SPE 63078

Using the Cased-hole Formation Tester Tool for Pressure Transient Analysis
S.M. Hurst, SPE, Phillips Petroleum Company; T.F. McCoy*, SPE, Phillips Petroleum Company; M.P. Hows,
Schlumberger
* currently with Vintage Petroleum Inc.
Copyright 2000, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2000 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition held in Dallas, Texas, 14 October 2000.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300
words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.

Abstract
This paper presents three pressure transient analysis case
histories using a wireline cased-hole formation tester (FT) as
part of an appraisal program in the Peng Lai 19-3 field,
offshore China. A typical cased-hole formation test operation
involves perforating a 1-foot interval via wireline, setting the
testing tool across the perforations with straddle packers, and
pumping formation fluids through the tool to catch
representative samples. Although the main goal of the casedhole wireline formation test program was to obtain fluid
samples, short pressure buildups lasting approximately 2 hours
or less were also conducted. We found the character of the
pressure data and the resulting transient analyses to be
comparable to those from cased-hole drillstem tests (DSTs).
Wireline formation testers have traditionally been used in
open-hole to gather formation pressures and collect fluid
samples. On a limited scale, the pressure data have provided
information about reservoir properties from pressure transient
analysis. However, it is difficult to run these tools in some
types of formations (unconsolidated sand, unstable shales)
because of collapsing formations, differential sticking, and
sand production. The Peng Lai 19-3 Field consists of a series
of stacked, unconsolidated sandstone reservoirs having wide
variations in oil PVT properties with depth. Using the casedhole FT tool offers a significant cost saving by reducing the
number of drillstem tests required to characterize these
stacked reservoirs. This paper will (1) describe the tool setup
and procedures used to collect the fluid and pressure data and

(2) present the pressure transient analysis of the data using

traditional methods (log-log and semi-log techniques).
Introduction
Frimann-Dahl1 compared the open-hole FT to the DST by
applying conventional transient analysis methods to the FT
pressure data. However, he did not observe spherical flow in
the transient data and found high geometric skins that
sometimes concealed flow regimes. The high skins also
limited the accuracy of the analysis due to gauge resolution
problems. Pop et al.2 also applied conventional transient
analysis techniques to FT data. The analysis of spherical flow
in the FT was introduced by Stewart and Whitman3 . Along
with others 4-5 , they found difficulties in permeability
determination due to limited gauge resolution and high skin
factors. Many authors 6-12 have discussed the use of multiple
FT probes to measure vertical permeability.
The cased-hole FT was used throughout the appraisal phase in
a recently discovered field in Bohai Bay, Peoples Republic of
China. Twenty-five tests in seven wellbores were run at Peng
Lai (PL) 19-3 field using this tool. After drilling the discovery
well at PL 19-3, fluid properties, formation permeabilities, and
reservoir pressures were found to vary extensively.
The Lower Minghuazhen and Guantao formations consist of
many poorly consolidated to unconsolidated sandstone layers
over an interval up to 2000 feet thick. The formations are
shallow, with the top of the Lower Minghuazhen between
2500 and 3000 feet. The reservoirs are normally pressured,
with gradients of approximately 0.434 psi/ft from surface.
Pressures obtained during open-hole FT operations revealed
multiple pressure systems vertically within each wellbore as
well as areally across the field. In one well, as many as eight
separate pressure cells were identified from open-hole FT
pressure analysis. Temperatures are relatively low from an
operational standpoint, ranging from 120 F to 150 F. No
H2 S was found in any of the reservoirs, and CO2 has only been
found in two wells in the middle of the field.

S.M. HURST, T.F. MCCOY, M.P. HOWS

Reservoir fluid samples obtained from several drillstem tests

and extensive cased-hole formation testing show that fluid
properties also vary significantly. The oil is very heavy,
ranging from 11 to 21 API, with gas-oil ratios (GORs)
ranging from 50 to 300 scf/stb. In most cases, oil-bearing
zones can be identified from resistivity logs. However,
several intervals that were identified as water bearing based on
low resistivities were later found to flow 100% oil.
Reservoir properties primarily formation permeability vary
as much as fluid properties and cannot be reliably inferred
from standard open-hole logs. Permeabilities derived from
DST pressure transient analyses range from 100 md to several
Darcies, with mobilities ranging from 1 md/cp to 150 md/cp.
To properly characterize the field and plan for development,
an extensive appraisal program was required. This program
obtained numerous high-quality fluid samples, formation
permeabilities, and reservoir pressures in enough zones to plan
for future development. The costs of gathering this data
would have been excessive using only conventional drillstem
tests. Open-hole formation testers were unable to collect highquality fluid samples or reliable mobility data. Thus, the
cased-hole FT was added to supplement the data-gathering
program.
This paper describes the cased-hole FT tool and procedures
used during the appraisal program at PL 19-3 field and
presents pressure buildup results obtained during the casedhole FT tests. Two other evaluation tools used at PL 19-3
field during the appraisal phase specifically drillstem tests
and open-hole formation testers are compared to the casedhole FT.
Tool Description
The cased-hole FT tool run at Bohai Bay was identical to the
open-hole FT tool, though configured with packers instead of
a probe (Figure 1). The tool consists of the following
components, from top to bottom: gamma ray and collar
locator, a multisampler module with monophasic chambers,
large-volume sample chambers, the pump out module, the
fluid analyzer module, the packer module, and a bleed port.
For water zones, the probe module was added to the tool string
to be able to use the resistivity cell.
The multi-sample module was used to collect monophasic
samples. Six sample chambers, each capable of capturing a
250-cm3 sample suitable for full PVT analysis, were mounted
in a single carrier. Fluid was directed into the specified
sample bottles by surface commands. This made it possible to
take multiple samples during one tool set, at various times
during fluid flow, or to fill single sample bottles at various
well depths.

SPE 63078

Large-volume sample chambers were run in various

combinations using the available volumes of 1, 2.75, and 6
gallons. Due to length and weight limitations, four chambers
per trip were the most that could be practically run on
wireline. Fluid was directed to the selected chamber by
electromechanically actuated throttle (seal) valves, controlled
from the surface. To prevent excessive pressure drops, the
valve could be throttled to maintain a specified flowline
sampling pressure.
The pump-out modules primary purpose was pumping the
sampled fluid from the formation into the wellbore. The fluid
type was monitored from surface while pumping. When fluid
quality was representative of the reservoir, the pump output
was directed to a sample chamber and a formation fluid
sample captured. The pump-out module was also used to
inflate and deflate the straddle packer and to pump between
the packers.
The fluid analyzer module was used to differentiate between
gas, oil, and water and the percentage of each phase. This
module uses optical analysis techniques to identify the fluid
type in the flowline. Optical absorption spectrometry in the
near infrared range differentiates oil and water. Reflection
measurements detect gas by using the difference in liquid and
gas refractive indices.
The dual-packer module employed two inflatable packers to
isolate the borehole interval for testing. Spacing between
packers was variable but the typical distance was about 3 feet
(93 cm). This provided greater flow area than was possible
using the open-hole FT probe. Thus, fluids could be
withdrawn at higher flow rates, without dropping below the
bubblepoint pressure. Extension mandrels were also used
when appropriate, increasing the spacing by an additional 2
feet and allowing a 3-foot perforation interval instead of the
usual 1-foot. However, this also increased the amount of
pump time due to the increased volume between the packer
elements.
In this particular formation, the increased
perforation interval did not significantly reduce the drawdown
and was not worth the added pump times.
A bleed port was placed at the bottom of the tool string to
equalize pressures across the pump-out module. This was
necessary to avoid damaging the pump-out when reversing the
pumping direction.
Standard Test Procedure
We developed a standardized procedure at Bohai Bay to
obtain high-quality fluid samples and pressure data suitable
for transient analysis. The following section describes this
procedure.
A 1- to 3-foot interval within a larger zone was selected for
perforating. The larger zone had to be isolated by cement
from adjacent sands to prevent crossflow. The highest

SPE 63078

USING THE CASED-HOLE FORMATION TESTER TOOL FOR PRESSURE TRANSIENT ANALYSIS

permeability interval within this larger zone was normally

selected for perforating. However, this selection was balanced
with the need to minimize formation cleanup. Better cleanup
could be achieved by placing the perforations in a thinner zone
or near a bed boundary.
Most of the tests were run in mud. Because formation
pressures were so low (approximately 0.434 psi/ft from
surface), the mud systems were primarily viscosified
potassium chloride with some barite added for weighting
material. All lost circulation materials were circulated out
before the job, ensuring no debris to plug the flowlines,
pressure gauges, and valves. Mud weight was cut back to
minimum required for the intervals to be tested, as experience
had shown that higher mud weights could damage or
completely plug the perforations. In addition to cleaning the
mud system, a casing scraper run was made to ensure the
casing was free of all cement. The casing scraper removed
another potential source of debris from the wellbore, as well as
ensuring a clean surface to seat the packer. Properly
conditioning the mud and casing were critical for a successful
job.
Intervals were perforated in a single or multiple runs, usually
with 4-1/2 casing guns at 12 shots per foot. The cased-hole
FT tool was then run on wireline to the perforated interval
depth. Both gamma ray and a collar locator tool were used for
improved accuracy of depth correlation. Multiple intervals
could be tested in a single run, limited only by the numbers of
samplers and operational limits on the tester tool components,
primarily the pump-out module and seals.
All perforation and FT operations were run under a wireline
blowout preventer (BOP) which was tested to 1000 psi before
perforating. FT operations require pumping hydrocarbons into
the wellbore above the packers. Large amounts of gas or light
oil could reduce the hydrostatic pressure in the wellbore and
possibly result in well control problems. Although the risk
was considered minimal in this particular environment due to
the high-gravity, low-GOR oil, we considered these preventive
measures to be good practice.
Once at depth, the pressure gauges were allowed to stabilize in
order to acquire a good hydrostatic pressure before setting the
packer. This did two things: it verified that both quartz and
strain pressure gauges were reading correctly; and it ensured a
pressure which could be used as reference once the packer was
deflated.
After seating the packers against the casing, the formation was
pumped out at the lowest pump speed until communication
with the formation was confirmed and the flowing pressure
dropped below estimated formation pressure. At that point the
pump was stopped and the interval seal valve closed until
pressures stabilized. This initial buildup provided formation
pressure, as well as confirming a good packer-to-casing seal.
The pressure derivative on a log-log plot, rather than direct

pressure measurement, was used to identify packer leaks and

confirm communication with the formation. A very slow leak
could not be seen by monitoring pressures only, and larger
leaks were often difficult to detect until pressures continued to
climb at the end of the buildup. If a leak was detected, the
packers were inflated to a higher pressure and the buildup test
re-run. Occasionally it was necessary to deflate the packers
and re-set them at a higher pressure to get a positive seal.
Sampling flow was started once initial pressure was obtained
and a good packer-to-casing seal verified. The formation was
pumped out at lowest pump speed until a stable flowing
pressure was established. If the pressure drawdown was
small, pump speed was gradually increased in increments of
100 RPM. High pressure drawdowns could cause significant
formation damage and potentially ruin the test.
Pumping continued until fluid samples were as clean as
possible. At that point, a combination of monophasic and
large-volume fluid samples were collected. As this was a
water-based mud system, contamination was only a minor
issue since water and hydrocarbon could be separated in the
labs.
The primary concern was to collect sufficient
hydrocarbon volume in the sampler for PVT analysis. Oil and
water fractions were determined from the fluid analyzer,
which was found to be very accurate in its prediction of oil
versus water fractions. Oil breakthrough typically occurred
after pumping 30 liters, or in approximately 2 to 3 hours at
300-rpm pump speed. This corresponded to the volume
between the packers. Cleanup would then continue for
another 6 to 10 hours, or until oil fractions were high enough
to fill the samplers. A 75 to 80% oil fraction would yield
enough oil volume in the monophasic samplers for PVT
analyses. Pump times depended upon permeabilities and fluid
properties, as well as thickness of the zone sampled and
cement isolation. Very viscous oil or low-permeability zones
could require up to four times more pump volumes.
Once all samples were collected, pumping continued to ensure
a stable flow period before the pressure buildup test. The
pump was then stopped and the interval seal valve closed to
conduct a pressure buildup test. The seal valve was closed to
minimize leakage past the pump, as the pump itself did not
always provide a positive pressure seal. To prevent early time
data from being distorted, the pump was stopped first and the
seal valve closed almost simultaneously. Changing the
sequence or delaying the seal valve resulted in poor data and
made interpretation difficult. A minimum shut-in period of 2
hours gave the best results in these particular formations.
Average FT pump time lasted approximately 12 hours per test.
An additional 6 hours were required to correlate on depth, set
and deflate the packer, acquire initial pressure, and conduct
the final buildup test. Perforating took 2 to 3 hours per
interval, and rig up / rig down of the MDT tool ranged from 2
to 4 hours. Thus, for these relatively shallow formations with
moderate mobilities and heavy oil, test time for a single

S.M. HURST, T.F. MCCOY, M.P. HOWS

interval ranged from 18 to 24 hours. Several intervals could

be tested during a single run, which eliminated some of the rig
up / rig down time. Up to 3 intervals at a time were tested
during a single run without coming out of the hole to service
the tool. Experience showed that this was the upper limit of
the tools capabilities.

SPE 63078

operations require taking many data points, with the tool

remaining stationary at each point for long periods. Sloughing
shales and unconsolidated sands made the wellbore very
unstable. Pressure differentials between the mud weight and
pore pressure could cause the tool or wireline cable to stick.
Any one of these factors could result in losing the tool itself
or, at the minimum, lead to a costly recovery operation.

Comparison of Test Methods

As appraisal drilling progressed at PL 19-3 field, we quickly
recognized that the test program would be more extensive than
originally expected due to the complexity of the field. The
cased-hole formation tester was first used on the second
appraisal well to determine fluid type in a low resistivity zone.
Its use gradually expanded from providing information about
fluid types to collecting PVT-quality fluid samples and finally
to obtaining information about reservoir flow properties.
Problems with both the open-hole formation tester and
drillstem tests led to greater reliance upon the cased-hole FT.
Open-hole versus Cased-hole FT. The open-hole FT was
used extensively at PL19-3 field to gather formation pressures.
However, its utility for collecting fluid samples and formation
mobilities was limited.
The open-hole FT when equipped with a probe module was
unsuited for collecting fluid samples in these formations.
High pressure drawdowns often accompanied open-hole
sampling operations. This was attributed to damage from
formation collapse, fines migration, and invasion around the
wellbore. Heavy, viscous oils reduced mobilities and added to
the problem of high pressure drawdowns. Sampling pressures
below the bubblepoint compromised the quality of formation
fluid samples. The high drawdowns also resulted in sand
production, causing the FT probe, screens, and flowlines to
plug and requiring numerous trips out of the well to clean the
tool. High viscosity oil could also plug screens and prevent
flow into the tool.
Open-hole FT mobilities in these formations were unreliable.
This was attributed to formation damage, altered saturations,
and limited radii of investigation. If the formation is highly
invaded or damaged, the relatively shallow radius of
investigation of the open-hole FT will not extend into virgin
reservoir. Mud filtrate invades the region investigated by the
FT test, changing fluid saturations and altering effective
permeability. Fines and other mud contaminants can plug the
pore space and cause near-wellbore damage. Collapsing
formations induced by high pressure drawdowns can affect
permeability results unless the radius of investigation extends
far enough beyond the region to see that section as skin
damage.
The open-hole FT could be configured with dual packers,
similar to the cased-hole tool, which would expose a larger
interval and result in lower pressure drawdowns. However,
this increased the operational risks in open-hole.
FT

Tests using the cased-hole FT did not experience the high

pressure drawdowns seen in open-hole operations using a
probe module. This was primarily due to the greater flow area
in perforated casing and the use of the dual packer module.
By keeping flowing pressures below bubblepoint pressure,
fluid samples were representative of that in the reservoir. The
reduced drawdowns also prevented sand production.
The greater flow area, reduced drawdowns, and extended
pump times from the cased-hole FT gave better estimates of
formation mobility. A relatively high and stable flowing
pressure allowed longer flow periods with the cased-hole FT,
increasing the radius of investigation.
Finally, the operational risk was minimal. Unlike the openhole environment, casing eliminated the problems with
unstable formations or differential sticking.
Drillstem Tests versus Cased-hole Formation Tests.
Drillstem tests can evaluate large volumes of the reservoir that
are beyond the range of open-hole logs and whole cores.
Many DSTs were run in the PL 19-3 field to acquire
formation pressure, mobility, and fluid samples. These tests
had varying degrees of success depending upon
permeabilities, oil properties, and sand stability. In addition,
DSTs were limited by time and cost to only a few of the most
important zones.
High viscosities and low GORs made it difficult to flow the
oil naturally to surface. The column of heavy oil was nearly
equal to formation pressure, causing it to load up as the fluid
level reached surface. GOR was too low to provide any
benefits as gas broke out of solution near the surface.
Conversely, GOR was too high for pump tests that were
typically conducted at Bohai Bay in these formations. With
lower mobility formations, high pressure drawdowns were
required to lift oil to surface. This made sand production a
constant concern due to the highly unconsolidated formations.
High pour points and viscosities caused numerous problems at
surface, particularly during the winter months when surface
temperatures remained near freezing. In addition to hindering
surface handling operations, it also affected the flowrates as it
applied additional backpressure that could be ill afforded.
Heat tracing the lines was expensive and time-consuming and
did nothing to increase temperatures between the sea floor and
wellhead.

SPE 63078

USING THE CASED-HOLE FORMATION TESTER TOOL FOR PRESSURE TRANSIENT ANALYSIS

The problem of adequate deck space, always a consideration

during any drillstem test, was compounded by the inability to
burn the heavy oil. As the weather in Bohai Bay was
unpredictable and sometimes too hostile to allow offloading
tanks for days at a time, sufficient tankage was required on
deck to hold enough produced fluid for the length of the
cleanup and flow period.
Even the simplest DST required large amounts of equipment
and personnel. A typical DST in this field would run five to
seven days long. Many of the problems outlined above could
be addressed, but the costs of these solutions started to
outweigh the benefits of the DST.

need for excellent cement isolation; (3) perforation interval

limits of 1 to 3 feet; (4) operational constraints affected by
reliable servicing and maintenance of the tool; (5) limited
reservoir volume investigated for PTA; (6) need to run casing.
While the cased-hole FT is not expected to supplant the need
for conventional testing methods in particular drillstem tests
and open-hole formation testers it nevertheless can be a
valuable addition to the evaluation of a field. The ability to
get pressure buildup data was an unexpected benefit from
what originally started as an attempt to get fluid samples.
Field Cases

The cased-hole FT solved many of the problems with a DST.

There was no need to flow fluids to surface, eliminating all of
the problems associated with producing heavy oil. Since the
tool was positioned directly across from the perforations, fluid
samples could be collected at near reservoir conditions.
Pressure drawdowns were kept to a minimum, preventing
pressures from dropping below bubblepoint and avoiding sand
production.

The following examples illustrate the type of pressure data

collected with the cased-hole FT from oil reservoirs at PL 193. A summary of the tests and analysis results is presented in
Table 1. As more experience was gained with this test
method, we continued to modify the procedure to acquire
better data and expand the scope of the tool. These examples
are representative of the twenty-five pressure buildup tests
conducted in this area.

Operationally, the cased-hole FT is less complex than a DST.

There are less than a dozen modules in a cased-hole FT tool
string, compared to the multiple components in a DST string.
Surface requirements are minimal for a cased-hole FT test,
consisting of the wireline unit and well control equipment, in
contrast to the surface equipment needed for a DST.

Case 1
The first example was in an 11-foot zone containing 15.4 API
oil. Open-hole logs over the tested zone are presented in
Figure 2.
Open-hole and mud logs indicated that
permeabilities might be too low to allow for a successful DST.
The FT was run to determine if a DST should be conducted.

The stacked zones in the PL19-3 field required multiple tests

for proper evaluation. A cased-hole FT test can be conducted
in 1 day. This means that more zones can be tested for the
cost of a single DST.

A 1-foot interval was perforated in a 2-foot bounded layer

within the larger zone. The FT packers were inflated across
the perforated interval, and initial pressure was obtained by
pumping out the formation for a short period and then shutting
in until pressures stabilized. The formation was then pumped
at the minimum speed of 300 RPM until the oil fraction
stabilized at 40%, for a total pump time of 8 hours. Pump
speed was not increased throughout the 8-hour pump time due
to the high pressure drawdowns caused by the low formation
mobility. After pumping for 8 hours with little change in the
oil fraction, two monophasic and 2.75 gallons dead oil
samples were collected. Final pressure drawdown was
approximately 380 psi, which was at or above the assumed
bubblepoint pressure. The pump was then stopped and the
seal valve closed for a pressure buildup test lasting 2 hours.

Cased-hole FT Benefits and Drawbacks. Cased-hole FT

testing offers the following benefits: (1) high quality
monophasic samples representative of reservoir fluids; (2)
sufficient volumes of surface samples to evaluate on site and
to perform limited assay analysis; (3) determination of
productivity and formation permeability or mobility from flow
performance and pressure buildup tests; (4) increased flow
area compared to open-hole FT probe, to reduce drawdown
and prevent sand production or collapse; (5) very little risk of
losing the tool compared to an open-hole environment; (6)
ability to test multiple formations in a short period of time; (7)
greatly reduced time and costs compared to a conventional
DST; (8) ability to evaluate fluid types and fractions downhole
to monitor for clean up; (9) direct measurement of pressures at
perforation depth rather than extrapolating with an estimated
fluid gradient; (10) limited surface equipment requirements
compared to a DST; (11) ability to change intervals and
testing methods in relatively short time periods; (12) simpler
and less complex system than for a DST.
At the same time, cased-hole FT testing is limited by: (1)
uncertainty of pay thickness contributing to total flow; (2)

The pressure buildup data from the final buildup was analyzed
using log-log derivative and semi-log techniques. Rates were
calculated from pump displacement, and any inefficiency in
the pump that might affect calculated rates was considered
negligible. Analysis showed a low mobility of 4.3 md/cp,
assuming only the single 2-foot layer was contributing. The
derivative plot showed that there were no partial penetration
effects, and a skin value of +2 confirmed this observation.
Thus, a finite-radius, infinite-acting model was used to
simulate the pressures during the test.

S.M. HURST, T.F. MCCOY, M.P. HOWS

This infinite-acting model matched observed pressures during

the last hour of the flow period and during the final buildup.
However, simulated pressures were lower than pressures
during the initial buildup and could not match the declining
pressures observed throughout the sampling flow. In addition,
initial pressure from the model was nearly 20 psi less than that
obtained from the initial buildup. The cased-hole FT initial
pressure of 2144 psia did agree with formation pressure from
the open-hole FT. The final buildup test was either giving a
falsely low formation pressure, possibly due to changes in the
reservoir away from the wellbore, or the initial pressures from
both cased and open-hole FT were supercharged.
In order to match both initial formation pressure and the
declining pressures during the flow period, two parallel
boundaries at 30 feet and 100 feet had to be introduced in the
model. This final model gave simulated results that were
much closer to observed data. The observed pressure data and
the model results are presented in Figures 3 through 5.
The primary objectives of the FT test were to obtain fluid
samples and to determine if a DST should be conducted. The
FT recovered both high-quality monophasic and dead oil
samples. Since pressure transient analysis of the FT buildup
test confirmed that the formation did indeed have low
mobility, the DST was cancelled.
Case 2
The second example is from a thicker and more permeable pay
zone with no nearby bed boundaries to limit inflow to the 1foot perforated interval. The FT test was conducted in an
interval that would also be drillstem tested. The DST interval
covered two separate zones.
The top zone was a
homogeneous, unconsolidated sand approximately 30 feet
thick. The lower zone was approximately 145 feet thick,
although only 45 feet of that contributed to flow. The FT test
was conducted in the lower zone, at the top of the pay sand
package. Figure 6 shows the open-hole logs across the DST
interval. There was poor cement isolation across both upper
and lower zones. Before the test, cement squeezes were
performed between the two sand bodies as well as above and
below the entire package. The FT was run before the DST in
order to obtain good bottomhole samples. Sampling attempts
in some of the previous drillstem tests had been unsuccessful,
due to sand production, inadequate clean up, or high pressure
drawdowns. Oil gravity was 17.6 API, as determined from
later analysis of the recovered samples.
The same procedure used for Case 1 was again followed
during this FT test. One exception was that pump speed was
increased during the sampling flow period from 400 to 800
RPM due to very low pressure drawdowns. This interval took
a longer time than normal to see oil breakthrough and to get
oil fractions high enough for sampling. This was attributed to
the lack of cement isolation. After pumping for 10 hours, the

SPE 63078

oil fraction had stabilized at 70%, and three monophasic and

3.75 gallons dead oil samples were collected. Pressure
drawdown was approximately 20 psi at the end of the
stabilization flow, ensuring that sampling pressure was well
above the assumed bubblepoint pressure. Once all samples
were collected and flowing pressures again stabilized, the
pump was stopped and the seal valve closed for a pressure
buildup test lasting 2 hours. A conventional DST followed the
FT test.
The pressure buildup data from this FT test was analyzed
using log-log derivative and semi-log techniques. Again, rates
were calculated from pump displacement, and any inefficiency
in the pump was considered negligible. Analysis showed a
relatively high mobility of 34.4 md/cp, assuming that the
entire 45-foot lower sand was contributing. In contrast to the
previous example, spherical flow was clearly seen on a log-log
derivative plot during this buildup test, as indicated by a
negative half-slope starting at approximately 0.01 hours. A
total skin value of +15 appeared to confirm this interpretation,
although it is recognized that damage could also be a factor.
A limited-entry, infinite-acting model was used to simulate the
test data. Vertical permeability can be determined if the
limited-entry model is correct and if the total zone thickness
and position of the perforated interval within the zone are
known. In this case, the vertical permeability was 2 times
greater than radial permeability.
Two other FT tests
conducted in this well had similar results, with vertical
permeabilities greater than horizontal despite core and log data
indicating the opposite. The lack of cement isolation across
the zones may be the cause of this questionable analysis. The
mechanical skin value was set to zero, causing all of the skin
to be attributed to limited entry effects.
Simulated pressures matched observed pressures during most
of the test. The first part of the sampling flow does not match
due to changing saturations as mud filtrate was pumped from
the formation and replaced with reservoir fluid. Formation
pressure from open-hole FT agreed with the cased-hole FT
initial buildup and with the extrapolated pressure from the
final buildup test. The observed pressure data and the model
results are presented in Figures 7 through 9.
Both monophasic and dead oil samples were recovered by the
FT, achieving the most important objective of the test
program. Pressure transient analysis of the FT buildup test
gave formation mobility and effective skin. Pressure analysis
was complicated by the poor cement isolation across this
interval and the uncertainty about net pay contributing to the
total flow.
Since the DST included the FT interval, a comparison can be
made between the two techniques. The FT permeability of
2900 md is consistent with the DST permeability of 2700 md.
This comparison is made knowing that there are uncertainties
about which intervals are actually contributing.

SPE 63078

USING THE CASED-HOLE FORMATION TESTER TOOL FOR PRESSURE TRANSIENT ANALYSIS

The ability to get representative fluid samples using the casedhole formation tester was confirmed after comparing PVT
analyses from samples taken using both the FT and a
conventional DST. Studies are currently underway to validate
pressure buildup test results from cased-hole formation testers
and compare them to other permeability indicators, such as
conventional drillstem tests, whole cores, and magnetic
resonance imaging logs.
Case 3
The third example was in a 3-foot interval isolated above and
below by thin shale beds within a larger 82-foot zone. Figure
10 presents the open-hole logs across the test interval. Cement
isolation appeared to be good across the entire zone. As this
reservoir was expected to contain 13 API oil with high
viscosity and since permeabilities appeared to be low, the
decision was made to run the cased-hole FT rather than a
DST.
An 1100-psi drawdown was required to break down the
perforations and establish communication with the formation.
Once communication was established, flowing pressures
immediately increased 1000 psi and stabilized for the rest of
the sampling flow. All of the 7 intervals tested in this well
had similar problems establishing communication with the
formation during initial drawdown. Formation damage due to
incompatibilities with the mud and invasion was believed to
be one of the major causes. Contaminants in the mud system,
such as lost circulation materials, were believed to be another
contributing factor.
Initial formation pressure was obtained by pumping out for a
short time period and then shutting in until pressures
stabilized. The formation was then pumped at minimum
speed of 300 RPM until the oil fraction stabilized, or for a
total time of 12.5 hours. When oil fractions stabilized at
approximately 80%, two monophasic and 2.75 gallons dead
oil samples were collected. Final pressure drawdown was
approximately 164 psi, which was at or above the assumed
bubblepoint pressure. The pump was then stopped and the
seal valve closed for a pressure buildup test lasting 2 hours.
Analysis of the final pressure buildup demonstrated that the
zone had a low mobility of 7.9 md/cp, assuming a 3-foot pay
interval. The derivative plot showed possible spherical flow
occurring for a short time period, although the skin value of
+5.5 could have been caused by formation damage. A limited
entry model was finally used to simulate the test, as this type
of model was required to match the derivative data. All of the
skin damage could be attributed to limited entry effects.
Vertical permeability was very low 6 md, compared to a
radial permeability of 2400 md as was expected in this zone.
Simulated and observed pressures agreed throughout the test.
There was a slight discrepancy between initial and final

formation pressures as determined from the two buildup tests.

This 7-psi difference could be attributed to supercharge
effects. The observed pressure data and the model results are
presented in Figures 11 through 13.
Conclusions
The ability to obtain fluid samples and reservoir mobility
using a wireline formation tester reduced testing costs and
allowed for better characterization of a complex field during
its appraisal phase. In addition to collecting high-quality fluid
samples, this tool provided pressure data that could be
analyzed using classical pressure transient analysis techniques.
The resulting reservoir mobilities appeared to be reasonable
when compared to other permeability indicators, although
additional study is required to verify this observation. The
tool was especially useful in this area due to operational and
logistical problems conducting drillstem tests and open-hole
formation testers.
Acknowledgements
We thank Phillips Petroleum Company and Schlumberger for
permission to publish this paper. We also thank Chinese
National Offshore Oil Company for their assistance and
support during this project.
References
1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

Frimann-Dahl, C. et. al.: Formation testers vs. DST The Cost

Effective Use of Transient Analysis to get Reservoir
Parameters, paper SPE 48962, presented at the 1998 SPE
Annual Technical Coverence and Exhibition, New Orleans, La,
Sep. 27-30, (1998).
Pop, J.J. et. al.: Vertical Interference Testing with a WrelineConveyed Straddle Packer Tool, paper SPE 26481 presented at
the 1993 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
Houston, TX, Oct. 3-6, (1993)
Stewart, G and Whitman, M.: Interpretation of the Pressure
Response of the Repeat Formation Tester, paper SPE 8362
presented at the 1979 SPE Annual Technical Coverence and
Exhibition, Las Vegas, Sep. 23-26, (1979).
Goode, P.A. and Thambynayagam, R.K.M.: Influence of an
Invaded Zone on a Multiple Probe Formation Tester, paper
SPE 23030 presented at the SPE Asia-Pacific Conference, Perth,
Nov. 4-7, (1991)
Jensen, C.L. and Mayson H.J.: Evaluation of Permeabilities
Determined from Repeat Formation Tester Measurements Made
in the Prudhoe Bay Field, paper SPE 14400 presented at the
1985 SPE Annual Technical Coverence and Exhibition, Las
vegas, Sep. 22-25, (1985).
Dussan V, E.B. and Sharma, Y.: An Analysis of the Pressure
Response of a Single-Probe Formation Tester, paper SPE
16801 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Coverence and
Exhibition, Dallas, Sep. 27-30, (1987).
Kuchuk, F.J., et. al.: Multilayer reservoir Testing with
Multiprobe Wireline Formation tester, paper SPE 36176
presented at the 7th Abu Dhabi International Petroleum
Converence and Exhibition, Abu Dhabi, Oct. 3-6, (1996).

8.

S.M. HURST, T.F. MCCOY, M.P. HOWS

Shah, P.C., e.al.: Interpretation of the transient Pressure

Recorded by a Multiprobe Wireline Formation tester in a
Layered Reservoir, paper SPE 25663 presented at the Middle
East Oil technical Conference and Exhibition, Bahrain, April, 36, (1993).
9. Goode, P.A., Pop, J.J. and Murphy III, W.W.: Multiple Probe
Formation testing and Vertical Reservoir Continuity, paper
SPE 22738 presented at the 1991 SPE Annual Technical
Coverence and Exhibition, Dallas, Oct. 6-9, (1991).
10. Goode, P.A, and Thambynayagam, R.K.M.: Analytic Models
for a Multiple Probe Formation Tester, paper SPE 20737
presented at the SPE Annual Technical Coverence and
Exhibition, New Orleans, Sep. 23-26, (1990).
11. Head, E.L. and Betties, F.E.: Reservoir Anisotropy
Determeination With Multiple Probe Pressures, JPT Dec. 1993,
p. 1177-84.
12. Badaam, S.A., et. al.: Estimation of Formation Properties Using
Multiprobe Formation Tester in Layered Reservoirs, paper SPE
49141 presented at the 1998 SPE Annual Technical Coverence
and Exhibition, New Orleans, La, Sep. 27-30, (1998).

SPE 63078

SPE 63078

USING THE CASED-HOLE FORMATION TESTER TOOL FOR PRESSURE TRANSIENT ANALYSIS

Oil Gravity
Viscosity
Net Thickness
Final Pressure Drawdown
Type Model
Initial Formation Pressure
Mobility
Radial Permeability
Vertical Permeability
Effective Skin
Boundaries
Depth of Investigation

Case 1
15.4 deg API
30 cp
2 feet
384 psi
Homogeneous,
Parallel Boundaries
2155 psia
4.3 md/cp
130 md
n/a
+ 1.6
30 & 100 feet
40 feet

Case 2
16.5 deg API
85 cp
45 feet
20 psi
Limited Entry,
Infinite-Acting
1528 psia
38 md/cp
2940 md
5770 md
+ 15
none
150 feet

Case 3
11.8 deg API
300 cp
45 feet
164 psi
Limited Entry,
Infinite-Acting
1760 psia
7.9 md/cp
2390 md
6 md
+ 5.5
none
80 feet

Table 1 Summary of Cased-hole FT Tests and Analysis Results

Electrical power
module

Multisampler
module

Sample Chamber
module
Sample Chamber
module
Pumpout
module
OFA
module

Packer
module
Bleed
port

Fig. 1 Typical Cased-hole Formation Tester Tool String.

10

S.M. HURST, T.F. MCCOY, M.P. HOWS

0
4880

20

40

SP

60

80

100

120

140

GR

160

x880

1
4880

15

20

25

30

35

Porosity

FT
Perforation

4890

4895

4900

4900

4905

4905

4910

4910

4915

4915

4920

10

4885

4895

4900

0 100 5
4880

Resistivity

4885

4890

10

SPE 63078

x920 4920

4920

Fig. 2 Open-hole logs for Case 1, across FT zone.

Fig. 3 Log-log derivative plot for Case 1. The model includes

two parallel boundaries at 30 and 100 feet. Model pressures are
shown as solid line. Observed pressures are displayed as circles,
with pressure derivatives as squares.

SPE 63078

USING THE CASED-HOLE FORMATION TESTER TOOL FOR PRESSURE TRANSIENT ANALYSIS

Fig. 4 Semi-log plot for Case 1. The model includes two parallel
boundaries at 30 and 100 feet. Extrapolated pressure matches
formation pressure obtained from open-hole FT. Model pressures are
shown as solid line, with observed pressures as circles.

Initial buildup

Sampling

Fig. 5 History plot for Case 1, comparing observed and simulated pressures
versus time. Model includes two parallel boundaries at 30 and 100 feet. Model
pressures are shown as solid line, with observed pressures as circles. Pump
rate is displayed as thick solid line at bottom of plot.

11

12

S.M. HURST, T.F. MCCOY, M.P. HOWS

SP

GR

X250

Resistivity

SPE 63078

Porosity

FT
Perforation

X500

Fig. 6 Open-hole logs for Case 2, across DST and FT interval.

spherical flow

Fig. 7 Log-log derivative plot for Case 2, using a limited-entry, spherical

flow model. The observed pressures are shown as circles, with the pressure
derivative displayed as squares. The model is shown as a solid line. The
spherical flow derivative is displayed to show the region of the test
undergoing spherical flow.

SPE 63078

USING THE CASED-HOLE FORMATION TESTER TOOL FOR PRESSURE TRANSIENT ANALYSIS

Fig. 8 Semi-log plot for Case 2. The limited-entry, spherical flow model is
shown as a solid line, with observed pressures displayed as circles.

Initial buildup

Oil breakthrough
Sampling

400 rpm pump rate

600 rpm pump rate

800 rpm pump rate

Fig. 9 History plot for Case 2, comparing observed versus simulated

pressures versus time. The limited-entry, spherical flow model is shown as a
solid line, with observed pressures displayed as circles. Pump rate is shown
as a thick solid line on the bottom of the plot.

13

14

S.M. HURST, T.F. MCCOY, M.P. HOWS

SP

GR

X00
0

Resistivity

SPE 63078

Porosity

FT
Perforation

X06
0
Fig. 10 Open-hole logs for Case 3, across FT zone.

probable spherical flow

Fig. 11 Log-log derivative plot for Case 3. The limited-entry model is shown
as a solid line, with observed pressures displayed as circles and derivative
as squares. A spherical flow derivative is plotted to show the region that is
under the influence of spherical flow.

SPE 63078

USING THE CASED-HOLE FORMATION TESTER TOOL FOR PRESSURE TRANSIENT ANALYSIS

Fig. 12 Semi-log plot for Case 3. The limited-entry, spherical flow model is
shown as a solid line, with observed pressures displayed as circles.

initial buildup
sampling

oil breakthrough

300 rpm constant pump rate

Fig. 13 History plot for Case 3, comparing observed versus simulated

pressures versus time. The limited-entry, spherical flow model is shown as a
solid line, with observed pressures displayed as circles. Pump rate is shown
as a thick solid line on the bottom of the plot.

15