Reservoir-Fluid Sampling Revisited—
A Practical Perspective
Johannes Bon,* SPE, and Hemanta Sarma, SPE, Australian School of Petroleum, University of Adelaide;
Teof Rodrigues, SPE, Santos Limited; and Jan Bon, SPE, Petrolab Pty. Limited, Australia
Summary
Pressure/volume/temperature (PVT) fluid properties are an inte-
gral part of determining the ultimate oil recovery and character-
ization of a reservoir, and are a vital tool in our attempts to enhance
the reservoir’s productive capability. However, as the experimen-
tal procedures to obtain these are time consuming and expensive,
they are often based on analyses of a few reservoir-fluid samples,
which are then applied to the entire reservoir. Therefore, it is of
utmost importance to ensure that representative samples are taken,
as they are fundamental to the reliability and accuracy of a study.
Critical to the successful sampling of a reservoir fluid is the
correct employment of sampling procedures and well conditioning
before and during sampling. There are two general methods of
sampling—surface and subsurface sampling. However, within
these, there exist different methods that can be more applicable to
a particular type of reservoir fluid than to another. In addition, well
conditioning can differ depending on the type of reservoir fluid.
Sampling methods for each reservoir type will be discussed with
an emphasis on scenarios where difficulties arise, such as near-
critical reservoir fluids and saturated reservoirs. Methods, includ-
ing single-phase sampling and isokinetic sampling, which have
been used increasingly in the last decade, will also be discussed
with some detail, as will preservation of the representatives of other
components in the sample including asphaltenes, mercury, and
sulfur compounds.
The paper presents a discussion aimed at better understand-
ing the methods available, concepts behind the methods, well
conditioning, and problems involved in obtaining representative
fluid samples.
Introduction
Reservoir-fluid samples are obtained for a number of rea-
sons, including
• PVT analysis for subsequent engineering calculations
• Determination of the components that exist in a particular res-
ervoir to have an understanding of the economic value of the fluid
• Knowledge of the contents of certain components that exist
in the reservoir fluid for further planning and future drilling
programs, such as the content of sulfur compounds and carbon
dioxide, and the corrosiveness of the fluid. This will have an impact
on the material used for casing, tubing, and surface equip- ment that
may be necessary
• Knowledge of the fluid’s ability to flow through production
tubing, pipelines, and other flow lines, and possible problems that
may arise because of viscosity changes because of the precipitation
of solids such as wax and/or of asphaltene
• Determining the contaminating components that affect plant
design, such as the mercury content, sulfur components, and radio-
active components
• If the saturation pressure is approximately equal to the reser-
voir pressure, then a second phase may be present. This is par-
ticularly relevant for gas reservoirs, where further drilling may
discover an oil or condensate leg.
* Now with Petrolab, S.A., Venezuela.
Copyright © 2007 Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper (SPE 101037) was accepted for presentation at the 2006 SPE Asia and Pacific
Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition, Adelaide, Australia, 11–13 September, and revised
for publication. Original manuscript received for review 9 June 2006. Revised manuscript
received for review 12 April 2007. Paper peer approved 19 April 2007.
December 2007 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering
Mostly the samples are required to obtain a better knowledge of
a combination of these effects; however, it must be kept in mind
that often the sample is not required to resolve all of these issues.
The properties of fluid samples from oil and gas reservoirs, at
original conditions and as found at different stages during produc-
tion, have been of great interest for as long as the oil industry has
had reservoir engineers. The quality of these samples is of utmost
importance in making the right reservoir-management decisions.
Also, constantly improving the compositional data helps are help-
ing the downstream industry with the planning of facilities. Further
improvement of more-detailed fluid properties is expected, and the
fact that many specialists in this field are now being called “flow-
assurance experts” highlights the need downstream for good-
quality compositional, fluid-property, and phase-behavior data.
Bottomhole sampling goes back more than 60 years (Reudel-
huber 1957, Fevang and Whitson 1994), when most operators came
up with their own bottomhole-sampler designs. These were either
flow-through samplers—purging fluid constantly—or pre- viously
evacuated chambers that, when actuated by clocks or other
mechanical devices, trapped downhole-fluid samples.
There was greater consensus in surface sampling, and most
everyone agreed on how to sample from separators and, in some
cases, from the wellhead. From early on, engineers were aware of
occasional carryover of entrained liquid droplets in the gas phase,
and early attempts at isokinetic sampling were initially superseded
by improving the separation properties of the separators, increas-
ing their size, and/or lowering the flow rates to allow more time for
equilibrium (Fevang and Whitson 1994).
The biggest challenge lies in improving the quality of the ever-
more-popular openhole wireline samples taken with wireline for-
mation testers (WFTs). WFTs were first introduced to the industry
in 1955 (Ayan et al. 1996) The main purpose of the tool was to
measure a formation pressure point and collect a fluid sample. It
wasn’t until the mid-1970s that many advances were made on the
tools’ technology. The samples taken with these tools were com-
pletely discredited by the fluid experts until the 1990s when tool
technology improved greatly, addressing issues particularly relat-
ing to fluid typing and sampling. As a result, these samplers are of
irreplaceable importance today.
All these issues have been addressed again since then, and
changes and improvements are being made wherever possible, and
will continue to be ongoing.
Representative samples taken with typical single-phase bottom-
hole samplers are often taken for reservoir-fluid composition, PVT
analysis, and, depending on the reservoir, asphaltene studies. How-
ever, these tools are often not suitable for measuring sulphur-
compound or mercury content. A good knowledge of the wax
content and problems that may arise because of wax can be ob-
tained from studies performed on stock-tank oil. Sulfur compounds
and mercury are mostly present in the gas stream, so analysis can
be performed on separator or wellhead gas streams. While ideally
all the parameters could be obtained from the same sample, in
practice, different samples can suit different needs. First and fore-
most, the need for the sample should be established so the correct
samples can be taken. This can avoid extra costs of sampling for
parameters that will not be measured or the cost of having to sample
again. But key to a successful sampling program is to first answer
the question, “What are you sampling for?”
This paper aims at discussing different sampling methods and
what they are most suited for. The focus is on obtaining represen-
tative samples of live reservoir fluid with the aim of characterizing
589
reservoir production; however, this paper also touches on some of
the downstream issues.
Understanding Our Reservoir Processes
Immediately after a well is drilled, the well will first go online with
a cleanup-flow period of reasonably hard flow to push drilling
fluids out of the near-wellbore region and the wellbore (Reudel-
huber 1957; McCain and Alexander 1992; El-Banbi and McCain
2001; Cobenas and Crotti 1999; Strong et al. 1993; Towler 1989).
Depending on how undersaturated the reservoir fluid is (some-
times not at all), the pressure drop induced to create the flow may
result in a drawdown of pressure below the saturation pressure.
This causes either dissolved gas (for oil wells) or dissolved con-
densate (for gas wells) to come out of solution. The subsequent
effects are discussed further for each reservoir type.
Undersaturated-Oil Reservoirs. In principle, sampling under-
saturated oil reservoirs should be the simplest. Ideally, if the reser-
voir is greatly undersaturated, the drawdown because of flowing
the well never pulls the flowing bottomhole pressure below the
saturation pressure, and thus the wellbore will have virgin reser-
voir fluid flowing through it.
If because of cleanup flow or any other reason the reservoir is
drawn down below the bubblepoint pressure, then two-phase fluid
needs to be driven out with virgin reservoir fluid. This can be done
by flowing at a lower rate—hence minimizing the drawdown so
flowing bottomhole pressure is still above the saturation pressure.
Initially, because of capillary pressure effects, released solution
gas will remain immobile in the pore spaces until a critical gas
saturation is achieved, and after that an excess of gas may flow.
At the surface, monitoring the gas/oil ratio (GOR) can indicate
when the sampling operation should start. Initially, the GOR will
be too low. A rate should be sought such that a stable GOR is
attained after prolonged flow.
For bottomhole samples, the fluid entering the wellbore needs
to be single phase. If considerable water is flowing together with
the oil, the flow may not be great enough to push the water from
the wellbore. To avoid sampling water, a static gradient should be
run before sampling.
For surface samples, so long as the fluid (assuming two-phase
flow of gas and liquid flowing into and up the wellbore) is in the
same ratio as the original reservoir fluid, the separator samples will
be good.
Saturated-Oil Reservoirs. Sampling saturated reservoirs is not
simple because flowing the reservoir results in a drawdown, which
will pull the flowing bottomhole pressure below the bubblepoint
pressure (Reudelhuber 1957; Strong et al. 1993; Towler 1989;
Dake 1994). The possible issues that could arise and need to be
avoided are:
• Drawdown because of flow; this results in the release of
solution gas from the reservoir fluid.
• Samples should be taken at the separator. Bottomhole
samples are not recommended, as they may collect a dispropor-
tionate amount of liquid or gas (Towler 1989).
Shutting in the reservoir to build up pressure again will redis-
solve gas into the oil (Towler 1989). Obtaining a stable GOR is
more difficult for saturated oil reservoirs. However, by flowing at
a lower rate, a stabilized flow can eventually be reached and a
constant GOR can be observed. The fluid—although flowing in
two-phases—carries the liquid and the gas at the same GOR as in
the virgin reservoir fluid.
If the only option is bottomhole sampling, the sample should be
taken at a trickle flow so that the drawdown is as small as possible,
therefore minimizing disturbance to the solution gas in the pores
and maximizing solution gas dissolved within the liquid. If a gas
cap exists, the pressure at the gas/oil contact (GOC) should be
used as the saturation pressure for the reservoir fluid, if correction
is required.
Gas/Condensate Reservoirs. Similarly to an undersaturated oil
reservoir, if a gas/condensate reservoir is undersaturated—
590
provided the well is not drawn down below the dewpoint pres-
sure—condensate will stay in solution.
If the reservoir fluid is saturated or reservoir pressure is near
the dewpoint pressure, a flow period resulting in a drawdown will
inevitably result in condensate coming out of the solution. Similar
to the gas in saturated oil, the condensate that initially comes out
of solution will fill pore space until a critical saturation is reached.
This fluid needs to be flushed out with virgin reservoir fluid. After
this, condensate will flow with the gas through the wellbore. For
surface sampling, another problem arises: The flow rate must be
large enough to carry the condensate to the surface, but if the flow
is too high, stable flow will not be achieved, and perhaps there will
even be poor separation at the separator because the fluid has little
time to reach equilibrium.
The condensate dropout in the near-wellbore region has other
effects—particularly in low-permeability reservoirs; as condensate
drops out and fills pore spaces, the permeability is reduced, some-
times severely affecting flow.
Reducing the flow rate results in an increase in the flowing
bottomhole pressure and the pressure in the drainage radius. This
causes some of the condensate in the pore spaces to revaporize,
decreasing the GOR below that of the virgin reservoir fluid. After
a rate reduction, one must wait a period of days or even months for
low-permeability reservoirs before sampling (McCain and Alex-
ander 1992).
Recovering Poor-Quality Samples. If poor-quality samples have
been obtained, recovery of the samples may be possible in the
laboratory. Note that the processes described in the following
paragraphs will result in changes in composition and should
only be implemented if resampling is not viable. Judgment should
be made on how poor the quality of the initial sample is and how
large the change in composition will be from the following pro-
cesses. The difference in composition and subsequent PVT param-
eters measured may be small and, therefore, within an acceptable
error margin.
If the samples obtained have a bubblepoint pressure above the
reservoir pressure, a representative sample may still be attained.
Once in the laboratory, the sample can be charged into a PVT cell,
equilibrium established at the reservoir pressure, and the excess
gas blown off, leaving a sample saturated at the reservoir pressure.
If the samples obtained have a low GOR and separator gas or
wellhead gas is available, additional gas can be added to raise the
GOR to reservoir pressure. This results in a slightly different com-
position, because the gas will have a different composition
(lighter) than the solution gas.
An equation of state (EOS) or correlations can be used to help
calculate the volume of gas required to increase the bubble-
point pressure.
For gas/condensate systems, if the collected sample has too high
a dewpoint and condensate/gas ratio (CGR), a representative
sample can still be obtained by establishing equilibrium in the PVT
cell at reservoir conditions. Once equilibrium is achieved and the
excess condensate is in the liquid phase, the gas phase is sub-
sampled from the PVT cell. This process yields a gas sample that
is saturated at the reservoir conditions.
Well Conditioning
PVT samples need to represent the fluid to be produced from the
reservoir. The sooner the well is sampled after drilling, the greater
the chances of representative sampling, because it is more likely
that pressure drops that can create two phases in the reservoir have
not occurred (Dake 1994, Amyx et al. 1960). If the reservoir fluid
in the near-wellbore region has been drawn into two phases, well
conditioning is applied to correct this effect and bring single-phase
fluid back into the wellbore and its vicinity.
Because WFT generally are run immediately after drilling
when no flow or drawdown has yet occurred, usually no rigorous
conditioning is necessary besides eliminating as much drilling
fluid as possible. This is especially important when oil-based mud
(OBM) has been used during drilling. The drilling fluid is removed
with a pump-out option of the WFT (Michaels et al. 1995), where
December 2007 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering
the reservoir fluid is passed over a variety of sensors and then into
the annulus until indications of maximum purity are obtained. After
this, the flow of fluid is directed to the sample chamber.
In the case of conventional- or single-phase-bottomhole sam-
pling, the issue of well conditioning is of more importance be-
cause, the well will have already undergone a flow period before
sampling. The flow period will have resulted in a drawdown, and
hence, there is need for more prudence when conditioning the well
for sampling. Exposing the reservoir fluid to lower-than-original
reservoir pressures can cause the fluid to go into two or three
phases, depending on its saturation pressure and phase behavior.
The pressure will have to be increased to above the saturation
pressure with a stepwise approach of brief flowing periods and
shut-in periods with successively lower rates to return the fluid
flowing through the well back to its original state. This is contin-
ued until the lowest rate at which there exists a stable GOR is
established. When this happens, it implies that single-phase fluid is
flowing into the wellbore. This is generally followed by a longer
shut-in period in order to build up the bottomhole pressure at the
wellbore. This stable GOR can be confirmed by trial-and-error
bottomhole sampling, which is expensive; can be assumed because
of stable wellhead pressure after several reduced-rate flow periods;
or, preferably, can be determined by measuring the GOR while
producing through a test separator. In the last case, separator
samples should always be taken also, to confirm the quality of the
bottomhole samples and to provide backup samples in the case of
near-saturated pressures that cannot be reconditioned easily.
Taking conventional- or single-phase-bottomhole samples is
usually, but not always, done in conjunction with a well test
through a surface separator. The well tests will give bottomhole
pressure at different rates. Single-phase fluid needs to be brought
back into the wellbore. This is easiest to do if the flowing-pressure
history indicates it has not been below the estimated saturation
pressure. In case this is not known, the worst-case scenario (that
the reservoir fluid is saturated) must be assumed and the well must
be conditioned as such.
If taking surface samples, the criterion of having single-phase
representative reservoir fluid in the shut-in wellbore is superseded
by the influx of two-phase fluid, where the gas and oil flow at the
GOR of the virgin reservoir fluid.
Even though the same conditioning principles apply for drill-
stem testing (DST) sampling, they are usually not adhered to, as
these samples typically are taken only for fluid identification and
to determine stock-tank-fluid properties. However, if the fluid is
undersaturated, good quality bottomhole samples can be obtained
in bottomhole DST sampling subs. Furthermore, if the DST can be
extended long enough through a separator, successful PVT-quality
separator samples can be obtained.
If a selection of wells is available for sampling, wells with better
productivity should have higher bottomhole pressures. When
selecting a representative well for sampling, the well with the
highest bottomhole pressure at a stabilized flow rate and GOR will
be the best well to sample from. If an increase in GOR is seen, it
indicates that free solution gas is being produced, and the satu-
ration conditions bottomhole will not give representative samples.
Wells that produce water should be avoided; however, if this can-
not be done, it is important to run a static gradient survey to find
the oil/water contact within the wellbore in order to sample above
this depth.
If the samples are needed for asphaltene analyses, all attempts
to minimize drawdown should be made. If the fluid is drawn
down below the onset-of-asphaltene-precipitation (OAP) pressure
(Jamaluddin et al. 2001), then the sample will require recondition-
ing in the laboratory before analysis. There is no consensus on the
method to recondition samples with asphaltenes that have been
below the OAP pressure, or even concerning whether it can be
done. However, it is often achieved or the attempt is made using a
prolonged period (a week) of maintaining the sample at reservoir
pressure and temperature or above and inverting the sample peri-
odically. This is done with the intention of redissolving the pre-
cipitated asphaltenes. If possible, samples are taken at ideal con-
ditions (single phase), but if this is not possible, this fact has to be
December 2007 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering
accepted. Reconditioning is therefore of utmost importance under
these circumstances to ensure that the best possible and most rep-
resentative sample is obtained.
For gas/condensate reservoirs, surface sampling through a
stable separator is recommended. The well is usually produced at
successively higher rates (McCain and Alexander 1992). Retro-
grade liquid dropout will occur once the reservoir is drawn down
into two phases. This liquid will accumulate in the near-wellbore
region; but eventually, with continued flow of fluid through those
pore spaces, this same fluid will be mobilized, and its production
will result in a constant CGR. The best samples will be taken at the
lowest rate that produces a stable CGR, but it is recommended to
take duplicate sets at other rates as well.
The conditioning principle extends into conditioning or clean-
ing/purging of the wellbore, separators, sampling lines, equipment,
and cylinders of all foreign material.
On-Site Validity Checks for Bottomhole Samples. The more
on-site checks to evaluate the overall quality of sampled ma-
terial that are made, the easier it is to decide to change the con-
ditioning process for improved or repeated sampling. These on-site
checks include
• Tool opening pressure
• Surface-condition bubblepoint pressure
• Any on-site analyses
The opening pressure of the tool is a key measurement of any
bottomhole sample taken. The opening pressure of different
samples from the same formation should fall within an acceptable
error margin and should be compared to bottomhole pressures.
With conventional samples (nonsingle phase), the saturation
pressure can be measured at surface conditions with a varying
degree of accuracy. Accurate measurements were easily attained in
earlier years by measuring the bubblepoint pressure by use of
mercury with conventional flow-through-type samplers. This is no
longer an option, but the same principle can be applied. With a
piston-type sampler, the measurement will be accurate if the tool
contains a mixing mechanism inside. The saturation-pressure mea-
surements of samples from the same formation should then be
compared to one another, and these samples can then be taken to
reservoir conditions and used to verify the sample. Sometimes a
saturation pressure is found to be higher than bottomhole pressure,
implying that the samples are not representative and that too much
gas has been collected.
If single-phase samples have been taken, the opening pressure
is preset and, thus, of no value. The saturation pressure can be
measured, but either one sample from a batch or a small portion of
each sample must be sacrificed. However, the validity checks are
more complicated, more expensive, and require more equipment.
If some analyses are performed on site, such as bubblepoint-
pressure measurements (surface temperature or bottomhole tem-
perature) or a flash to obtain the GOR, the sample validity can be
determined immediately by comparing one sample to the next and
corroborating the determined values against production-test data.
Reservoir-Fluid-Sampling Methods
Reservoir-fluid-sampling techniques can be generalized into two
groups: surface and subsurface.
Surface Sampling Techniques.
1. Separator samples, from test or production separators. These
are often recommended for gas-condensate or saturated-black- and
volatile-oil reservoir fluids. The equilibrium separator liquid and
gas are recombined in their produced ratio to obtain representative
reservoir-fluid samples.
2. Wellhead samples, for undersaturated fluids still in single
phase at wellhead conditions.
3. Split-phase, or isokinetic, sampling—scaled-down recondi-
tioned homogeneous two-phase flow through a miniseparator.
4. Samples from pipelines or plant flowlines.
Whichever way is chosen, it is essential to ensure that the actual
fluid obtained is as close as possible to the virgin fluid discovered
in the reservoir, thus ensuring that it is as representative as pos-
sible. To do that, all wells usually have to be conditioned to bring
591
such fluid into the wellbore or separator. Since this process is more
complicated than it sounds, it is recommended to take samples in
more than one way, therefore obtaining differently conditioned
fluids from the same reservoir, to define its properties better.
The advantage of awareness of all new developments should
also allow us to evaluate simpler situations with simpler sampling
solutions, while at the same time provide solutions for more-
complex problems when required.
Surface Sampling Methods. Separator Sampling. A recom-
mended guideline to good separator sampling is to flow the well
through the separator at a stable pressure, temperature, and
GOR for two to three separator volumes to ensure that the fluid that
collected in the separator at any other points in the equilibrium state
is flushed out. At any pressure and temperature (within the two-
phase conditions), the gas and liquid coexist in equilibrium. The
individual components of the reservoir fluid coexist, to some
degree, in both phases. The ratio of the fraction of a component
in the gas phase to its fraction in the liquid phase is termed
the K-value. If either pressure or temperature is changed dras-
tically, the K-value will change, and hence some of the component
that exists in the gas phase may condense, or conversely, some of
the component that exists in the liquid phase may vaporize. When
the samples are taken, the pressure and temperature of the
separator are recorded along with—as accurately as possible—the
gas- and liquid-flow rates. Furthermore, the GOR should be based
on oil-flow rate at separator conditions, and the correction fac-
tors used should be noted (Williams 1994). No matter how good
the sampling and well conditioning are, if the rates measured
and subsequent GOR are incorrect, the recombined sample will
be unrepresentative.
Separator samples can be taken by the following methods.
For gases
• Sampled directly into an evacuated cylinder (preferred method)
• If evacuated cylinders are not available, the air in the cylin-
der can be removed by dilution: filling the bottle and emptying
before sampling.
For liquids
• Brine displacement (preferred method). Cylinder is first
filled with brine. The brine is then displaced with separator
liquid ensuring that fluid remains at separator pressure throughout
the sampling.
• Evacuated cylinder. The fluid is sampled directly into an
evacuated cylinder as for a gas sample. Although the sample will
separate into two phases within the cylinder, since the fluid is single
phase, up to cylinder valve the sample will be representa- tive.
However, if the sample is taken too quickly, it will separate into
two phases in the flow lines before entering the cylinder and a poor
sample will be taken. Fore this reason, the brine displace- ment
method is preferred.
• Separator-gas displacement. Sample cylinder is first filled
with separator gas, which is then displaced as the fluid enters the
bottle (from the bottom).
Wellhead Sampling. Sampling at the wellhead is done only if
it is known that the wellhead pressure and temperature are greater
than the reservoir-fluid saturation pressure. Dry gases can be
sampled at the wellhead, as can some lean gases and low-GOR oils.
However, if the sample is flowing in two-phases at the well- head,
then an unrepresentative sample will be taken because the two
individual phases will not flow into the cylinder in the same ratio
they exhibit in the reservoir.
Split-Phase Sampling. Isokinetic, or split-phase, sampling can
be used to sample two-phase wellhead fluid or to measure the
volume of entrained liquid in a gas stream (Williams 1994; Riley
et al. 1978 Dybdahl 2006). Once a stable GOR is established, the
two-phase fluid is mixed using a mixing head. The mixing head is
designed to homogeneously spread the liquid droplets carried
through with the vapor. A probe then collects the gas-and-liquid
sample at the corresponding GOR. An on-site laboratory ensures
that GOR is stable before sampling and a miniseparator separates
the fluid according to the correct ratio.
592
Split-phase sampling is applicable particularly for condensate
reservoirs that produce at low rates with low CGR. It is also
applicable for separator gas streams with a large volume of en-
trained liquid to correct the CGR and improve the separator-test
data: In this case, it is not replacing the separator test but improv-
ing the data. However, this method of sampling is not always
economic and also not always better than simultaneously obtained
separator samples.
Split-phase-sampling technology is more than 60 years old
(Fevang and Whitson 1994); however, in recent years, it has been
used increasingly. The technology has improved, particularly in
the measurement of GOR as it is distributed through the cross
section of the pipe (not actually homogeneous). Previously, it was
assumed that the mixing head distributed the liquid droplets per-
fectly across the pipe cross section. This assumption was found to
be not exactly correct. So, to improve the GOR measurement and
minimize the error because of this effect, the probe now samples
at three different points across the pipe and averages the result
(Dybdahl 2006).
A simple alternative to the need to measure the volume of liquid
carry-over is to flow at a lower rate, if possible, so that the fluid
has more time to reach equilibrium in the separator (Fevang and
Whitson 1994).
Another simple alternative is to take the separator gas samples
as is normally done. These will bring the entrained liquid along
with them. Once in the laboratory, the gas samples are returned to
separator conditions by heating to separator temperature. The cyl-
inder is placed vertically upside-down, allowing the entrained liq-
uid to drop out and flow to the bottom of the cylinder. This liquid
can then be removed, analyzed, and the volume measured, and
then both mathematically and physically added to the total well-
stream composition.
Subsurface Sampling Techniques
1. Slickline-run tools usually in cased holes using conventional
flow-through or piston-type samplers. This method is recom-
mended for normal undersaturated-oil and gas reservoir fluids
2. Slickline-run tools, again, usually in cased holes with pres-
sure-compensated single-phase fluid samplers. This is recom-
mended for undersaturated-oil and gas reservoir fluids with pos-
sible solids (wax/asphaltenes) or precipitation problems.
3. Exothermic samplers: These samplers not only keep the
sample pressure-compensated but also temperature-compensated,
to further reduce any chance of solids precipitation before sample
transfer and analysis.
4. WFT run with electrical line, tied into the logging string,
usually taken in open holes before casing being set. There are a
range of proprietary samplers with only subtle differences in tools
from different companies, and these types of tools will be referred
to throughout the paper as WFTs.
5. Pressure-compensated WFT.
6. Samples taken during openhole drill-stem testing.
7. Samples taken with a sub carried in the drillstring accom-
modating the samplers described in items 1, 2, and 3.
Subsurface / Bottomhole Sampling Tools. WFTs. Representative
samples are often taken with WFTs (Jamaluddin et al. 1999). If this
is the case, the added expense of obtaining bottomhole
samples later can be avoided. So, rather than assuming the samples
to be bad, they should be assumed good and quality-checked be-
fore a decision is made on their validity. However, if there is any
doubt with respect to how representative the sample is, samples
should be taken during a DST since not having a solid grasp of the
PVT properties of the reservoir fluid may have much larger reper-
cussions over the long term. WFTs are run open hole and require
inserting a probe into the formation. The fluid flows into the cham-
ber at a low drawdown. The sample taken at this stage is com-
pletely virgin before any flow and drawdown in the reservoir.
More-modern WFTs can also supply backpressure and maintain the
sample in single phase.
For gas/condensate reservoirs, the sample volume collected
may be too small for good analysis on the reservoir fluid.
December 2007 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering
 The WFT has a limited capacity to clear out the mud filtrate
from the formation. More-recent WFTs have a pump-out option,
so fluid initially pumped from the reservoir can be dumped into the
well rather than collected. If OBM has been used, the samples will
be contaminated, limiting the accuracy on subsequent analysis
performed on the sample.
WFTs have the key advantage that they are used before any
other form of sampling can be used. This is particularly vital for
saturated reservoirs.
However, because of the drawdown to which the samples are
exposed, the samples may not be of good quality. This is particu-
larly an issue for gas condensates because the dewpoint pressure is
nonmonotonic—it does not constantly increase with increasing
pressure and temperature, it instead increases and then decreases
after the cricondenbar point is reached. Thus, an unrepresentative
sample may have a dewpoint pressure that is higher, lower, or equal
to the actual dewpoint pressure (Fevang and Whitson 1994).
Also, these samplers often return to surface with drilling fluid
and little sample.
Improved downhole sensors to monitor other fluid properties
could improve the sample quality, but unfortunately, a pressure
drawdown cannot be eliminated but only minimized.
Remaining convinced of future improvements, we believe the
present position of these tools is quite acceptable and that, more
often than not, samples obtained this way give reliable fluid-
properties data, for both the upstream and the downstream petro-
leum industry. These improvements will be especially needed for
problem fluids from which solid material precipitates with changes
in temperature and pressure because the reservoir is exposed to
less change at the WFT sampling stage.
Instead of bringing up the samples and subjecting them to
changes, it may be worth combining the race for better sensors with
looking at the downhole samples in situ and simulate a down- hole
depletion at different depths (temperatures) to evaluate the solid-
phase-envelope part better. To better evaluate the contami- nants
of interest to the production engineers, downhole sensors have been
developed to give indications, and they are improving in accuracy.
Flow-Through Samplers/Conventional Bottomhole Samplers.
The flow-through-type bottomhole samplers are the simplest and
oldest bottomhole sampling tools. The tool is run into the well on
a wireline with the valves open. As it travels through the wellbore,
the fluid present in the wellbore flows through the sampler. When
it reaches the sampling depth, the valves close by some mechanism
(be it mechanical, electrical, or triggered by a clock). The sampler
is then retrieved, and the sample is transferred.
When the sample is retrieved, the temperature decreases and
therefore the pressure of the sample decreases; for oil samples, this
almost always draws the sample into two phases. At the surface, the
solution gas must be dissolved back into the liquid before
transferring the sample to a cylinder. The old-fashioned method
pressurized the oil with mercury; however, because of occupa-
tional health and safety measures, this is seldom/not used anymore.
The great advantage of using mercury is that accurate validity
checks can be performed, and as a mixing mechanism when re-
turning the sample to single phase, mercury is unsurpassable. The
alternative is to transfer the sample back in the laboratory—this is
not a good practice because you are then sampling blind, and this
should not be done unless absolutely necessary. The other option
is to use acidified brine, but because of the low difference in density
with oil, it is not effective as a mixing mechanism, and the sample
cannot be analysed for its water content. In order to avoid the use
of mercury in the field and the issues that using brine may incur,
samplers with pistons were designed.
Quality checks should always be performed on site for bottom-
hole samples, even if only an opening pressure. These important
quality checks cannot be performed on single-phase bottomhole
samples, hence the need for more-sophisticated on-site analysis
such as compositions and saturation pressures in an on-site labo-
ratory. Otherwise, the quality of the single-phase sample relies
solely on the opening pressure of the tool.
December 2007 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering
Flow-through samplers will not work well for heavy- and ex-
traheavy-oil samples (<10 °API), and since slickline-piston-
bottomhole samplers need to be brought down on sucker rods, the
extralong delay in clock setting and tool filling-up justifies plan-
ning bottomhole sampling of these fluids only by WFTs.
Piston-Type Samplers. Piston-type samplers are in principle
the same as flow-through samplers. However, the sample chamber
has a piston so that sample transfer into a cylinder for trans-
portation can be accomplished without the use of mercury or brine.
Instead, the piston is pushed with glycol to displace the reser-
voir fluid from the sample chamber. However, to re-establish
the sample into the original single phase, some sort of mixing
mechanism should exist in the sample chamber to speed up equi-
librium and ensure that all solution gas, condensate, and/or wax
is redissolved.
The tool is run in the hole, closed, and triggered open once at
depth. The sample is collected, the valves are closed again, and the
sampler is then retrieved.
Since mercury is rarely used these days, most liquid-sample
cylinders and piston-type sampling chambers have become exces-
sively complicated. An array of O-rings accommodating pistons
has made these expensive appliances unsuitable for long-term stor-
age because of the interchanging of fluids across the seals through
osmosis/adsorption. If conventional cylinders are not acceptable,
alternative sample cylinders using inert diaphragms have to be
considered for long-term storage.
Single-Phase Samplers. Single-phase samplers were designed
for sampling of reservoirs that may have asphaltene problems, to
keep the asphaltenes in solution so they can be studied in a labo-
ratory (Jamaluddin et al. 1999). Since asphaltene precipitation may
not be reversible, the idea is not to allow the asphaltenes to come
out of solution. These samplers supply a backpressure with nitro-
gen against a piston in the sample chamber, maintaining the
sample well above reservoir pressure. By overpressuring, the idea
is that even when the sample cools off, it will remain above the
conditions for OAP.
Too many expensive single-phase samples are taken in reser-
voirs with no solids-precipitation problems, and this is something
that perhaps should be addressed rather than accepted.
An occupational-health and safety issue arises for high-
pressure reservoirs. Reservoirs with pressures near the 15,000-psi
mark would in principle require the nitrogen chamber to be
charged to 17,000 psi or more. These pressures begin to be very
dangerous to operate with and are at the upper limit of the equip-
ment rating. Charging the nitrogen chamber with a lower pressure
is safer; however, it will not overpressure the sample, and the
sample may still be drawn below the OAP. This is where exother-
mic samplers will help, as the temperature compensation will also
help keep the sample from the OAP.
Exothermic Samplers. As for single-phase samplers, exother-
mic samplers were designed for the sampling of reservoirs that may
have asphaltene problems, to keep the asphaltenes in solution so
they can be studied in a laboratory. However, these samplers not
only provide pressure compensation, they also maintain a high
temperature. The single-phase sampler avoids the issue of the tem-
perature dependence of asphaltene precipitation by keeping the
sample overpressured. However, temperature also affects asphalt-
ene precipitation, and therefore the exothermic sampler was de-
signed. Problems have been found with the temperature mainte-
nance, and the samplers do cool off; however, the temperature is
kept higher than that of any other tool. Once at the surface, the
sample temperature is maintained by use of a battery-operated
heating jacket, and the samples are taken back to the laboratory
immediately where they are transferred hot and kept at reservoir
pressure and temperature, or greater. Further development is still
required, and ongoing, to perfect the tool.
Sampling Heavy Oils
Difficulties arise when sampling heavy oils because of the high
viscosity of the fluid. For bottomhole sampling, generally speak-
ing, samples are best taken with a WFT (Achourov et al. 2006;
Nagarajan et al. 2006; Morton et al. 2005). Having said that, suc-
593
cessful samples have been taken with DST-type bottomhole sam-
plers, but these are applicable only if the reservoir is undersatu-
rated. If the reservoir is saturated, the WFTs are recommended. The
key issues with bottomhole sampling of heavy oils are as follows
(Achourov et al. 2006; Nagarajan et al. 2006; Morton et al. 2005).
Pressure Drawdown. The pressure drawdown should be mini-
mized so that the fluid remains single phase, sand production is
controlled, and foaming can be minimized. The drawback is that a
low drawdown may not mobilize high-viscosity fluid.
Mud Contamination. The mud filtrate in the near-wellbore region
needs to be cleaned up with the pump-out option of the WFT.
However, with an extended period of pumping, the risk of the pump
getting stuck is increased. With OBM, contamination poses a
particular issue because excessive miscible contamination will
result in unrepresentative samples.
Dual Packer. The conventional small probe and rubber packer are
not applicable for heavy oils. It is recommended that a dual-packer
module be used to hydraulically isolate the formation. With the
dual-packer module, the flow area is increased, lowering the draw-
down. The risks are in a poor-packer seal or leak, if seating and/or
inflation fail.
Surface sampling may also be an option with heavy-oil reser-
voirs. An easy way of acceptable accuracy is to recombine crude
from the wellhead and gas from the annulus or the wellhead,
provided an accurate GOR can be attained. Extrapolating into a
PVT study on a recombined reservoir fluid with a GOR that is too
high is acceptable if the real GOR is known only after the study is
performed. Separator tests are usually performed on fluid with
added diluents to decrease the viscosity and, provided good volu-
metrics are kept track of, an accurate GOR can be backcalculated
for the wellhead samples. In important cases, it might be necessary
to convince the operator to cut the diluents for as short a time as
possible to obtain good-quality separator samples of uncontami-
nated composition. GOR measurements might be weak because
most of the solution gas will stay in the separator liquid and will
not be measured with the liberated separator gas.
Other Components of Interest
Asphaltenes. If in reservoir sampling the engineer is very confi-
dent that asphaltenes will not be a problem, and no study is in-
tended to be conducted for solids, then single-phase or exothermic-
sampling tools are superfluous.
However, in fields where asphaltene problems may arise and
whose samples are intended for asphaltene analysis, the samples
should be taken single phase so as to preserve the asphaltenes in
solution for subsequent analysis. Although the sampling and analy-
sis of asphaltenes are costly, a prior knowledge of the problems the
field may have can be of economic benefit in the long run. How-
ever, if analysis has already been performed and/or no asphaltene
analysis is intended for the samples, single-phase sampling may not
be required.
Asphaltene problems should also be kept in mind—in particu-
lar, if gas injection is intended at some stage in the reservoir’s life.
It may be too late to take representative samples later.
Analysis for asphaltenes performed on live single-phase fluid is
performed in laboratories with specialized equipment. However,
some analysis can be performed on stock-tank fluids on site, if
required, such as weight percent of asphaltenes in stock-tank oil by
n-heptane precipitation or saturates, aromatics, resins, and asphalt-
enes analysis.
The reversibility of asphaltene precipitation is questionable.
For this reason, single-phase and exothermic samplers were designed,
so that the sample does not cross the OAP-point before analysis.
Wax. Wax can be treated and controlled by maintaining high
temperature and pressure. If any indications of wax issues are
encountered during WFT sampling, the transfer of samples to cyl-
inders for further analysis becomes more difficult. The solidified
wax is a third phase and needs to be redissolved into the fluid
594
before transferring the sample into sample cylinders. This is per-
formed with a prolonged period of heating at reservoir temperature
and stirring (even as long as 12 hours for severe cases). If a mixing
mechanism exists in the sample chamber, this time can be short-
ened; otherwise, stirring has to be performed by gravity—lifting
one end of the chamber for 30 minutes, and then the other end.
Patience is required.
Sulfur Compounds. Sampling for analysis of the sulfur content
present in the reservoir fluid is not easy and is still developing. The
key issue is that sulfur compounds such as H2S, mercaptans, and
carbonyl sulphide are adsorbed onto the walls of cylinders or
sample chambers, particularly those made of stainless steel (Elsha-
hawi and Hashem 2005). Alternative materials are recommended
to preserve the content of the sulfur compounds. This is particu-
larly important if analysis is to be performed in a laboratory be-
cause the time required for the sample to reach the laboratory
(even if only a week) is enough for the analysis to measure greatly
reduced H2S contents.
This problem is, for now, best solved using current technology
in metallurgy by using cylinders made from other materials and
metal alloys. In addition to this, coatings have been made to reduce
the reaction of conventional stainless-steel cylinders with H2S.
These coatings tend to be either polytetrafluoroethylene-based
(PTFE-based) or the latest generation of cylinders, which are sili-
con-based (Elshahawi and Hashem 2005).
When taking WFT samples, adsorption often occurs in the
flowlines into the sample chambers and, most of all, at the pump-
ing unit.
The error margin because of adsorbed sulfur is less if there is
a higher sulfur content in the sample. This is because, even though
a larger volume is adsorbed, it is a smaller percentage.
Some analysis can also be performed on site. Again, an issue
still remains whether the sulfur compounds are adhering to the
walls of the tubing, casing, and surface equipment before being
sampled for analysis. Typical analysis for sulfur compounds is as
follows (Elshahawi and Hashem 2005):
• Potentiometric titration
• Iodometric titration (highly accurate but time consuming)
• Tutwiler method (higher concentrations)
• Gas chromatography
• Gas detection tubes.
In addition to this, downhole sensors now exist that can at least
give an indication of whether surface-measured-sulfur-compound
concentrations are wrong or approximate. The future of measure-
ment of concentrations of sulfur compounds is likely to be an
improvement of this technology.
Mercury Content. It is also important to measure the mercury
content in the well stream to determine whether extra requirements
are necessary in the refining process. Mercury can cause metallic
parts to fail by amalgamating and changing the mechanical prop-
erties of the metal, particularly aluminium or copper.
Similarly to sulfur compounds, the measurable mercury content
decreases with time because it is adsorbed onto the walls of stain-
less-steel cylinders and sample chambers. On-site analysis can be
performed on the separator gas stream. In general, the mercury
compounds that may naturally occur in a reservoir fluid are el-
emental mercury (Hg0) in hydrocarbon-gas streams and both el-
emental mercury and organic mercury [Hg(CxHy)2] in hydrocar-
bon-liquid streams (Wilhelm and McArthur 1995).
Several methods for measuring mercury content in gas streams
exist (Bingham 1990). In the field, the mercury compounds are
removed by passing the gas through a permanganate solution. The
solution is analysed in a laboratory by atomic absorption spec-
troscopy. This can also be performed on stock-tank liquid/
condensates. The samples should be kept in glass vials with mini-
mal head space for transportation to the laboratory.
The mercury content in gas can also be measured using a gold-
film mercury-vapor analyzer (Bingham 1990). These mercury de-
tectors have a small built-in pump that takes in a volume of gas
through the sample probe, which consists of a film of gold onto
December 2007 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering
which the mercury adsorbs. The mercury detectors operate at at-
mospheric pressure. One method of using these machines is to pass
the gas through a plastic bottle with an outlet to maintain pressure
at atmospheric pressure and another outlet for the gas that is to be
passed through the machine.
OBM. For WFT sampling, the use of OBM can contaminate
samples (Dybdahl 2006, Achourov et al. 2006). If this is the case
for oil wells, depending on the severity of the contamination, the
composition can be backcalculated if the OBM composition is
known. This is done by determining the composition of the con-
taminated oil sample, then a sample with a known added volume
of OBM, and the full OBM composition.
With gas condensates, a much smaller contamination will have
more severe effects. Not only in terms of the composition, but also
measured dewpoints can be far too high. However, the same prin-
ciple as for oils can be applied to gases.
Case Studies
The following section describes case studies where sampling was
performed in a nonconventional manner and the reasons behind it.
Case 1. In a low-permeability saturated gas/condensate reservoir
(<1 md), separates sampling was intitally attempted. However,
as the flow rate was through the separator and the CGR of the
well stream was low, there was insufficient condensate to collect
a sample. The separator pressure was lowered; however, there
was still not enough condensate to collect a sample. Split-phase
sampling was economically unviable; therefore, it was decided
to collect bottomhole samples. Saturated-gas samples are rarely
taken bottomhole; however, in this case, it was the most viable
option. Isokinetic sampling would have proved better in this
case; however, the economics of the field could not justify iso-
kinetic sampling.
Case 2. A bottomhole gas sample was collected that had a satu-
ration pressure that was too high (above reservoir pressure). The
samples were taken after conditioning, with the well shut in be-
cause any flow at all was creating excessive drawdown. A static
pressure gradient was run to ensure that there were no liquids in
the wellbore before sampling. It was concluded that, during con-
ditioning, the reservoir fluid had been drawn into two phases and
that the well had not been shut in long enough to re-establish
equilibrium. As a result, it was likely that condensate mist was
taken as well as the reservoir-gas sample. Compositional analysis
was performed by equilibrating the sample in a PVT cell at the
reservoir pressure and temperature, allowing the surplus conden-
sate to drop out, and flashing only the gas.
Case 3. An unexpected zone was encountered during drilling.
Drilling was ceased until it was determined whether it was a sepa-
rate reservoir that had been discovered or if the targeted zone was
at a shallower depth than expected. Bottomhole samples were taken
as soon as possible to measure gravity in °API. In this case, well
conditioning, contamination with drilling mud, and asphalt- enes
were not issues for the sampling program. Conventional bot-
tomhole samples were taken because they are quick and easy to
run and rerun. The samples, although not representative PVT
samples, did suit the purpose of the sampling job.
Case 4. A volatile-oil well from a tight formation was sampled at
the separator. Drawdown from the DST caused the bottomhole
flowing pressure to be well below the saturation pressure. The GOR
at the test separator was observed to be moving continuously, first a
dip and then increasing gradually, but not stabilizing. As the
increase was slow, separator gas and oil samples were taken; how-
ever, recombining at the separator GOR would have given too high
a saturation pressure; so, using an EOS package, the GOR was
backcalculated on the basis of a saturation pressure. This method,
although not perfect, will still yield representative samples.
December 2007 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering
Conclusions
• Sample as early as possible in the life of the reservoir. Generally
speaking, the earlier you sample, the higher the likelihood of
obtaining representative samples.
• Well conditioning is of utmost importance. Ensure that the well
is conditioned as well as possible before sampling. The preparation
of a good conditioning program will improve sample quality.
• Keep your WFT samples under pressure, and transfer them into
a cylinder. It is common for these samples to be released to stock
tank conditions with only some basic analyses performed. How-
ever, advanced technology in this area has greatly improved the
quality of these samples, which should be considered represen-
tative until proved not so, rather than the opposite. The chance
to collect bottomhole or separator samples later may not come.
However, bear in mind that WFT samples still require a draw-
down and suffer problems from drilling-fluid issues and may not
be representative.
• If a separator is online while taking bottomhole samples, take
separator samples also to back up the bottomhole samples.
• If no asphaltenes or solids are present, you may be able to use a
less expensive alternative to single-phase sampling.
• If asphaltenes may be a problem, take single phase samples.
• More research needs to be conducted on the temperature depen-
dence of asphaltenes, and this should be translated into better
design of exothermic samplers. Since single-phase sampling has
advanced, comparative studies should be performed on conven-
tional samples vs. single-phase samples for different reservoir
and asphaltene types.
• For difficult situations, a good hindsight quality check is to
compare the laboratory or onsite live reservoir fluid density with
the one calculated from the pressure gradients during MDT log-
ging. The new developments in the field are excellent advances
and should be used to improve sampling. However, the problem
should not be over-complicated and complex solutions should be
used only when necessary.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank their affiliated companies, the
Australian School of Petroleum at the University of Adelaide,
Santos Ltd., and Petrolab Pty. Ltd., for providing their support,
knowledge, and time.
References
Achourov, V., Khamitov, I., and Yatsenko, V. 2006. A Technique for
Measuring Permeability Anisotropy and Recovering PVT Samples in a
Heavy Oil Reservoir in North West Siberia. Paper SPE 102460
presented at the SPE Russian Oil and Gas Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Moscow, 3–6 October. DOI: 10.2118/102460-MS.
Amyx, J.W., Bass, D.M., and Whiting, R.L. 1960. Petroleum Reservoir
Engineering 360, New York City: McGraw-Hill.
Ayan, C., Douglas, A., and Kuchuk, F. 1996. A Revolution in Reservoir
Characterization. Schlumberger Middle East Well Evaluation Review
16: 44–55.
Bingham, M.D. 1990. Field Detection and Implications of Mercury in Natural
Gas. SPEPE 5 (2): 120–124. SPE-19357-PA. DOI: 10.2118/19357-PA.
Cobenas, R.H. and Crotti, M.A. 1999.Volatile Oil. Determination of Res-
ervoir Fluid Composition From a Non-Representative Fluid Sample.
Paper SPE 54005 presented at the SPE Latin American and Caribbean
Petroleum Engineering Conference, Caracas, 21–23 April. DOI:
10.2118/54005-MS.
Dake, L.P. 1994. The Practice of Reservoir Engineering, 33, Amsterdam:
Elsevier Science B.V.
Dybdahl, B. 2006. A Systematic Approach to Sampling During Well Test-
ing. Paper presented at the ENI E&P Division and ENI Technology
Conference, Milan, Italy, 23 February.
El-Banbi, A.H. and McCain, W.D. Jr. 2001. Sampling Volatile Oil Wells.
Paper SPE 67232 presented at the SPE Production and Operations
Symposium, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, 24–27 March. DOI: 10.2118/
67232-MS.
Elshahawi, H. and Hashem, M. 2005. Accurate Measurement of the Hy-
drogen Sulfide Content in Formation Fluid Samples—Case Studies.
595
 Paper SPE 94707 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition, Dallas, 9–12 October. DOI: 10.2218/94707-MS.
Fevang, Ø. and Whitson, C.H. 1994. Accurate Insitu Compositions
in Petroleum Reservoirs. Paper SPE 28829 presented at the Euro-
pean Petroleum Conference, London, 25–27 October. DOI: 10.2118/
28829-MS.
Jamaluddin, A.K.M., Ross, B., and Daigle, T. 1999. Single-Phase Reser-
voir Sampling: Is it a Necessity or Luxury? Paper CIM 99-36 presented
at the 1999 CSPG and Petroleum Society Joint Convention, Calgary,
14–18 June.
Jamaluddin, A.K.M., Creek, J., Kabir, C.S. et al. 2001. A Comparison of
Various Laboratory Techniques to Measure Thermodynamic Asphalt-
ene Instability. Paper SPE 72154 presented at the SPE Asia Pacific
Improved Oil Recovery Conference, Kuala Lumpur, 6–9 October. DOI:
10.2118/72154-MS.
McCain, W.D. Jr. and Alexander, R.A. 1992. Sampling Gas-Conden-
sate Wells. SPERE 7 (3): 358–362. SPE-19729-PA. DOI: 10.2118/
19729-PA.
Michaels, J., Moody, M., and Shwe, T. 1995. Wireline Fluid Sampling.
Paper SPE 30610 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition, Dallas, 22–25 October. DOI: 10.2118/30610-MS.
Morton, K.L., Osman, M.S., and Kew, S.A. 2005. Heavy-Oil Uncertainties
Facing Operators in the North Sea. Paper SPE 97898 presented at the
SPE/PS-CIM/CHOA International Thermal Operation and Heavy Oil
Symposium, Calgary, 1–3 November. DOI: 10.2118/97898-MS.
Nagarajan, N.R., Honarpour, M.M., and Sampath, K. 2006. Reservoir Fluid
Sampling and Characterization—Key to Efficient Reservoir Manage-
ment. Paper SPE 101517 presented at the Abu Dhabi International
Petroleum Exhibition and Conference, Abu Dhabi, UAE, 5–8 Novem-
ber. DOI: 10.2118/101517-MS.
Reudelhuber, F.O. 1957. Sampling Procedures for Oil Reservoir Fluids.
JPT 9 (12): 15–18. SPE-816-G. DOI: 10.2118/816-G.
Riley, W.D., Walters, R.P., Cramer, S.D., and McCawley, F.X. 1978.
Isokinetic Technique for Sampling Geothermal Fluid In Two-Phase
Flow. Unsolicited from US Dept. of the Interior. SPE-7885-MS.
Strong, J., Thomas, F.B., and Bennion, D.B. 1993. Reservoir Fluid Sam-
pling and Recombination Techniques for Laboratory Experiments. Pa-
per CIM 93–54 presented at the CIM Annual Technical Conference,
Calgary, 9–12 May.
Towler, B.F. 1989. Reservoir Engineering Aspects of Bottomhole Sam-
pling of Saturated Oils for PVT Analysis. Unsolicited paper from the
University of Wyoming. SPE-19438-MS.
Wilhelm, S.M. and McArthur, A. 1995. Removal and Treatment of Mer-
cury Contamination at Gas Processing Facilities. Paper SPE 29721
presented at the SPE/EPA Exploration and Production Environmental
Conference, Houston, 27–29 March. DOI: 10.2118/29721-MS.
Williams, J.M. 1994. Getting the Best Out of Fluid Samples. JPT 46 (9):
752. SPE-29227-PA. DOI: 10.2118/29227-PA.
596
SI Metric Conversion Factors
bbl × 1.589 874 E−01 m3
ft3 × 2.831 685 E−02 m3
scf/STB × 5.6146 E+00 m3/m3
psi × 6.894 757 E+00 kPa
Jan Bon holds a BEng degree in Petroleum Engineering from
the University of New South Wales. Email: jbon@petrolab.net.
He is currently finishing his PhD thesis in Petroleum Engineering
at the Australian School of Petroleum (ASP), the University of
Adelaide while working at Petrolab, S.A. in Venezuela as a
laboratory manager. His duties include taking care of the
analyses and sampling of reservoir fluid. Hemanta Sarma holds
the Reg Sprigg Chair in Petroleum Engineering in the Australian
School of Petroleum (ASP), University of Adelaide. Email:
hemanta.sarma@adelaide.edu.au. He is also the founding Di-
rector of the Centre for Improved Petroleum Recovery at the
ASP and was a Research Project Leader for CO2 sequestration
projects on enhanced petroleum recovery and enhanced
coal-bed methane recovery in the CO2CRC, an Australian
Cooperative Research Centre for Greenhouse Gas Technolo-
gies. Previously Sarma was a senior staff reservoir engineer with
the Alberta Research Council, Canada, and an invited re-
search advisor at the Technology Research Center of Japan
National Oil Corporation, where he worked in domestic and
international R&D projects and field pilots. Sarma holds a
BTech degree in petroleum engineering from the Indian
School of Mines, an MSc degree in chemical engineering from
the University of Calgary and a PhD degree in petroleum en-
gineering from the University of Alberta. He is a Review Chair
and Technical Editor of SPE Reservoir Evaluation and Engineer-
ing. Teof Rodrigues holds a BSc degree in chemical engineer-
ing from the University of Nottingham in the United Kingdom.
Email: teof.rodrigues@santos.com. He has 27 years in the oil
industry, initially with Core Laboratories for four years working
on PVT and SCAL projects. He joined Santos Ltd. in 1984 as a
reservoir engineer and has since worked in a number of super-
visory and management positions within the company in both
the Adelaide and Brisbane offices. He presently manages the
non-operated assets for Santos Ltd. in Australia. Jan G. Bon
started his career with Shell (KSEPL) in Rijswijk, the Netherlands
where he worked five years. Email: adelaide@petrolab.net. He
then joined Core Laboratories for some 14 years in total working
in Australia, Asia, South America, North America, Africa, and Eu-
rope in sampling and analyses of reservoir fluid and core. He also
worked with SGS, introducing the company to their first upstream
venture setting up, and managing for five years a reservoir fluid
analyses operation in Venezuela. In 1987, Bon started his own
business, Petrolab Australia Pty. Ltd.—a PVT Analyses laboratory
with cased hole and surface sampling capabilities. Through
Petrolab, he has since expanded and had operations in Asia
and South America out of bases in Malaysia, Bolivia and Vene-
zuela, of which the Venezuelan operation is still active.
December 2007 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering