf 1.55 ii? 20 “C
Tool Number 71577 Source of Rmf
NaCl (Chart) ppm; Cl (Titrated) wn

PRESSURE DATA RECOVERY INFORMATION

Initial Shut in 24170 kPa Gas 0.0127 ms
Build Up Time 0.1 min Distillate cm3 APl/15.5”(
Sampling Range 400 - 10000 Oil 200 cm3~APl/15.5”(
kPa
Sampling Time 3.75 min GOR
Final Shut in 24110 W ater 2950 Cm3; Res 0.18 18 0~
kPa
Final Shut in Time 6 min NaCl (Chart) ppm; Cl (Titrated) wm
Hydrostatic 29510 kPa Mud cm3; Sand cc
Surface Chamber 7067 Formation Water %
kPa

INTERPRETATION May be Expected At This Depth.

2nd TANK OF SEGREGATED SAMPLE

Remarks

FIGURE 9
Typical sample evaluation.

7
The Atlas FMT is electrically calibrated prior to being
lowered into the well. The wellsite calibration method
uses deadweight tester data and temperature corrections
determined in the laboratory on the strain gauge pressure
recordings. The calibration process is repeated on each
survey to ensure that proper response is maintained. The
wellsite calibrations also verify the reestablishment of the
shop calibration response.
Quartz Gauge
The Hewlett-Packard quartz gauges are accurately
calibrated by the manufacturer. These gauges are more
accurate than the deadweight testers used to field
calibrate strain gauges, therefore a field calibration is not
required. However, it is important that periodic shop
comparisons with a deadweight checker be made to en-
sure/verify stable quartz response with time. Quartz
gauges do require significant temperature correction and
Atlas’ H-P probes are modified to measure the
temperature of the most temperature-sensitive compo-
nent in this gauge.
High-precision quartz gauges are typically used when
studies of formation pressures require the utmost ac-
curacy These gauges typically have an accuracy as
follows.
l If temperature is known to l°C accuracy, f 0.025%
of pressure reading.
l If temperature is known to 10°C accuracy, + 0.1% of
pressure reading.
l If temperature is known to 20°C accuracy, + 0.25%
of pressure reading.
The temperature is accurate within + 5’F (+ 3OC).
Quartz gauges also provide good repeatability (+ 0.5
psia) and a large amount of pressure data. Their single
limitation is the time factor necessary for stabilization
before measuring true pressure, i. e., several minutes may
be required before reaching stabilization. It is also
necessary to depth-correct pressures read from the
quartz gauge to a pressure reference level due to the fact
that the quartz gauge is physically located lower than the
strain gauge on the tool string.
The quartz gauge consists of two crystal oscillators, both
being sensitive to temperature and pressure. However,
one crystal performs as a sensor of fluid pressure and
temperature while the other crystal is used as a reference
to provide frequencies suitable for transmitting on
wirelines. They are calibrated as a pair and both must
have the same temperature for equilibrium pressure.
Temperature changes of a few OF per minute can cause
errors of 100 psia for standard H-P gauges. Selected
Atlas modified H-P gauges will have a maximum error
of 20 psia under the same conditions and will read within
?5 psia within 2 minutes of the temperature change. The
accuracy will be within +2 psia when the rate of
temperature change is less than 0.5 OF per minute.
QUALITATIVE INDICATIONS
FROM FMT PRETEST
The curve character of the pretest analog recording of
pressures is affected by the pretest and sampling se-
quences. A schematic illustrating flow during pretest is
shown in Fig. 11A. The analog pressure recording for a
typical test is shown in Fig. 11B. The setting of the tool
begins on the left of both figures with time increasing
to the right. At the left of Fig. llB, hydrostatic pressure
is recorded but when the equalizing valve is closed, the
rubber packer engages and is pressed against the mud
cake. A hydraulic seal is likely to occur before the packer
and mud cake are fully compressed, therefore the
pressure in the tool flow line is often observed to momen-
tarily build up slightly above hydrostatic pressure.
The pretest piston is then drawn back, allowing 10 cm3
of formation fluid to enter the pretest chamber at a con-
stant rate as shown in Fig. 11A. The end of the flowing
or drawdown phase is indicated at time tl in Figs. 11A
and 11B. As the piston motion ceases, flow stops and the
pressure builds up to formation pressure as shown on the
right side of Fig. 11B. When the tool is retracted, the
drawdown piston is reset thereby purging the pretest fluid
into the wellbore, and the equalizer valve is opened allow-
ing the pressure to return to hydrostatic. The difference
between flowing (drawdown) pressure and shut-in
pressure is AP and the time necessary for flow to stop
from the beginning of the drawdown is referred to as At.
Both AP and At are illustrated in Fig. 11B. These values
of AP and At are used to determine permeability from
the drawdown.
A pressure record of the FMT internal hydraulic system
during the pretest sequence is illustrated in Fig. 11C. The
steps indicated are (1) the closing of the equalizing valve,
(2) the packer engagement, (3) the pretest piston move-
ment, and (4) the completion of the pretest piston move-
ment. This internal pressure record is important for
monitoring tool performance and is usually recorded as
a dashed trace in Track I (see Fig. 4). Furthermore, this
measurement is not used directly in the evaluation of for-
mation pressure data.
During pretest, flow, shut in, and the stopping of the
pretest piston will coincide only if formation perme-
ability is adequate to allow the formation fluids to flow
fast enough to fill the volume created during the move-

Aq PRETEST FLOW RATE
’ (HIGH PERMEABILITY)
A A
P PRETEST PRESSURE
HYDROSTATlC
PRESSURE
- SHUT IN
LW- FORMATION PRESSURE
- At
‘1
INTERNAL HYDFjAULlC PRESSURE
EQUALIZING VALVE CLOSURE
FIGURE 11
Schematic illustration of flow during pretest.
ment of the pretest piston. If formation permeability is
too low, the pretest piston will cause the pressure to drop
below the bubble point and multiphase flow may occur
at the tool/formation interface. Although the piston has
completed its stroke, the formation will continue to
trickle fluid into the tool until 10 cm3 has flowed. A
typical analog pressure record under these conditions is
illustrated in Fig. 12A, B, and C. Observed pressures will
eventually build up to formation pressure if sufficient
time is allowed. An example of a long duration pretest
is shown in Fig. 13.
The effects of formation permeability in the vicinity of
the FMT probe on the pretest pressure record are il-
lustrated in Figs. 14A, B, C, D and E. These comprise
a family of typical FMT pretest pressure analog records
for permeabilities varying in order of magnitude in-
crements from 100 md to 0.1 md to tight. Note that the
flowing time increases between 10 md and 1 md, in-
dicating that the formation permeability is sufficiently
low so that it cannot flow fast enough to fill the volume
displaced by the pretest piston. The illustrations in Fig.
14 are intended only as guidelines since the actual
permeability depends on the drawdown from formation
pressure, flow rate, and nature of fluid.
Other factors often affect the character and quality of
the pretest pressure record. Debris drawn into the
drawdown line during pretest may cause plugging and
PRETEST DISPLACEMENT
(P PRETEST PRESSURE
HYOROSTATlC
PRESSURE
SHUT IN
FORMATlON PRESSURE
f
INTERNALHYDRAULICPRESSURE
FIGURE 12
Typical analog pressure record in a low permeability formation.
in extreme cases prevent 10 cm3 being drawn into the
tool. In Fig. 15A, light plugging is indicated by a rough,
irregular response during the drawdown or flowing
period. Severe plugging, if it occurs immediately upon
drawdown, is virtually indistinguishable from a tight test
(compare Figs. 15B and 14E). The presence of gas in the
flowline causes the abrupt changes in pressure to occur
more gradually due to gas compression and expansion
as shown in Fig. 16A. If the packer is set on a tight for-
mation, the effect of pretest is to expand the gas in the
flowline by 10 cm3 and reduce its pressure to some non-
zero constant value as shown in Fig. 16B. In either case,
gas may be eliminated from the flowline by opening the
sample chamber when set against a tight formation. This
procedure in effect allows the gas to distribute itself over
the small flowline and much larger sample volume,
thereby allowing it to be captured in the sample jug (this
procedure cannot be done with all tools without wasting
the sample test).
Seal failure is caused by the inability of the rubber packer
to isolate the probe flow channel from the mud column
and may occur at any time during the pretest sequence.
Figure 17A illustrates a catastrophic seal failure such as
might occur in a washout or highly rugose hole. The
pretest pressure record remains at hydrostatic even
though the pretest piston goes through its cycle. In Fig.
17B, a relatively low permeability is indicated; however,
upon closer inspection the final formation pressure and
9
 RECORDED DIGITAL SAMPLING PRESSURE

FIGURE 13
A long duration pretest.

10
 APPROXIMATE PERMEABILITY

I 1 RECORD
C

FIGURE 14
Family of typical analog pretest pressure records for different permeability ranges.

FIGURE 15
Analog pretest pressure recordings for (A) irregular light plugging and (B) severe plugging.

11
FIGURE 16
Examples of (A) gas compression/expansion in the flowline and (B) tight gas zone, where gas expands to 10 cm3 in the flowline.

I
I
1 I
B

FIGURE 17
Example of (A) catastrophic seal failure and (B) case where apparent formation shut in pressure is suspiciously similar to hydrostatic
pressure.

12
initial hydrostatic pressure are nearly identical. These
situations should be viewed very carefully since either
a seal failure has occurred or virtually no overbalance
exists with respect to the formation. The latter situation
may indicate the need to weight up the mud as the well
may be near blowout conditions. Measurements of these
types should be repeated to determine which situation
exists so that appropriate action can be taken.
The FMT presentation includes both analog recordings
of the pretest pressure record and the internal FMT
hydraulic pressure. Both are recorded in the left-hand
track (see Fig. 18). Where greater accuracy and resolu-
tion are required, four digital tracks are placed to the
right of the depth track as shown in Fig. 18. The recorder
steps the pressure data in digital increments of 1000, 100,
10 and 1 psi from the track nearest the depth track and
then to the right. For example, at time 80 sec. in Fig. 18,
the digital record indicates a formation pressure of 3927
psi and still building up slightly. It is apparent that
resolution in this case is 1 psi. This example is an FMT
measurement with the strain gauge. The Hewlett-
Packard gauge is designed to improve the resolution to
0.1 psi and the 1000 must be read from the analog (Track
I) data with 100, 10, 1, and 0.1 values read from the digital
track. All pressure data (temperature corrected and un-
corrected) is recorded on magnetic tape and may be re-
tained for later processing.

- - - - - - -PUMP
- - - - -PRESSURE
---- ------ - RECORDED DIGITAL SAMPLING PRESSURE
(Psi)

ANALOG

...............
..... ..........
.................
.................
.................
.................
.................
.................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
.................. .
.................... ...............
....................
.................... ...............
...............
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
..... ....... ........

FIGURE 18
Analog pressures allow a quick qualitative reference. The digital pressure record provides greater accuracy and resolution for quan-
tification of pressure data.

13
RESERVOIR FLUID PROPERTIES
In conjunction with quantitative well log evaluations, the
fluid samples and pressure data obtained from the FMT
can be used to estimate formation pressures, perme-
abilities, hydrocarbon production rates, and depths of
oil/water, gas/oil, and gas/water contacts. The samples
recovered also supply information on the type of forma-
tion fluids, gravity of oil, water cut, and gas/oil ratio.
FMT data interpretation involves considerations of fluid
pressure behavior and other physical properties of for-
mation fluids such as density, resistivity, and viscosity.
The pore space of reservoir rocks may contain water, oil,
and gas as a single phase or in any combination of these
fluids. It is imperative that these properties of reservoir
fluids be known or reasonably approximated in order to
reliably evaluate the production characteristics of the
reservoir rocks.
Density or Specific Gravity
Density of water depends upon its salt content,
temperature, and pressure. The specific gravity of a
substance is the ratio of its density to that of water at
specified temperatures. Density of water decreases with
t i i i i i
TdTAL DI’SSOLVED SOLIDS ;20
280
, 1 , ppm I IO’ 1 , ,, , ,
1
160
t
H EXA M PLE RESER~~IRT~MPERATUR~
FIGURE 19
Chart for determination of water density.
increasing temperature but increases with higher total
solid concentration and pressure. The effect of pressure
on the density of water is comparatively little, as can be
seen on the chart in Fig. 19 which can be used to deter-
mine the density of water. Alternatively, if density at a
certain temperature and pressure is known, total dis-
solved solids or chlorinity (in ppm) can be read from the
chart.
Specific gravity of oil is related to its API gravity by the
relation
141.5
Yo = (1)
OAP1 + 131.5
where y0 is the specific gravity of oil at 60°F referred to
that of water at 60’F. When dissolved gas is present in
oil, the specific gravity of the latter depends upon the
gas/oil ratio, decreasing as the gas/oil ratio increases.
Figure 20 can be used for determining reservoir density
of oil in g/cm3 for a known value of GOR. Figure 21
shows the variation of specific gravity of oils with
temperature while dry gas density, as a function of reser-
voir pressure and temperature, is illustrated in Fig. 22.
CDNSTRVCTED FROM DATA IN
TABLES OF INTERNATIONAL
CRlTlCAL VALUES AND LABORA-
TORY DENSITY MEASUREMENTS
I
240 I
,“A \,-t”.\rb”\l\,
I
= 175 OF ’
14
 I 1600
I 1800

I 2000

30 40 50 60
OIL GRAVITY (OAPI)

FIGURE 20
Chart for determination of reservoir density of oil.

C,H, = Ethane
C,H. = Propane
Cal,,, = Butane
IC.H.., = lsobutana

FIGURE 21
Gravity-temperature relationship.

15
 and atmospheric pressure) to the viscosity of gas-
saturated oil for the known GOR at reservoir conditions.

Viscosity of natural gas depends upon its gravity with

respect to air at standard conditions. Effects of
temperature and pressure on the viscosity for natural
gases, ranging in gravity from 0.6 to 1 .O, may be approx-
imated by use of Fig. 27.

FIGURE 22
Density of dry gas vs. temperature and pressure.

Resistivity

All porous rocks contain some water. By virtue of ion-

ized salts contained in solution, these formation waters
are electrically conductive but may exhibit resistivities
ranging from 0.01 ohm-meter to several ohm-meters. The
predominant salt in these solutions is sodium chloride.
Resistivity of such an electrolyte decreases with increas-
ing salt concentration (due to the higher concentration
of ions, which carry electric charges) and higher
temperature (which increases the mobility of those ions).

Resistivity of formation water may be determined by

direct resistivity measurement on a sample, chemical
analysis, or an estimation of equivalent NaCl (in ppm)
from well logs. The nomograph in Fig. 23 shows the
resistivity of a brine solution as a function of
temperature and equivalent NaCl concentration.

Viscosity

Viscosity of a fluid is a measure of its resistance to flow.

The lower the viscosity of a fluid, the more readily it
flows.

Viscosity of water decreases with increasing temperature

just like honey thins on warming. Water viscosity also
depends upon salinity. These variations due to
temperature and salinity are shown graphically in Fig.
24. Changes in water viscosity are significant when deter-
mining permeability from drawdown. The effect of
pressure on the viscosity of water is negligible.

Viscosity of gas-free crude oil also decreases with

temperature (Fig. 25). From a knowledge of crude oil
‘API gravity and formation temperature, the viscosity
of gas-free crude oil can be determined (Beal, 1946). The
amount of gas dissolved in oil has an important bearing
on viscosity at reservoir conditions. Figure 26 is used to Nomograph for determination of resistivity or salinity of brine
correct the viscosity of dead oil (at reservoir temperature solutions.

16
 I I I I I I I
011
100 150 200 250 300 350 400 d

RESERVOIR TEMPERATURE (“F)

FIGURE 24
Water viscosity vs. temperature and salinity (in ppm NaCl equivalent).

4000 - \

2000 - \

600 j \
400 -\ \
I\\
2oo \\ \ \
100 -&
-5
60: \'
40- \
t \
\
20 -
\ \
10 7 1
6: t
4- \

2-

1.0 7 - -
0.6 ::
0.4 -

0.2 -

0.1 ..ILL Ju
10
CRUDE OIL GRAVITY OAP1 AT 60°F AND ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE

FIGURE 25
Viscosity of gas-free crude oils.

17
 M SOLUTION GAS/OIL
RATIO (ftalbbl)

VISCOSITY OF DEAD OIL (cP)

(AT RESERVOIR TEMPERATURE AND ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE)

FIGURE 26
Viscosity of gas-saturated crude oils.

18
 0.050 -

0.040 0.040 -

0.030 0.030 -

c a^
v 0
c E
i7
8 0.020 2 0.020
2 \ I \ I

0.015

0.010
0 100 200 300 400 500
TEMPERATURE (“F) TEMPERATURE (“F)
la\
1-1 fb)
0.050
I
GRAVITY = 10
RICH GAS

0.040

iE‘
0
c
z I -
8 0.020
”
>

0.010
0 100 200 300 400 500
TEMPERATURE (“F) TEMPERATURE (“F)
Cc) Cd)

FIGURE 27
Charts for determining viscosity of natural gas.

19
FLUID SAMPLE TEST
The original purpose of wireline formation tests was to
provide a means to obtain a sample of formation fluid
and bring it to the surface. The multi-set pretest capa-
bility of the FMT has tremendously improved the abili-
ty to determineif an adequatepacker seal and sufficient-
lypermeable zone are present prior to opening a sam-
pie chamber. The FMT is also capable of gathering two
samples per descent into the wellbore. Several different
sizes (capacity) and combinations of sample chambers
are available (see Table 1).
With the FMT, the percentage of successful fluid
recoveries has shown tremendous improvement and rig
time has been reduced. The ability to acquire segregated
samples from the same zone improves the chance of ac-
quiring representative reservoir fluids.

TABLE I

VARIABLE PRESSURE CONTROL FORMATION MULTI-TESTER (VPC-FMT) SPECIFICATIONS

Length Without
Sample Chambers
(sample chambers lengthen
the distance below the
packer, e. g., two
ten-liter tanks and H-P
gauge would provide a
distance of 34.5 ft)
18 ft 4 in. (w/o temp & H-P gauges)
19 ft 4 in. (wltemp & H-P gauges)
Packer is set 5 ft 5 in. above
the bottom of the tool w/o sample
tanks; 9 ft w/H-P gauge
5.59 m (w/o temp & H-P gauges)
5.89 m (wltemp & H-P gauges)
Packer is set 1.65 m above the
bottom of the tool w/o sample tanks;
2.74 m w/H-P gauge

W eight, Overall Without 982 lb 445 kg

W ater Cushion

Maximum Tool Diameter, 5.125 in., w/slim hole pad 13 cm, w/slim hole pad
Retracted 6.125 in., w/standard pad 15.56 cm, w/standard pad
7.875 in., w/16 in. extension kit 20 cm, w/16 in. extension kit
9.188 in., w/20 in. extension kit 23.34 cm, w/20 in. extension kit

Maximum Hole Diameter 12.0 in., w/standard pad 30.48 cm

16.0 in. or 20 in. available with 40.64 cm or 50.8 cm available with
extension kits extension kits

Maximum Pressure Rating 15,000 psi 103,350 kPa

(20,000 w/specially equipped tool) (137,800 kPa w/specially equipped tool

Maximum Temperature 350° F 177oc

Rating (425°F w/specially equipped tool) (218’C w/specially equipped tool)

Pretest Chamber 10 cm3 (5 cm3 plug is available) 10 cm3 (5 cm3 plug is available)
Fluid Capacity

Sample Chambers, 1.06, 2.64, and 5.28 gal tanks are 4, 10, and 20 liter tanks are standard
Fluid Capacities standard (other tank sizes are (other tank sizes are available in
(water cushions are available in some specific some specific geographical areas)
available) geographical areas)

Strain Gauge Accuracy

Without templpressure + 0.8% * 0.8%
correction
With templpresssure +0.13% +0.13%
correction
Resolution -+l.O psi k6.89 kPa

Hewlett-Packard Quartz Gauge

Accuracy with temperature
correction
Resolution kO.1 psi f 0.6894 kPa
Repeatability r0.4 psi k2.76 kPa
Accuracy at thermal (+ 1 .O psi + 0.1% of pressure (k6.89 kPa + 0.1% of pressure
equilibrium reading) reading)
In addition to identifying the production potential of
targeted reservoirs, sampling is also an effective means
of identifying fresh water aquifers. Drilling fluids are
typically more saline than potable waters. The resistivi-
ty of the recovered fluid (Rrr), if some percentage of for-
mation fluid is obtained, can provide the fingerprint
defining such potential water supplies. Regulatory agen-
cies are interested in identifying such aquifers so as to
make assurances that the water-bearing zones are ade-
quately isolated from any potential contamination.
Segregated samples, taken at the same packer setting,
often provide some uncontaminated formation water.
Sampling has also been used effectively to pinpoint
gas/oil, gas/water, and oil/water contacts in high-
permeability, high-porosity reservoirs.
Variable Pressure Control (VPC)
Atlas Wireline Services’ unique Variable Pressure Con-
trol (VPC) allows for better sampling of unconsolidated
formations where excessive drawdown or excessive flow
rate might cause formation collapse, resulting in seal
failure, toolplugging, or formation plugging. Earlier ver-
sions of FMT tools used a flow line restrictor or water
cushion to combat the problem of excessive drawdowns
and excessive flow rates. The flow line restrictor was
placed in the flow line upstream from the sample
chamber to limit excessive flow. Water cushions were
used to accomplish the same effect by causing the fluid
filling the sample tank to displace a piston which pushed
water through an orifice into an air-filled chamber. The
flow rate was controlled by installing an appropriate
sized orifice prior to the job.
The VPC is located upstream from the sample tank valve
and has a variable orifice. Both VPC and sample tank
valves are closed when no samples are being taken. When
a sample is desired, the tank valve is opened first followed
by the opening of the variable orifice valve, which is con-
trolled from the surface. Once opened, the variable
orifice responds to pressure in the sample line by slight-
ly opening or closing to maintain a constant pressure.
Excessive packer differentials are avoided and samples
can be successfully retrieved without guesswork.
The VPC also permits sample retrieval from zones which
are above bubble point pressure, eliminating npn-
representative gas/oil ratios caused by the effects of
relative permeability.
Segregated Samples
In tight, invaded formations it is often difficult to ob-
tain a sample which is representative of formation fluids.
The two-chamber capability of the FMT improves the
chance of obtaining a representative sample since both
21
tanks can be filled at one set depth and segregated from
one another. The premise is that the first tank will drain
off most of the invaded filtrate from the flushed zone
surrounding the packoff and the subsequent sample ob-
tained in the second chamber will be more representative
of native formation fluids.
Estimating Sampling Time
Another advantage of the multi-set capability is that the
pretest pressure data allows for a quick approximation
of the time required to fill a sample chamber. The longer
the tool sets stationary and packed off to the formation,
the greater becomes the risk of sticking the tool. For this
reason it is significant to know how much time will be
involved in filling a sample tank.
An estimate of the time period (in minutes) required to
fill a one-gallon sample chamber can be made from the
following:
t = 63.1 (AP,,~)
(2)
qpt (AP,)
where:
t = time required to flow one gallon, in
minutes
Appt = drawdown during pretest
(P formation - Pflowing), psi
APS = drawdown during sampling
(P formation - Pflowing), psi
qpt = flow rate during pretest (chamber
size/time to fill), cm3/sec
3785 cm3/gal
63.1 = conversion factor =
60 sec/min
Equation 2 is a simple extrapolation of flow during
pretest vs. flow during sampling. When sampling is per-
formed without a flow line restrictor or water cushion,
the sampling flowing pressure is typically very low and
APS = Pf (3)
where pf = formation pressure.
The time estimate equation only approximates sampl-
ing time because other factors (e. g., relative perme-
ability, flowing pressure, turbulence, debris, plugging,
etc.) will influence the flow rate into the FMT. If samples
larger than one gallon are to be retrieved, the time
estimate derived from Eq. 2 is simply multiplied by the
difference in chamber size (in gallons). For example, a
2.75gallon tank would take 2.75 times the value
calculated in the equation.
Example
A log of a pretest followed by a sample test is given in
Fig. 28. The flow rate (q) is determined to be 10 cm3/4
set, or 2.5 cm3/sec. The pressure drawdown during
pretest is the difference between the shut-in and flowing
pressures, which is indicated to be
ap*t = 2263 psi - 2215 psi = 48 psi
If the sample was recovered without a flow line restric-
tor or water cushion, the flow rate is estimated to be 0.54
.._--..-- 3 DIGITAL SAMPLING PRESSURE
FIGURE 28
Recording of pretest pressures followed by sample pressures.
minigal. Following the pretest, a 2.56-gal (9700-cm3)
sample was retrieved in 1.47 min for an actual flow rate
of 0.57 min/gal.
If a VPC tool had been used and flowing pressure was
adjusted to 2000 psi, the expected rate would be 4.61
min/gal and the retrieval of a 2.56gal sample would have
taken 11.8 minutes. By using the VPC, sampling would
have taken a few minutes longer but the danger of for-
mation collapse, erroneous gas/oil ratio, and/or debris
plugging of the flow lines would be lessened.
The ability to predetermine a sampling time provides the
responsibleperson at the surface with information which
helps him to decide whether to chance sampling that par-
ticular zone or to move the tool and find a more
permeable depth to sample. The time sampling estimate
also helps thelogging engineer make a judgment on the
proper VPC pressure setting to utilize.
EVALUATING RECOVERED FLUID SAMPLES
Fluids recovered in the sample tank are mud filtrate,
native formation fluids, or a mixture of the two.
Recovered mud filtrate is not representative of forma-
tion fluid. Recovered formation fluids are presumed to
flow into the sample chamber in the same proportions
of gas, oil, and water as they would in production of the
zone.
mud filtrate vs. formation water, per cent water cut,
and gas solubility in water and/or oil
l Viscosity of recovered fluids
Samples recovered may be substantially formation fluid,
substantially mud filtrate, or any mixture in between.
Several methods have been developed to evaluate these
differing conditions.

The quantity of recovered fluid is a function of time,
fluid viscosity, and pressure in addition to permeability.
Quick chamber fillups occur in high permeability for-
mations; however, sample chamber fillup can occur in
tight formations if sufficient time is allowed. Therefore,
the amount of fluid recovery is not diagnostic of
permeability. Fluid recovery in excess of 1000 cm3 is suf-
ficient to allow realistic estimates of:
l Gas/fluid ratio, i. e., gas/oil ratio (GOR) and gas/water
ratio (GWR)
l Production prediction, i. e., hydrocarbon vs. water,
When Sample Recovery is Primary Native
Formation Fluids
When a relatively large fraction of the sample volume
is native formation fluid, the empirical chart of Fig. 29
may be used to predict the production from the forma-
tion. This chart was developed for porosities greater than
about 25 5’0 and shallow filtrate invasion. The volume of
recovered gas at surface conditions (in ft3) and recovered
oil (in cm3) is all that is required to utilize the chart. This
chart was prepared for a one-gallon chamber, therefore
all values of recovered volumes must be divided by the
sample chamber size used (in gallons) to normalize the

I GAS-OIL RATIO/
(ft3/bbl) A / / /

WATER ZONE

OIL RECOVERY - cm’ PER GALLON SAMPLE CHAMBER SIZE

FIGURE 29
Empirical interpretation chart for l-gallon sample tank size and high-permeability formations.

23
recovery to a volume-per-gallon basis. The chart given
as Fig. 30 was prepared for a 2.75gallon chamber. These
two charts were empirically derived from a large number
of tests carried out by Shell Oil Company. The charts
have been found to yield realistic estimates when the sum
of recovered volumes (converted to subsurface
temperature and pressure) is not appreciably less than
the volume of the sample chamber.
Example
The recovered fluids in a l0-liter (2.64-gallon) sample are
4.0 ft3 of gas at surface conditions and 1550 cm3 of oil
and 8000 cm3 of water (both filtrate and formation
water). The recovery data must first be normalized to a
volume-per-gallon basis, so the recovery becomes
4.0
Gas Recovery = - = 1.52 ft3 per gallon
2.64
1550
Oil Recovery = - = 587 cm3 per gallon
2.64
8000
Water Recovery = - = 3030 cm3 per gallon
2.64
OIL RECOVERY (cm3) h
FIGURE 30
Empirical interpretation chart for 2%-gallon sample tank size and high-permeability formations.
24
Entering the above oil and gas recovery data on Fig. 29,
the data point falls clearly in the oil zone. Hence, oil pro-
duction is predicted with a gas/oil ratio of 410 ft3 per
barrel of oil. In this case the formation shut-in pressure
(SIP) is 2800 psi. Since the data point falls well above and
to the right of the 2800 psi shut-in pressure (SIP) line,
no water production is predicted with the oil. If the data
point had fallen below the SIP curve, water production
would have been predicted. An indication of water pro-
duction should not necessarily condemn a zone since
these empirical charts (Figs. 29 & 30) have a tendency to
be pessimistic. Any use of these charts should always be
supplemented with other information on the tested zone.
Gas/oil ratio anticipated in production may be estimated
without the use of Fig. 29 by the following equation:
Gas Recovery (ft3)
GOR = x 159,000 (4)
Oil Recovery (cm3)
The recovery used in Eq. 4 does not have to be nor-
malized to a per-gallon basis. Measured values can be
used directly regardless of sample tank size. This equa-
tion plots as the straight lines of gas/oil ratio (GOR) in
Figs. 29 and 30.
Prediction of Water Cut %.v %nf - Rrf)
ff,(~O> = x 100 (6)
A prediction of the potential water cut may also be made Rrf %lf - &v)
from the recovered fluids. A nomogram given as Fig. 31
can be used to predict water cut. Water cut prediction can where
also be determined from the following equation:
ffw = fraction of formation water in the
Formation Water Recovery (cm3) FMT sample, (070)
Water Cut (070) = (5)
Formation Water Recovery (cn?) + Oil Recovery (cm3)
Rrf = resistivity of recovered fluid

Recovered water is typically comprised of both filtrate R, = resistivity of formation water

and formation water. The filtrate must be deducted from Rm f = resistivity of mud filtrate
the total water recovery prior to using Eq. 5. The frac-
tion of formation water in the recovered sample can be The necessary resistivity information is obtained as
found from the following equation: follows. First, measurements of the recovered water

100
80

60

10

1 2 3 4 5 6 8 10 20 30 40 50 60 80 100

-200 -180 -160 -140 -120 -100 - 8 0 - 6 0 - 4 0 - 2 0 0

SP c : : : : : ! ! : : : : : ! : : : : : : 1

FIGURE 31
Nomogram for estimation of percent water recovered.

25
resistivity are made by either resistivity cell or titration
methods, with the latter being more accurate. Second,
formation water resistivity, R,, is determined from well
logs W, R,,, etc.), produced water samples from off-
set wells, water catalogs, etc. Third, the mud filtrate
resistivity, R,,, must be determined, again by resistivity
cell or titration. A word of caution when determining
R,, is in order, however. R,, values are often observed
to be too low, sometimes less than the resistivity of the
recovered fluid, R,,. This may result from conditioning
the mud prior to logging or by an ion exchange
mechanism. In any case, the values used for Rmfand R,
should be checked with logs and mud company reports
when their reliability is questioned. Fourth, all
resistivities must be adjusted to the same temperature for
determination of the fraction of formation water
recovered. This is accomplished by using the chart shown
in Fig. 23 or the following equation (ARPS) for NaCl
solutions:
for OF
(7)
for OC
where
Rl = resistivity at temperature, T,
R2 = resistivity at temperature, T,
T,,T, = temperature, OF or OC as indicated
above
The fraction of formation water is calculated using these
temperature-corrected values of resistivity. Formation
water recovery is then determined by multiplying this
calculated fraction, f, (To), times the total volume of
water recovery and predicted water cut can be estimated
using Eq. 5.
Recovery of Small Volumes of Formation Fluid
Or No Formation Fluid
Recovery of small volumes of formation fluid or no for-
mation fluid results when zones are deeply invaded and
recovery is primarily filtrate. This usually occurs in lower
porosity formations. Interpretation under these condi-
tions is inconclusive at best.
When deep invasion occurs, flushing of the formation
is usually not complete. The recovered sample, even
though apparently all water, must therefore be examined
very carefully for traces of hydrocarbons. Any hydro-
carbon present, even if only detectable through
26
fluorescence tests, may be significant. Detection of gas
may also be important provided the gas is free gas and
not solution gas associated with formation water (see the
following section). As a rule of thumb, if less than
lo-15% of the water recovered is formation water and
only a small volume or trace of oil is present, the forma-
tion is predicted to produce water-free. A high water cut
would be predicted if larger amounts (>15%) of forma-
tion water are recovered.
Easy recovery of filtrate is indicative of a permeable for-
mation. This factor, coupled with indications of
hydrocarbons from openhole logs (even though only
filtrate is recovered in the sample tank) may indicate the
zone to be a candidate for well completion. The FMT
measurements verify a permeable zone which can be pro-
ductive if hydrocarbons (indicated from other informa-
tion) are present.
Technique For Various Size Recoveries
The following method analyzes the recovered fluids by
converting the surface-measured volumes to downhole
conditions. It is presumed that the sample which entered
the tool at downhole conditions is representative of an-
ticipated production. This interpretive approach at-
tempts to break out the formation water, oil, and free gas,
if any, at formation pressure and temperature. Note,
however, that small amounts of formation water
recovery (<IO-15%) may be caused by mixing of con-
nate and flushing waters and such small formation water
recovery may not indicate water cut.
A schematic showing the various fluids entering the sam-
ple chamber at downhole conditions is given as Fig. 32.
When the sample is analyzed at the surface, the character
of the sample is altered due to gases coming out of solu-
tion with the formation water and oil. Consequently, the
gas volume recorded is greater than any free gas which
may be present. Furthermore, the loss of gas from solu-
tion may cause some change in the volume of oil and
water from downhole to surface conditions.
The analysis is based on the following steps:
Step 1: Computation of Filtrate Volume
To compute the filtrate volume, first determine the frac-
tion of formation water, f, (vo), in the total water
recovery, a technique discussed earlier. The fraction,
I-ffw (olo), equals the fraction of filtrate which, when
multiplied by the recovered water volume, equals the
volume of filtrate.
V, (cm3) = (l-fr,) (Yo) x W, (cm3)

FM7 FMT
SAMPLE SAMPLE
DOWNHOLE Al’ SURFACE
FIGURE 32
Schematic illustrating the differences between downhole and
surface conditions.
The formation water recovered is then
Vfw (cm3) = W, (cm3) - V, (cm3)
Step 2: Computation of Gas Soluble in Water
Figure 33 is a chart which indicates the solubility of
natural gas in water, measured in ft3 of gas at the sur-
face per 1000 cm3 of water. To use this chart, enter
downhole formation pressure and temperature, and read
solubility (S,) as indicated. This solubility value must
be corrected for water salinity, which is accomplished by
determining the solubility ratio (SR) from the formation
water resistivity and downhole formation temperature
using Fig. 34. The volume of solution gas associated with
the formation water recovered is then given by
Vwsg (ft3) = S, x SR x vf;;;;3)
(8)
If only water and gas were recovered and the volume
calculated is greater than or equal to the gas recovered,
no free gas is present and the zone is 100% water pro-
ductive. Otherwise, subtract the value of water solution
gas from the total gas and proceed to step 3.
27
Step 3: Computation of Gas in Oil
The oil within a formation is either above or below bub-
ble point pressure. If the pressure at which the oil is found
is above bubble point pressure, it contains the greatest
possible volume of gas in solution. If bubble point
pressure is less than the pressure of the oil in the forma-
tion, then free gas cannot be present in the oil and gas
will not be produced. Hence, free gas is only produced
if the oil is below bubble point.
To compute the volume of solution gas evolving from the
recovered oil, utilize the chart shown in Fig. 35. Enter
downhole formation pressure at the right side of the
chart. Proceed upward to the formation temperature,
then left to the OAP1 gravity of the recovered oil. From
this juncture, move upward to the gas gravity and then
left to the gas/oil ratio (GOR). Note that this GOR value
is in ft3 per barrel. To determine the volume of gas
liberated from the recovered oil,
GOR (ft3/bbl) x V, (cm3)
vosg et31 = (9)
159,000
If this volume of gas is greater than the volume of gas
remaining after completion of Step 2, then free gas is pre-
sent and free gas production is expected with the oil. If
this volume is less than or equal to the gas remaining
after Step 2, then liquid oil production with no free gas
is expected downhole.
FLUID FLOW IN POROUS MEDIA
Flow regimes in reservoir rocks are either steady state or
nonsteady state. In steady-state regimes, flow rates and
pressures at any level will adjust instantly to a change in
flow rate and pressure at another point in the flow
regime. When readjustment time is short, the flow
regime may also be assumed to be steady state.
The snorkel probe of the FMT has a theoretical intake
flow response which is similar to a spherical flow model
(Fig. 36). The theory implies a situation analogous to a
well and pipe string penetrating an infinitely thick
porous stratigraphic unit.
Four different types of flow geometries are of interest
in the analysis of wireline tests. In addition to spherical
flow, linear, radial, and hemispherical flow patterns are
also considered (Fig. 36). In linear flow, the lines of flow
distribution are parallel and the cross-sectional area ex-
posed to the flow is constant. In radial flow, the flow pat-
terns converge two-dimensionally to a central point, e. g.,
the borehole. In spherical flow, the flow patterns con-
verge three-dimensionally toward a central point,
whereas in hemispherical flow, the flow patterns con-
 .18

.16

a .09
5
s .08

& .07
c
3
;i3i
.06

10 0
3
2
‘05

100 150 200 250

TEMPERATURE (OF)
%I
500 psi
300 330

Solubility of natural gas in water vs. temperature and pressure.

verge three-dimensionally from one side toward a com-
mon center.
Darcy’s Law
In 1856, a French engineer named Henry Darcy (Henri
d’Arcy) performed tests on water filters providing the
engineering profession with a method to measure and
study the ease of fluid flow through porous rock. Dar&s
Law of fluid flow states, “the rate of flow through a given
rock varies directly according to some numerical quan-
tity and the pressure applied, and varies inversely accor-
ding to the viscosity of the fluid flowing!’ The numerical
quantity is the permeability (k) and is measured in dar-
cies. Reservoir rocks seldom have permeabilities as great
as 1.0 darcy, therefore the usual measure of rock
permeability is in millidarcies (md), although reservoirs
with several darcies of permeability do exist.
Wide variations in rock permeability frequently exist
both horizontally and vertically. Permeability may oc-
casionally change by a drastic amount over a short
distance in reservoir rock that otherwise appears to be
uniform. Horizontal permeability, which is measured
parallel to bedding planes, usually exceeds vertical
permeability.

28
 ’ ““111111

I-I

0.6 250’I
0.5 200’

1:
0.4 150”
I

tl I I I I I IllIll
0.1 5

1
.04 .05 .06 .07 .08.09 .l .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 1.0

RESISTIVITY OF RECOVERED FLUIDS

(AT 70°F)

FIGURE 34
Salinity correction for gas solubility in water.

BUBBLE POINT PRESSURE

FIGURE 35
Determination of gas/oil ratio at bubble point.

29
 is based upon a quasi-spherical flow model, since the
probe size is small relative to reservoir dimensions (Fig.
36). Flow is assumed to be steady state. Fluid entry into
the tool is taken as that entering a sphere having a
diameter equal to that of the probe.

The flow model factor (C) is typically considered a con-

\I/
-.-
stant, although in reality it may vary from 0.5 for per-
fectly spherical flow to 1.0 for hemispherical flow.
Several methods have been proposed to derive a quan-

HEMISPHERICAL FLOW
‘I’ SPHERICAL FLOW
titatively precise value for the C factor; however, the
derivations are usually based on controlled conditions
in the laboratory, a situation unlike the borehole environ-
ment. For practical oilfield use, the C factor for quasi-
spherical flow in an 8-in. borehole is approximated by
0.75. It should be kept in mind that flow into the snorkel
probe is through a flat disc (not a hemisphere).
A transform is necessary to convert the various
measurements in Eq. 11 into common units. The probe
diameter transform is recommended to avoid the con-
FMT FLOW (QUASI-SPHERICAL) fusion of radius vs. diameter, a step which quite often
creates calculation errors for the user. Considering the
FIGURE 36
above, the simplified equation to estimate permeability
Types of flow conditions from pressure drawdown for FMT work is:

The magnitude of rock permeability plays an important

role in the ability of a reservoir to produce into a k, = 1842 x C x (11)
wellbore. This is illustrated by the fact that a reservoir
rock 10 ft thick having 1.0 darcy of effective permeability
(k,) will permit 150 barrels of oil per day (BOPD) to flow where
into a wellbore if the pressure in the well is 10 psi below k = permeability (drawdown), md
the reservoir pressures.
9 = flow rate, cm3/sec
In practical oilfield units, Darcy’s Law is expressed as: c1 = viscosity of fluid, cp
(should be temperature corrected)
(10) AP = pressure drawdown, psi
C = flow model factor
where
d = diameter-of snorkel orifice, in.
9 = flow rate, BPD
k = permeability, darcy The flow rate (q) is determined from the pretest pressure
= cross sectional area, ft2 record and is equal to the pretest fluid volume (usually
A
10 cm3) divided by the time of flow as indicated on the
= viscosity, cp
pretest record. The pressure drawdown (Ap) is the dif-
:p/dL = pressure gradient, psi/ft
ference between the flowing pressure during the late
Formation permeability may be inferred from FMT stages of drawdown and the shut-in formation pressure.
pressure records. The basis of such permeability Hydrostatic pressure is not relevent to the calculation.
estimates is the pressure drawdown and subsequent The FMT standard probe has an orifice diameter of
buildup phases discussed earlier under FMT operation. 0.562in.; however, other sizes are occasionally used. This
orifice diameter is the avenue through which fluid flows
PRESSURE DRAWDOWN - from the formation into the tool. The viscosity 01) is that
PERMEABILITY ESTIMATE of the fluid flowing from the formation into the tool dur-
ing the pretest. This fluid is usually mud filtrate, typically
Permeability can be inferred from the flowing drawdown salt water, and viscosity is commonly assumed at 0.5 cp.
phase of the FMT pretest. The calculated permeability More accurate viscosity should be determined by the

30
chart in Fig. 24, which illustrates the effects of
temperature and salinity on the filtrate viscosity
It is of utmost importance that thepretest chamber size,
probe diameter, downhole temperature, and salinity of
themudfiltrate berecorded on thelogheading. The in-
formation is not only necessary for the foregoing com-
putations, but is important for a review of the data at a
later time.
(2) The next stage is quasi-spherical. The time dura-
tion for this quasi-spherical buildup period is a
function of bed thickness and formation
anisotropy. Vertical permeability (k,) can be
computed from the information derived here.
(3) Radial flow is the tendency at the later stages of
pressure buildup. The flow patterns have a cylin-
drical symmetry around the borehole axis.

The drawdown model for permeability estimation is a Spherical Pressure Buildup -

very microscopic indicator because the model is affected
by the formation within a very few (2 or 3) centimeters
from the probe. The inferred permeability is a relative
permeability to the filtrate, which means it is not usual-
ly representative of absolute permeability Drawdown
permeabilityestimatesare usuallypessimisticsince they
are calculated from data related to a region near the
wellbore where formation damage is likely to occur.
Another reason for low permeability numbers is that the
spherical flow characteristics may be impaired because
of shale barriers or reductions in vertical permeability.
Reduction of permeability near the borehole is often
referred to as “skin effect”, i. e., the zone of reduced
permeability being the “skin!’ An example of pretest
drawdown permeability computation is provided in Ap-
pendix A.
Formation permeability may be inferred from either the
pretest pressure record or the pressure record from a sam-
ple test. The equation for permeability evaluation is iden-
tical for both records but the larger volumetrics of the
sample test result in improved calculations.
Permeability and Formation Pressure
Following the flowing or drawdown period of the pretest,
the flow entering the tool stops and a pressure buildup
is observed to occur. At the time the flow ceases, a
pressure gradient exists between the FMT snorkel and
the undisturbed virgin formation. Following drawdown,
flow continues toward the FMT probe, causing a recom-
pression of the fluid in the vicinity of the probe and a
rise in pressure back to the original formation pressure.
The disturbance propagates spherically into the forma-
tion as shown in Fig. 37 and the pressure profile within
the formation varies during the buildup period as il-
lustrated in Fig. 38.
Since the pressure disturbance associated with the
buildup initially propagates spherically, the pressure
detected at the FMT probe can be modelled during this
period with the spherical buildup equation:

The resolution on pressure recording during sample test

drawdown in high-permeability formations is therefore
improved substantially. If permeability is 1000 md, the
pressure drawdown during pretest would-be about 1 psi
whereas it would take about 7 seconds to fill a 2.75-gallon
sample chamber.

PRESSURE BUILDUP -
PERMEABILITY ESTIMATE

A number of methods have been described (by various

authors) to determine an estimate of undamaged forma-
tion permeability by pressure buildup analysis. Drillstem
tests (DST) and routine production tests assume flow
during buildup to be radial, and reasonably so. The
assumption of radial flow is also valid for wireline tests
made in very thin beds. However, the FMT buildup pat-
tern in thick beds is as follows:

(1) The immediate buildup after drawdown (fill up)

is one of linear flow. This very short time span FIGURE 37
is difficult to observe on FMT buildup plots. Schematic illustrating spherical flow.

31
 To evaluate permeability, the foregoing equation may be
written:

A plot of

on linear-linear graph paper produces a straight line dur-

ing the spherical buildup period as illustrated in Fig. 39.
The slope, m,, in psi/set may be used to evaluate perme-
ability, provided ct and + are known, by the following
FIGURE 38
equations:
Variation of the pressure profile during the buildup period.

P ws = pi - 8.0 X lo4 ~
S
0
where
Pi
= formation pressure, psi
P ws = pressure at probe after shut in, psi
9 = flow rate during drawdown, cm3/sec
P = viscosity of formation fluid, cp
ct = compressibility of formation fluid, psi-’
kS
= permeability of formation (spherical),
md
+ = porosity of formation, fraction
t = length of pretest flowing time, set
At = time elapsed after shut in, set

While the foregoing equation assumes an infinite,

homogeneous formation, it may be applied before any
boundaries are encountered by the pressure disturbance.
Furthermore, theprevious equation may beapplied only
after the pressure has built up sufficiently. The dif-
ference, pi - pws, must be lo-20% percent of the
drawdown pressure (Ap) encountered during the flow-
ing portion of the pretest to assure its validity. A further
important consideration which may raise questions
regarding the valid application of this equation is the
presence of formation boundaries or thin shale barriers
which effectively block thepropagation of thespherical
pressure disturbance. Their presence may cause the
FIGURE 39
buildup to become cylindrical rather than spherical in A linear-linear plot produces astraight line with slope m dur-
character. ing the spherical buildup period.

32

m, = 8.0 x lo4
or
An example computation using this spherical buildup
technique is given in Appendix A.
The computed permeability, k,, is the permeability to
flow in a spherical flow regime. This permeability may
be related to the horizontal (k,) and vertical (k,)
permeability by the equation
k,3 = kH2 x k,
In most conditions, the vertical permeability is less than
the horizontal permeability and the degree of anisotropy,
kani, can be defined as
(12)
kani = k,/k, (15)
A graphical means of determining k, and k, from the
evaluation of k, and degree of anisotropy, if known, is
(13) shown in Fig. 40. For example, if k, is determined to be
10 md and the anisotropy is 0.1, the horizontal
permeability is found to be about 21.5 md. If the
anisotropy is unknown, it may be evaluated from
horizontal permeability information determined from
the cylindrical buildup discussed later.
The measurement of permeability from spherical
buildup, unlike drawdown, is affected by information
coming from deeper within the formation. This depth
is affected by FMT pressure gauge resolution as well as
(14) formation and fluid-related parameters. The depth of
investigation (cm) or sphere ofinfluence is typically on
the order of a few feet beyond the probe. An equation
which relates the depth into the formation which most

1000

10

kH (md)

FIGURE 40
Chart for determination of kH and k, from the evaluation of k, and degree of anisotropy (d), if known.

33
affects the buildup is given as t = length of pretest flowing time, set
At = time elapsed after shut in, set
‘inv At0.3 (t + At)0.2 (16)
As with the spherical equation, the cylindrical equation
applies as long as no discon tin uities in the formation are
where encountered and only during the late stages of buildup.
rinv = depth into formation affected by buildup, cm
For evaluation of permeability, Eq. 17 is rewritten to the
The plot of the pressure data during buildup, shown in form
Fig. 39, may be used to obtain a better estimate of for-
mation pressure. As pressure becomes great relative to (Pi - Pws)
= m, (18)
t, the difference

approaches zero and FMT pressure approaches true for-

mation pressure. Formation pressure may be estimated
by extrapolation of the straight line plot of the spherical
buildup curve to the

point, even though the observed pressure continues to

increase at the time the pretest is terminated.

Cylindrical Buildup -
Permeability and Formation Pressure

At some point after shut in, the spherical pressure distur-

bance will likely encounter the bed boundaries or other
local permeability barriers as shown in Fig. 41. As a
result, the configuration of the disturbance undergoes
a transition from a spherical to a cylindrical shape. Schematic illustrating the transition from spherical to cylin-
drical flow.
Following this transition, analysis of pressure buildup
relies on the cylindrical pressure buildup equation.
When buildup data is plotted on semi-logarithmic graph
Assuming an infinite reservoir, the following equation
paper, with pi - pwS as the linear y-axis and t + At/At
describes the cylindrical pressure buildup at the FMT
on a logarithmic x-axis as shown on Fig. 42, the plot is
probe:
known as a Horner Plot. This data plots linearly on the
Horner Plot during the cylindrical buildup period. The
(pws - pi)= - 88.4 ($) log,o(fg) (17) slope of that plot (m,) is measured in psi/cycle and
permeability (k,) may be computed from the following
equation:
where

(19)
Pi = formation pressure, psi
P ws = pressure at probe after shut in, psi
The permeability (k,) is a measurement of horizontal
9 = flow rate during drawdown, cm3/sec
permeability beyond the skin-damaged zone, since the
IJ = viscosity of formation fluid, cp depth of investigation extends several feet from the
wellbore.
kc = formation (cylindrical) horizontal
permeability, md
Where the FMT probe has been set in clean thin zones,
h = distance between impermeable barriers, ft the parameter his the zone or bed thickness. In more ex-

34
 To evaluate the formation pressure (p*) from the cylin-
drical buildup data, the linear portion of the Horner Plot
CYLINDRICAL BUILDUP PLOT
(HORNER PLOT)
must be extrapolated to the point where t + At/At
approaches 1. This value of p* is valid as long as the
pressure pulse has not encountered any discontinuity and
the pressure pulse is cylindrical in character as modelled.
This technique is illustrated in Fig. 42. An example com-
CYLINDRICAL
putation demonstrating the cylindrical buildup method
PRESSURE is carried out in Appendix A.
DISTURBANCE
4500 -

% COMPARISON OF PERMEABILITY ESTIMATES

3 DISTURBANCE
Y
The three approaches for estimating permeability
(drawdown, spherical buildup, and cylindrical buildup)
often produce three different permeability values, and
at first glance, a very poor agreement with each other.
It becomes necessary to review the difference between
the threeindividualpermeabilitymeasurements and to
establish thepotential utility of each. The schematic of
Fig. 44 illustrates the regions of investigation for each
method, assuming a fairly thin zone in which each
buildup region fully develops for some period of time.
10 8 6 5 4 3 2 . 1

t + At
At
IGURE 42
Semi-logarithmic plot of buildup data provides a straight line
response of slope m for cylindrical buildup data.
tensive zones, especially those where numerous semi-
extensive thin shale layers exist as illustrated in Fig. 43,
the proper value of h to be used in computations is not
readily apparent. A value of h = 0.5 ft is frequently
taken and appears to provide reasonable results in many
instances. However, for best results in development wells,
the parameter h should be adjusted to provide the best
match between k, and permeability from core or other
reliable data taken in the same reservoir.
The drawdown test drains 10 cm3 of fluid from the for-
mation. During this pretest the converging character of
the spherical flow assures that the greatest weight is given
to the permeability where the greater pressure drop oc-
curs, within about 2 cm from the probe. While the flow
is spherical in character, it does not converge to a point
since the flow enters the full diameter of the probe
orifice. The computed drawdown permeability will
therefore be closer to the cylindrical permeability result
than thespherical buildup value. Of primary considera-
tion is the fact that this region of formation near the
borehole has been invaded and flushed by drilling fluids.
As a result, permeability estimates are adversely affected
due to mud filter cake, skin damage by clay particle
hydration, mud solid infiltration, compaction, and
relative permeability effects.

FIGURE 43
Numerous discontinous shale stringers pose a problem to FIGURE 44
a proper calculation of bed thickness (h). Schematic illustrating regions of investigation.

35
Assuming no damage or plugging of the pore structure,
the effect of relative permeability is illustrated in Fig. 45.
kabs is the absolute permeability to one phase (gas, oil,
or water) when only that one phase is present, and ef-
fective permeability is the permeabiity to an individual
fluid phase when two or more phases are present. Ab-
solute permeability is the maximum permeability to
flow. Effective permeability (k,) to any single phase is
always less than kabs when two phases are present since
the pore space is occupied to some extent by the second
phase. The flow channels are therefore somewhat
restricted and effective permeability is less than absolute
permeability. The term relative permeability (k,) is simp-
ly a fraction of k,, and is a convenient factor to use to
compute k,. For example, if water and oil are present in
and fill the pore volume,
k eo = kro x kabs (20)
and
k ew = krw x kabs (21)
The flushed zone water saturation (S,,) for a water-wet
oil reservoir may exhibit flushed zone water saturations
of 0.75 to 0.95. The relative permeability curve to water
is steeply declining over this range from k,, = 1.0 (Fig.
45). Therefore the observed permeability is significant-
ly reduced even though only water flows into the FMT
tool.
FIGURE 45
Effects of relative permeability.
If the mud is water based, a water zone will exhibit k,,
as its permeability. In an oil-wet reservoir, an oil zone
flushed with oil-based mud filtrate will exhibit k,,. This
assumes no mechanical damage in either of the above
cases. However, the mud may have been viscosified, gell-
ed, or otherwise treated with soluble additives, and so
the character of its filtrate may be quite different from
brine.
36
Permeabilities determined from buildup pressures are
responsive to formation characteristics deeper into the
formation, i. e., the fluid which is mobile deep in the for-
mation is the fluid which affects the test. In an oil zone,
the permeability measured is less than the absolute
permeability if the formation is water wet. This measure
point is illustrated on the relative permeability curves of
Fig. 45. The spherical model may be affected, in part,
by the invaded zone since the spherical disturbance pro-
pagates in all directions. It is apparent from Fig. 44 that
for spherical buildup to measure effective permeability
to oil deeper in the formation, the distance between bar-
riers must be great relative to the invasion depth. If this
is not the case, the transition to cylindrical buildup begins
before the spherical disturbance propagates appreciably
beyond the invaded zone. Unless depth of invasion is very
large, thecylindricalmodelis best suited to evaluate the
effectivepermeability to hydrocarbon, subject to proper
values used for the formation thickness (h).
Spherical permeability, as discussed earlier, may be
related to horizontal permeability if the anisotropy
(k/k,) is known. As a result, the permeability in-
dicated by spherical buildup may be considerably lower
than actual horizontalpermeability. Core analysis may
also indicate anisotropy exists in the horizontal direction
with the difference between the maximum and minimum
frequently exceeding a factor of 10 or more.
A comparison of permeability computed by drawdown
with that from cylindrical buildup is illustrated in Fig.
46. While the correlation appears good, the differences
may be resolved or used to resolve such unknowns as ef-
fective distance between permeability barriers, degree of
skin damage, anisotropy, etc., especially when combined
with spherical buildup and/or core data.
FIGURE 46
Comparison of cylindrical buildup permeability computations
to drawdown permeability computations.
BED THICKNESS
DEFINITION DURING BUILDUP
During the buildup phase impermeable boundaries may
be encountered by the spherical pressure pulse. As a
result, the buildup data begins to deviate upward above
the linear portion of the spherical buildup plot, as il-
lustrated in Fig. 47. The point of deviation signals the
transition from spherical to cylindrical buildup. The
distance from the probe to this impermeable bed may be
estimated by the following equation:
An alternative method of determining h has been
reported. This technique is based on the time, t*, after
the beginning of flow, from which the actual pressure
buildup deviates from its linear character during the
spherical phase. The equation to determine h on this
basis is
x 1O-4 (23)
where

(22) t* = time after beginning of flow when

buildup deviates from straight line
spherical plot, set
where
At* = t* - flowing time, set
h’ = distance to impermeable layer, cm
SUBSURFACE PRESSURE REGIMES
V = volume of flow, cm3
Hydrostatic Pressure
Pi = initial formation pressure, psi
P* = pressure determined from extrapolation Hydrostatic pressure is created by the unit weight and
of linear spherical buildup, psi vertical height of a fluid column. The size and shape of
this fluid column have no effect on the magnitude of this
+ = formation porosity, % pressure. Hydrostatic pressure, pHY, equals the
= formation total compressibility mathematical product of the average fluid density and
ct
its vertical height such as
kani = anisotropy, k/k,
pHY
=PxGxZ (24)

where

P = average density,
G = gravitational constant
Z = height of the column

In terms of drilling and formation tester operations,

p,,(psi) = C x MW x Z (25)

where

Z = vertical height of fluid column in feet,

MW = fluid density or mud weight in lb/gal
(lb/gal, ppg) or lb/ft3
C = conversion constant (C = 0.052 if MW
in lb/gal and C = 0.00695 if MW in
lb/ft3).

In the metric system, Eq. 25 becomes

pHY
= 0.098 x MW x Z (26)
FIGURE 47
Upward deviation of spherical pressure buildup (upper right
corner) signals the transition from spherical to cylindrical where Z, the vertical fluid column, is in meters and MW,
buildup. the mud weight, is in g/cm3.

37
The hydrostatic pressure gradient is affected by the con- where
centration of dissolved solids (i. e., salts) and gases in the
fluid column and different or varying temperature gra- z = vertical height of geologic column
dients. In other words, an increase in dissolved solids = porosity of formation expressed as a
(i. e., higher salt concentration) tends to increase the nor- +
fraction
mal pressure gradient whereas increasing amounts of
gases in solution and higher temperatures would P ma = density of rock matrix
decrease the normal hydrostatic pressure gradient. For
Pf = density of fluid
example, a pressure gradient of 0.465 psi/ft assumes a
water salinity of 80,000 parts per million (ppm) NaCl at
Generally, it is assumed that overburden pressure in-
a temperature of 77’F (25OC).
creases uniformly with depth. For example, average Ter-
tiary deposits on the U. S. Gulf Coast and elsewhere ex-
Typical average hydrostatic gradients which may be en-
ert an overburden pressure gradient of 1.0 psi/ft of depth.
countered during drilling for oil and gas are shown
This corresponds to a force exerted by a formation with
below:
an average bulk density of 2.31 g/cm3. Experience also
indicates that the probable maximum overburden gra-
Hydrostatic Equivalent Total Basin
Gradient Mud Wt. (ppg) Chlorides (ppm) Location
dient in clastic rocks may be as high as 1.35 psi/ft.
0.433 8.33 fresh Rocky Worldwide observations over the last few years have
water Mountains,
Beaufort,
resulted in the concept of a varying overburden gradient
Brunei, for fracture pressure gradient predictions used in drill-
ing and completion operations.
0.442 8.5 20,000 Malay,
Sverdrup,
N. Slope in
Alaska Formation Pressure
(most of
world’s basins) Formation pressure (pf) is the pressure acting upon the
0.452 8.7 40,000 North Sea, fluids (formation water, oil, gas) in the pore space of the
Delaware (older formation. Normal formation pressures in any geologic
portion - setting will equal the hydrostatic head (i. e., hydrostatic
Pre Penn.)
pressure) of water from the surface to the subsurface for-
0.465 9.0 80,000 Gulf Coast mation. Abnormal formation pressures, by definition,
0.478 9.2 95,000 Portions of are then characterized by any departure from the nor-
Gulf Coast mal trend line.

Formation pressures exceeding hydrostatic pressure

In general then, the hydrostatic pressure gradient (gfp) (pf > p,,) in a specific geologic environment are defin-
can be defined in psi/ft from: ed as abnormally high formation pressures (super-
pressures), whereas formation pressures less than
gfp = 0.433 x yw (27) hydrostatic are called subnormal (subpressures).
where yw is the specific gravity of a representative col-
Figure 48 and Eq. 27 both illustrate how these subsur-
umn of water.
face pressures and stress concepts are related:
Overburden Pressure
PO = Pf +C7 (29)
This pressure originates from the combined weight of the where
formation matrix (rock) and the fluids (water, oil, gas)
in the pore space overlying the formation of interest.
Mathematically, the overburden pressure (p,) can be ex- PO = overburden pressure (total vertical stress,
lithostatic pressure)
pressed as:
Weight (Rock Matrix + Fluid) Pf = formation pressure (pore fluid pressure,
PO = (28) pore pressure)
Area = grain-to-grain presssure (matrix stress,
u
- +) prna + +Pf G
1 effective stress, vertical rock-frame
stress).

38
 Overpressures are defined by:

pf (Psi 1 = gfp x D + C (33)

Pf @ia) = gfp x D + 15 + C (34)

whereas subpressures (underpressures) are described by

pf (Psi) = gfp x D - C (35)

pf @ia) = gfp x D + 15 - C (36)

Hydrocarbon pressure regimes depart from subsurface

water regimes in that the densities of oil and/or gas are
less than that of water. Consequently, hydrocarbon
pressure gradients are smaller, typical values being

Gas Density (g/cm3) Pressure Gradient (psi/ft)

FIGURE 48 0.25 0.11

Subsurface pressure concepts. 0.18 0.08

In normal pressure environments (pr = pHY) the matrix
stress supports the overburden load due to grain-to-grain
contacts. Any reduction in this direct grain-to-grain
stress (o-0) will cause the pore fluid to support part of
the overburden, the result being abnormal formation
pressures (pf > p,,). In other words, the overburden
may effectively be buoyed by high formation pressures.
There are numerous factors that can cause abnormal for-
mation pressures such as surpressures and subpressures.
Frequently, a combination of several superimposed
causes prevail in a given basin and as such is related to
the stratigraphic, tectonic, and geochemical history of
the area. This has been discussed in detail (Hawkins,
1956).
Generally speaking, any subsurface fluid pressure (pf)
is a function of the fluid pressure gradient (gfp) and true
vertical depth (D), such as
pf (Psi) = gfp x D (30)
gauge pressure units
pf @ia) = gfpx D + 15 (31)
absolute pressure units
Oil Density (g/cm3) Pressure Gradient (psi/ft)
0.85 0.37
0.80 0.35
where
g/cm3 + 2.31 = psi/ft (37)
APPLICATIONS OF
FMT PRESSURE MEASUREMENTS
The most important feature of the FMT is its ability to
perform pretest pressure measurements with reasonable
accuracy at numerous selected depth intervals. Pretest
formation pressures are typically determined following
the observation of a stable buildup to formation shut-
in pressure. It is essential that this formation shut-in
pressure reading be taken as long as safely possible after
the flowing portion of the pretest in order to allow ade-
quate time for the pressure to build up and approach the
actual formation pressure. A typical formation pressure
reading is illustrated in Fig. 49. If the pressure test is ter-
minated too early, the formation shut-in pressure reading
will be too low since sufficient buildup did not occur.

gfr, (psi/ft) = pf (psi)/D (ft) (32) Measured Depth vs. True Vertical Depth

In subsurface water pressure regimes, the typical average
pressure gradients for fresh and brackish water are 0.433
psi/ft and for salt water, 0.465 psi/ft. These values cor-
respond to fluid density values of 1.0 g/cm3 and 1.07
g/cm3. Figure 19 shows water density as a function of
salinity, temperature, and pressure.
It is also veryimportant that all measured pressure data
be evaluated at the true vertical depth (TVD) regardless
of the borehole drift angle. This is illustrated by the ex-
ample in Fig. 50, where vertical Well A was drilled to
10,000 ft and the measured depth of deviated Well B was
12,000 ft, although the true vertical depth of the target

39
 RECORDED DIGITAL SAMPLING PRESSURE
B (Psi)
i
ANALOG
(Psi)
-L-l-2

FIGURE 49
Adequate time for pressure buildup must be allowed.

40
L

FIGURE 50
Vertical borehole vs. measured depths and TVD in directional
boreholes.

zone in Well B was also 10,000 feet. Both wells were drill-
ed with similar mud systems, corresponding to a
L
hydrostatic gradient of 0.465 psi/ft, or 4650 psi at TVD
FIGURE 51
in both wells. Serious interpretive errors would have
Formation pressure gradient.
resulted if measured depth of Well B had been used to
calculate hydrostatic pressure (12,000 x 0.465 = 5580
The shallow zone is slightly underpressured and the
psi), in which case the resultant value would be 930 psi
deepest zone is considerably overpressured. This type of
too high.
information can be invaluable to drilling plans for off-
set wells and in optimizing completion practices.
Pressure Regimes in Water-Bearing Reservoirs
Supercharging
Subsurface aquifers can have normal (hydrostatic)
pressures or they may be either overpressured or under-
Formation pressure measurements can be affected by a
pressured. If a well penetrates a sequence of permeable
set of conditions known as supercharging. Supercharg-
water sands, FMT pretest pressure measurements can be
ingis thenaturalresult oftheradialflowofinvadingmud
used to identify the normal hydrostatic gradient and
filtrateinto the formation during theprocess of building
locate those strata which are either overpressured or
up a filter cake over a permeable depth interval, as il-
underpressured.
lustrated in Fig. 52. The supercharging effect causes the
observed formation pressure (near the wellbore) to be
The plot of depth vs. formation pressure in Fig. 51 is
greater than the actual formation pressure. Supercharg-
taken from five FMT pretest pressures: 660 psi at 2000
ing should not be confused with intrinsic formation
ft, 2325 psi at 5000 ft, 4650 psi at 10,000 ft, 5580 psi at
overpressures. Two mud-related factors which affect the
12,000 ft, and 8150 psi at 12,500 ft.
filtration rate are (1) the degree of pressure differential
(or overpressure) between the mud and the formation
The formation pressure gradient (gf,) for each zone is
and (2) the extent of mud cake buildup and its effec-
calculated as follows:
tiveness in preventing further filtrate fluid loss into the
formation. The second factor tends to mitigate the ef-
660 psi Q 2000 ft grr, = 660/2000 = 0.33 psi/ft
fects of supercharging with time if the zone has adequate
2325 psi @ 5000 ft gr, = 2325/5000 = 0.465 psi/ft permeability to allow the pressure to bleed off and
dissipate. Supercharging can be quite large in very tight
4650 psi @ 10,000 ft gr, = 4650/10,000 = 0.465 psi/ft formations (< 0.5 md) as illustrated by the data in
Fig. 53. Plots of pressure vs. depth from several pretest
5580 ps1 @I 12,000 ft gg = 5580/12,000 = 0.465 psi/ft readings will usually reveal these zones which are
anomalous because of supercharging as shown in
8150 psi @ 12,500 ft gr, = 8150/12,500 = 0.65 psi/ft Fig. 53.

41

FIGURE 52
Supercharging results from radial flow of the mud filtrate into
the formation during filter cake buildup.
FIGURE 53
Large supercharging effects are most common in tight
formations.
Selection of Test Intervals
Proper analysis of openholelogs should allow selection
of themorepermeablezones forpressuremeasurements.
Good log interpretation practices will help the FMT user
avoid testing strata where supercharging is likely to oc-
cur. In any case, the higher credibility should be given
those pressure measurements taken from zones of
highest permeability. Very long pretests are indicative of
extremely low permeability and likely to be supercharg-
ed. Effects of supercharging can be further minimized
by running the FMT service as long as possible after mud
circulation, which would allow for maximum mud cake
buildup and pressure dissipation.
Pressure Gradients and Particular Pressure Regimes
When an adequate number of formation pressure
measurements are acquired in a borehole, a plot of those
42
pressures vs. depth (TVD) presents a quantitative pro-
file of each individual horizon’s ability to drive its pro-
duced fluid to the surface. A typical plot of pressures vs.
depth (TVD) compared to bulk volume analysis from
openhole logs across three potentially productive
hydrocarbon zones is shown in Fig. 54. A hydrostatic
mud coIumn pressure gradient is also plotted.
Maximum advantage of pretest formation pressure data
is attained if the pressures used on the plot are derived
from the extrapolation of the appropriatepressure and
buildup plots. As discussed earlier, buildup pressure data
is a truer representation of formation fluid pressures,
especially when rock permeabilities are low. The presen-
tation of the mud column pressuregradient serves as a
check to verify proper tool operation during the
downhole pressure survey.
If a particular stratigraphic unit is relatively thick and
undisturbed by prior depletion, a formation pressure
profile across that zone may indicate the type of mov-
ingpore fluid. Equation 27 applies in this circumstance
just as it did with hydrostatic gradients.
gfp (psi/ft) = 0.433 x Reservoir Fluid Density (cm3)
Formation water densities generally vary in gradient
from 0.433 psi/ft (fresh water) to 0.465 psi/ft and greater
for salty waters. Gas zones generally exhibit gradients
less than 0.1 psi/ft. Liquid hydrocarbons will vary from
0.25 to 0.34 psi/ft or greater depending on oil gravity and
gas/oil ratio (GOR). A key to gradient (or slope) is given
in the lower right-hand corner of Fig. 54. FMT fluid
pressure gradients therefore play an important role in
verifying, or identifying, the presence of water, gas, or
liquid hydrocarbons in a formation.
Determination of Movable Formation Fluid Density
in Zones with High Connate Water Resistivity
In depth intervals where the reservoir connate water
resistivity (R,) is high, and the traditional Archie
method of log analysis allows for some uncertainty of
pore fluid type, a crossplot of pHY versus p* is recom-
mended. Pressures derived from the Hewlett-Packard
gauges should be utilized because of their superior
resolution. With several data points available, a best-fit
line or slope can be established. The resultant slope is
proportional to the in-situ density of the formation fluid
(Pf). Multiplying the slope value by the mud density
(P,,d) yields the product Pf. The above assumes static
hydraulic equilibrium over the designated depth interval.
Defining Gas/Liquid and Oil/Water Contacts
Pressure gradients derived from FMT data have also
found significant usage in defining gas/liquid and
 50 0 0 1.19 g/cm3
FMT
JOB SUMMARY - PRESSURE

\ HYDROSTATIC

OHYDROSTATIC

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

PRESSURE (psi)

FIGURE 54
Comparison of bulk volume analysis from open hole logs to a typical FMT pressure versus TVD depth plot.
oil/water contacts. The free water level indicated in Fig.
55 represents the depth where capillarypressure equals
zero. A series of FMT pressure measurements across the
oil and water zones were plotted vs. depth. A saturation
profile from log analysis is provided on the right side of
Fig. 55 for comparison. Note that the free water level
point occurs where the oil gradient and water gradient
intersect.
FIGURE 55
Comparison of FMT pressure data to a saturation profile from
log analysis.
An oil or gas reservoir, under virgin conditions, exhibits
two fluid phases near the wellbore, i. e., mud filtrate and
either oil or gas. Thepressures of the twointerfaces dif-
fer because of the effects of capillary pressure. The
oil/water contact lies above the free water level by a
distance determined by capillary pressures, grain size,
permeability, etc. In the transition zone, the capillary
pressure is a function of the wetting phase saturation:
PC = PO - pw
where
PC = capillary pressure
= oil capillary pressure
PO
PVf = water capillary pressure
44
The height (Z) above the free water level is a function of
capillary pressures, i. e., differences between permeabili-
ty, fluid densities, and the rock fluid interfaces. It might
also be noted that the oil/water contact is indicated as
being several feet above the free water level in Fig. 55. The
oil/water contact represents the depth where oil satura-
tion begins to increase from zero. A transition zone is in-
dicated where oil saturation continues to increase until
irreducible water saturation (Si,) is attained. Transition
zones may exist well above both the free water level and
the oil/water contact due to poor vertical permeability,
water saturations greater than irreducible, etc. Comple-
tion in the transition zone often results in some water
production. There are also occasions where “hydrocar-
bon shows” are observed in well cuttings and/or cores,
but the FMT water gradient verifies that the hydrocar-
bon is only present in negligible amounts. Keep in mind
that the pretest shut-in pressures are derived from the
cylindrical portion of the buildup data, affected by the
formation fluids some distance from the borehole.
Zone Isolation or Communication
When multiple potentially productive zones are en-
countered in the same borehole, it is possible to use I?MT
pressure data to determine whether or not hydrostatic
communication exists between the zones. As shown in
Fig. 56, connected zones differ from each other by the
amount ofhydrostaticpressure head between thezones.
When it is considered that the communicating reservoir
fluids may be some distance from the wellbore, it may
be uncertain whether the connecting fluid is water, oil,
or a mixture of the two.
If a hydrostatic envelope is drawn from a pressure plot
in each zone as shown by the arcs A, B, and C for points
a, b, and c of Fig. 56, any overlap or contact of the
envelopes (shaded areas) corresponds to a depth at which
the zones may be connected. The common overlap
region defines a point (depth) at which the apparent
separate zones may have a common pressure from which
a hydrostatic gradient yielding the individual zone’s
pressures is possible. The overlap only indicates the
possibility of communication.
Zones A and B of Fig. 56 overlap below point a and
above point b and have a common contact along the oil
gradient line between points a and b. The close proximity
of the overlapping envelopes would lead one to strong-
ly suspect vertical communication between zones A and
B.
The probability of zone C being connected to either zone
A or zone B is less likely. Note that the overlap of
hydrostatic gradient from zone C overlaps with the oil
gradient from zones A and B at point d in Fig. 56. Point
 0 FMT FORMATION PRESSURE

OIL GRADIENT-1

POSSIBLE POINT OF
COMMON PRESSURE TO
ZONES A AND C, BAND C

FIGURE 56
FMT pressure data is useful to determine whether or not hydrostatic communication exists between multiple zones.

45
d is far removed from the three zones under
consideration.
Furthermore, if the oil/water contact occurs in zone B
as indicated by bulk volume log analysis, pressure would
only move down to zone C along the water gradient. It
must therefore be concluded that zones B and C are not
in communication.
It is possible that zones A and C are connected, although
excluding zone B from such a vertical communication
would appear unlikely. However, no water contact is
noted in zone A so a remote possibility of connecting to
zone C must be considered.
It is extremely important that interpretations, such as
that given in Fig. 56, be made from pressure data taken
from virgin reservoirs, i.e, where production has not yet
begun. Reservoir depletion from offset wells causes
dramatic pressure changes in reservoirs.
In the example in Fig. 57, the pressures in zone 1 are
significantly lower than the pressures in zone 2.
Although the oil gradients in zone 1 and the upper por-
tion of zone 2 are similar, the two zones are not con-
nected because of the significant difference in the
hydrostatic gradient.
Zones 3 and 4 of Fig. 57 are in all likelihood part of the
same reservoir, as indicated by the schematic. FMT
FIGURE 57
Determining zone isolation from FMT pressure data.
46
pressure data therefore plays an important role in iden-
tifyingzoneisolation or communication between zones.
The scenario in the figure could be enhanced with well-
to-well log correlations, comparison to seismic inter-
pretations, and detailed stratigraphic analysis from dip
data, curve shape studies, and other electrofacies
fingerprints.
Impermeable layers within a reservoir can also be iden-
tified from the pretest pressure recordings. The recogni-
tion of non-permeable streaks is especially important in
manycarbonatereservoirs where the better permeabili-
ty and higher formation pressures are fundamental to
hydrocarbon production.
Determination of Oil/Water Contact
Below Total Depth of the Borehole
FMT pressure test data can be combined with the
analysis of well logs and used to calculate an approx-
imate depth of the oil/water contact even though the
borehole has not penetrated the contact. Such informa-
tion is obviouslyimportant to the developmentgeologist
in order toproperlyselect the geographical location for
offset wells. It also provides the reservoir engineer with
needed data for estimating reserves.
The FMT data from the well in Fig. 58 showed a forma-
tion pressure of 3280 psi at 7000 feet. The recovered oil
has an ‘API gravity of 24’ and agas/oil ratio (GOR) of
200. Using the chart in Fig. 20, a GOR of 200 exhibits
a density of 0.85 g/cm3 (or a pressure gradient of 0.37
psi/ft) and assuming a hydrostatic gradient of 0.465
psi/ft for water:
p0 (psi) = gfpo x D + C (oil)
3280 = 0.37 x 7000 + c
or, C (oil) = 3280 - 2590 = 690
and
pW (psi) = gf,, x D + C (water)
3280 = 0.465 x 7000 + C (water)
or, C (water) = 3280 - 3255 = 15
Knowing that p0 = pW (p, = 0) at free water level, then
0.37 x D + 690 = 0.465 x D + 15
0.095D = 675
D = 7105 ft, the estimated depth
of free water level
 3280 OS, li, 700011
DEEPEST POSSIBLE
OIL/WATER CONTACT
FIGURE 58
Oil/water contact below TD - oil reservoir.
Reservoir and Zonal Depletion
When several wells in a reservoir are produced, newly
drilled offset in-field wells usually detect changes in the
formation pressure profile as a result of production. If
numerous thin zones are produced, the pressure changes
in the offset wells provide a clue as to which zones are
being depleted. When a single thick sand is produced,
the changes in the pressure profile of the reservoir from
a linear fluid gradient indicate that certain parts of the
reservoir are preferentially produced over others as
shown in Fig. 59. This is often due to higher permeability
reservoir sections being depleted more rapidly while the
tighter sections maintain their pressure, or to permeabili-
ty barriers separating various portions of the interval.
Detection of these production anomalies may indicate
that some changes in the completion practice should be
made in order to optimally produce the reservoir dur-
ing primary production.
Monitor Injection Program in In-Field Wells
A closely related application is to monitor reservoir
pressure from newly drilled in-field wells during secon-
dary recovery operations. This technique verifies the ef-
fectiveness of the injection wells and the pressure
maintenance program. A pressure contour map
developed from wireline formation tester data is shown
in Fig. 60. It is apparent that the high pressure ridges line
up with the bank of injection wells.
Fracture Detection
Naturally fractured formations, where interconnected
fractures form a high permeability network among
otherwise low permeability blocks may, under the pro-
FIGURE 59
Pressure profiles can illustrate the parts of a reservoir which
show a preference to produce.
per circumstances, be detectable by the FMT. Some
matrix blocks are initially water saturated but later in
geologic time the fracture permeability is filled with li-
quid hydrocarbon. The matrix blocks become partially
saturated with the hydrocarbon. If the blocks are large
enough, the lower portion of the block remains water
saturated until the pressure differential due to hydrostatic
and capillary effects is sufficient to displace the water.
Above this point, hydrocarbon saturation increases
toward irreducible water saturation, which is achieved
only in sufficiently large blocks. The FMT response is
shown in Fig. 61. The apparent oil gradient corresponds
to the overall gradient of the fluid in the fracture, while
deviations toward lower pressure are indicated where the
FMT was set on the water-saturated portion of the block.
The FMT pretest buildup plot deviates from building up
to a stationary pressure, indicating that the pressure tran-
sient was controlled by the pressure within the fracture
volume as shown in Fig. 62.
An estimate of fracture block size can be made on the
basis of the deviation from spherical buildup as il-
lustrated in Fig. 62. The following two equations have
been reported, where h is the block size in cubic
centimeters.
Based on Pressure Deviation
The average block size may be estimated with the follow-
ing quadratic equation:
 2517
. I
\*

. l \.
.
. 7 .
26
.

f INJECTION WELL WELL NUMBER

l PRODUCING WELL /-
22
@ WELL TESTED WITH 0 AVERAGE MEASURED
FORMATION TESTER 2184 - PRESSURE

FIGURE 60
Pressure contour map developed from wireline test data.
 l-
FIGURE 61 FIGURE 62
FMT pretest pressures through a series of matrix blocks, FMT pressure buildup in a fractured reservoir.
some of which contain a permeable fracture network.

(2301 x D) h, + (C - 115.1 x D) h - 0.3 = 0 (39)

Extremely Tight Formations
where
If formation permeability is extremely low, the pretest
C piston will draw a near-vacuum as the formation is essen-
tially drawn down by its full pressure. The FMT
drawdown is force limited to 7500 psi below hydrostatic
and pressure. Once the pretest piston completes its stroke, the
formation continues to feed fluid into the pretest system
D (41) until 10 cm3 is accumulated. (In geographical areas
where such formations are common a 5-cm3 plug is
often used, limiting the pretest to a 5-cm3 volume.)
hb = average block size, cm3
P* = extrapolated pressure, psi The lowest possible pressure during a tight pretest is the
vapor pressure of the fluid (usually mud filtrate) filling
Pi = reservoir pressure, psi the pretest system. Vapor pressure is a function of
+ = porosity, % temperature, e. g., vapor pressure for water at 300’F is
67 psi. Any drawdown pressure records below the vapor
Ct = matrix fluid compressibility, psi ml pressure should therefore be caused by temperature ef-
cl = flow rate, cm3/sec fect on the pressure gauge and deviation from the gauge
calibration. Newer FMT tools and current software cor-
t = flow time, set rect thepressuregaugefor temperature effect. If suffi-
cient time is allowed, the pressure will slowly build up
Based on Time of Deviation to a shut-in formation pressure.
An alternate approach based upon time of deviation is Grain Size Effects
reported as follows:
Studies of grain size and sorting have shown that a cor-
(42) relation exists to permeability and particular en-
vironments of deposition. Studies of log curve shapes
and their comparison to full core petrographic analysis
have shown that characteristic features of fining upward,
where coarsening upward, etc. can often provide clues to help
identifyparticular sedimentary environments. It is also
t* = total time elapsed between beginning of
generally accepted that grain size and sorting affect the
flow to deviation from linear buildup, set
nature of permeability, with finer grain and/or poorer
At* = t* - length of flowing time, set sorting correlating to lower permeability.

49
A profile of numerous FMT-derived permeabilities vs.
depth across a particular formation might also provide
such an inference to the original environment of deposi-
tion. In a deltaic distributary mouth bar, for example,
a permeability profile would be expected to show an in-
crease in permeability upward vs. depth, whereas the
spontaneous potential, gamma ray, or other log curves
sensitive to grain size change would tend to show a
coarsening upward trend. This idealized comparison is
shown in Fig. 63.
FIGURE 63
Grain size studies from logs can be compared to pretest
pressure permeability profiles.
FMT Pulse Testing
Pulse testing techniques are widely used to determine the
reservoir properties between the adjacent wells involv-
ed in the test. Test procedures involve one pulsing well
(production or injection) and an observation well to
observe pressure response. In order to utilize the FMT,
the observation well must be uncased across the reser-
voir being tested.
A series of flow disturbances are created in the pulsing
well by alternating production (or injection) with a shut-
in period. The pressure response to those pulses is
measured in the observation well utilizing the downhole
pressure gauge. The Hewlett-Packard quartz gauge
should be used because the pressure responses are very
small, occasionally less than 0.1 psi. Pulse periods are
usually of short duration.
50
The purpose of pulse testing is to provide estimates of
average transmissibility (kh/p) and storage (Qcth) in the
reservoir between the wells being tested. Conventional
pulse tests cannot usually provide the horizontal and ver-
tical permeabilities of each layer of strata, information
which is critical for optimal design of reservoir manage-
ment procedures. The FMT can provide the permeability
data with the necessary detail.
Optimal management of stratified reservoirs requires a
knowledge of the transmissibility and storage values of
each layer as well as vertical permeabilities across the
boundaries between the layers. This is necessary infor-
mation if the reservoir engineer is to reliably predict how
injected fluid will travel through the reservoir during a
waterflood, CO, flood, etc.
With conventionalpulse testing, it is near impossible to
estimate these properties in a stratified reservoir. The
FMT can provide the needed information.
The FMT procedure requires a minimum of two surveys
of the observation well. The first survey is conducted se-
quentially with the initial suite of openhole logs. Im-
mediately following, a disturbance is created in the ad-
jacent well by alternating flow rates. Following the flow
disturbance, a second FMT survey is made in the obser-
vation well. The second FMT survey should indicate a
different pressure profile than the first survey. From this
difference, the degree of vertical and area communica-
tion between the two wells in the reservoir can be
determined.
A numerical reservoir simulator is commonly used to
analyze the data. The pressure profiles and pulse rates
from the two FMT surveys are history-matched, allow-
ing an estimate of both the horizontal (k,) and vertical
(k,) permeabilities of each layer.
Saturation changes are usually negligible during the
FMT pulse test and are not usually simulated. The short
test period virtually eliminates the need to consider other
reservoir influences such as production decline, pressure
decline, well history, field history, etc.
FMT REALITY
The primary goals of formation pressure testing are to
quantify the effective permeability of the reservoir and
to evaluate the efficiency of the well. Pressure buildup
and pressure drawdown are two of the more popular test
variations which are used to evaluate a reservoir.
Formation Multi-Tester tools provide an avenue for well
operators to approach these goals in a quick, relatively
inexpensive way. Other wireline services (e. g., produc-
LIST OF SYMBOLS, INCLUDING SUBSCRIPTS PO
Viscosity of oil
PW
Viscosity of water
A Area, ft2
MW Mud weight, lb/gal or lb/ft3
‘API API units of oil gravity
CJ Matrix stress, psi
C Conversion factor
mm Parts per million
C Compressibility, psi-’
gfP
Fluid pressure gradient, psi/ft
ct Compressibility of formation fluid, psi-t
+ Porosity, percent
D Depth, ft or m
P Pressure, psi
AP Pressure differential, psi
PC Capillary pressure, psi
Appt Drawdown during pretest
Pf Flowing pressure, psi
(P formation - Pflowing), Psi
Drawdown during sampling pg
Gas pressure, psi
APS
(P formation - Pflowing), Psi Pi Formation pressure, psi
At Time increment, min or set PO Oil pressure, psi
DST Drillstem test pw Water pressure, psi
Ef Flow efficiency P WS Pressure at probe after shut in, psi
FMT Formation Multi-Tester P* Formation pressure extrapolated from
Formation water fraction, percent Horner Plot, psi
ffw
Acceleration due to gravity, cm/sec2
PI Productivity index
g
or ft/sec2 9 Flow rate, cm3/sec or bbl/day
Y specific gravity, g/cm3 qpt
Flow rate during pretest (chamber
GR size/time to fill), cm3/sec
Gamma ray log
r Probe radius, in.
GOR Gas/oil ratio, ft3/bbl
GWR Gas/water ratio, ft3/bbl rinv Depth into formation affected by
buildup, cm
h Effective formation thickness, ft
Rm f Resistivity of mud filtrate, ohm-m2/m
H-P Hewlett-Packard quartz pressure gauge
Rrf Resistivity of recovered fluid,
HY Hydrostatic ohm-m2/m
k Permeability, md True resistivity of the formation,
Rt
k abs Absolute permeability, md ohm-m2/m
kani Anisotropy (k,/k,) RW
Resistivity of the connate water,
kc Cylindrical buildup permeability, md ohm-m2/m
Drawdown permeability, md P Density, g/cm3
kcl
Effective permeability, md P ma Matrix density, g/cm3
ke
kH Horizontal permeability, md pf Fluid density, g/cm3
k eo Effective permeability to oil, md %J
Gas saturation, percent
k ew Effective permeability to water, md SG Gas solubility
k ro Relative permeability to oil, md siw Irreducible water saturation, percent
k rw Relative permeability to water, md SO
Oil saturation, percent
ks Spherical buildup permeability, md SR Solubility ratio
k Vertical permeability, md S W
Water saturation, percent
m Slope of a pressure buildup curve, S x0 Water saturation of the flushed zone,
psi/cycle percent
Slope of a cylindrical pressure buildup SP Spontaneous potential curve, mV
curve, psi/cycle t Time, min or set
Slope of a spherical pressure buildup V Volume of liquid or gas, cm3 or ft3
curve, psi/cycle VPC Variable Pressure Control
Viscosity of gas

55
VPC-FMT Formation Multi-Tester with Variable
Pressure Control
WC Water cut, percent
Z Compressibility factor
Z Vertical height
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Beal, C.: “The Viscosity of Air, Water, Natural Gas,
Crude Oil and Its Associated Gases at Oilfield
Temperature and Pressure:’ Trans. AIME (1946).
Bonham, L.C.: “Solubility of Methane in Water at
Elevated Temperatures and Pressures:’ Bull. AAPG
(1978).
Brown, K.E.: The Technology of Artificial Lift Methods,
Vol. I, The Petroleum Publishing Co., Tulsa, Okla.
(1977).
Chew, J.N. and Connally, C.A.: “A Viscosity Correla-
tion for Gas-Saturated Crude Oil:’ J. Pet. Tech. (1959).
Craft, B.C. and Hawkins, M.F.: Applied Petroleum
Reservoir Engineering,
Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood
Cliffs, N.J. (1959).
Log Review I, Dresser Atlas Publication (1974).
Log Interpretation Charts, Dresser Atlas Publication
(1983).
Fertl, W.H.: Abnormal Formation Pressures, Elsevier
Scientific Publishing Co., New York-Amsterdam (1976).
Frick and Tayler: Petroleum Production Handbook,
McGraw-Hill Book Company (1962).
Gunter, J.M. and Moore, C.V.: Improved Use of Wireline
Testers for Reservoir Evaluation, SPE 14063 presented
at SPE International Meeting on Petroleum Engi-
neering, Beijing, China, March, 1986.
Hawkins, M.F., Jr.: “A Note on the Skin Effect:’ Trans.
AIME (1956).
Horner, D.R.: “Pressure Buildup in Wells:’ Proc. Third
World Petroleum Congress, Leiden (1951).
Katz, D.L., Cornell, D., Kobayashi, R., Poetmann, F.H.,
Vary, J.A., Elenbaas, J.R., and Weinaug, C.F.: Hand-
book of Natural Gas Engineering, McGraw-Hill Book
Company (1959).
Mathews, C.S. and Russell, D.G.: Pressure Buildup and
Flow Tests in Wells, SPE Monograph (1967).
56
Milburn, J.D. and Howell, J.C.: “Formation Evaluation
with the Wireline Tester - Merits and Shortcomings:’
J. Pet. Tech. (October 1961).
Moran, J.H. and Finklea, E.E.: “Theoretical Analysis
of Pressure Phenomena Associated with the Wireline
Formation Tester’ J. Pet. Tech. (August 1962).
Odeh, A.S. and Selig, F.: “Pressure Buildup Analysis,
Variable Rate Case:’ J. Pet. Tech. (July 1963).
Pirson, S.J.: Handbook of Well Log Analysis, Prentice-
Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, N.J. (1963).
Schowalter, T.T.: “Mechanics of Secondary Hydro-
carbon Migration and Entrapment:’ Bull. AAPG (1979).
Sethi, D.K., Vercellino, W.C., and Fertl, W.H.: The For-
mation Multi-Tester - Its Basic Principles and Practical
Field Applications, SPWLA Twenty-First Annual
Logging Symposium (1980).
Slider, H.C.: Practical Petroleum Reservoir Engineering
Methods, The Petroleum Publishing Co., Tulsa, Okla.
(1977).
Standing, M.B.: Volumetric and Phase Behaviour of Oil
Field Hydrocarbon Systems, Reinhold Publishing
Corp., New York (1952).
Van Everdinger, A.F.: “The Skin Effect and Its Influence
on the Production Capacity of a Well:’ Trans. AIME
(1953).
APPENDIX A
An example problem utilizing FMT-measured pressures
for many of the computations discussed in earlier sec-
tions is presented in this Appendix. The FMT pressure
record in Fig. A-l will be used through the following
computation sequences.
A pretest volume of 10 cm3 with a 0.562-in. diameter
probe was used during the pretest. The following deriva-
tions will be made from this pretest record:
l drawdown permeability, k,
l spherical buildup permeability, k,
l effective bed thickness from spherical buildup, h
l cylindrical buildup permeability, k,
l time estimate for retrieving a 10-liter sample
Permeability from Drawdown ms = 930 psi/set

The flowing period begins at recorder time of 31 seconds, The computation is

indicated as t=O on the log of Fig. A-l, and ends at 39
seconds, indicated as tl =8 seconds. The fluid with-
drawn is a filtrate having a resistivity of 0.027 ohm-m at x (0.16 x 3 x 10m5)” = 0.19 md
170’F (76OC) or 120,000 ppm NaCl equivalent. Using
the chart of Fig. 24, a viscosity of approximately 0.5 cp
would be estimated. The minimum steady-state flowing
pressure during drawdown is approximately 900 psi and
the pressure builds to about 3930 psi. Drawdown
permeability, k,, is determined using the following
equation (11):

k, = 1842 x C x

From the information above,

C = 0.75
q = 10 cm3/8 set = 1.25 cm3/sec
c1 = 0.5 cp
d = 0.562 in.
AP = 3930 - 900 = 3030 psi

The drawdown permeability, k,, is therefore

FIGURE A.2
Spherical buildup plot.
k, = 1842 x 0.75 x (o.25~~~o) = 0.51md
Effective Bed Thickness Computation
Permeability from Spherical Buildup
For this computation, assume that the anisotropy
The raw data taken from the log of Fig. A-l is tabulated k/k, = 1. From Fig. A-2, the extrapolation of
as At, t + At, and the spherical buildup parameter is spherical pressure buildup, p*, is 3938 psi, whereas the
data deviates toward a higher value of formation
&-v& pressure, p, of approximately 3940.5 psi (see dashed line).
The effective thickness, based on the pressure match
criterion, is given by Eq. 22:
A plot of the pressure recording versus the spherical
buildup parameter is given in Fig. A-2. This plot shows
the spherical buildup pressure estimate to be 3938 psi and
the slope, m,, to be 930 psi/set%. Buildup permeabili-
ty is given as:
% x Q+>”
Taking the following values for this FMT test,

k,/kn = 1
Pi - Ps* = 2.5 psi
Using the FMT pretest data in question, V = 10 cm3

1%
q = 1.25 cm3/sec
The bed thickness is calculated to be
+ = 0.16
10 x 1
ct = 3 x 10-s l-l’ = 1.2 = 48.57 c m = 1.59 m
P = 0.5 cp 4rr(2.5)(0.16) x 3 x 1O-5

58
Permeability from Cylindrical Buildup

The time parameter, t + At/At, for this FMT test was

tabulated. The cylindrical buildup (Horner) plot for this
test is plotted on Fig. A-3. Extrapolation of the linear
data indicates a formation pressure, p* = 3947.6 psi. The
slope of the linear portion of the data is m, = 198 psi&
cle. For permeability from cylindrical buildup, Eq. 19 is

which, for the data of this FMT test, becomes

k, = 88.4 = 0.18 md

Time Estimate for Sampling

An estimate of the time required to retrieve a lo-liter

(2.64-gallon) sample may be obtained by using Eq. 2 to
estimate the time per gallon.

63.1 x Appt
t=
qpt x 4 FIGURE A-3
Cylindrical buildup plot.
For the FMT test of Fig. A-l,

Appt = 3930 - 900 = 3030 psi

APS = 3930 psi (sample is taken against an

air cushion chamber)

qPt
= 1.25 cm3/sec

and hence, the time in minutes required per gallon is

estimated as
63.1 x 3030
t= = 38.9 min/gal
1.25 x 3930

and

2.64 gal x 38.9 min = 102.7 min (or 1 hr, 42.7 min) to
fill a lo-liter (2.64-gal) tank.

59