SPE 102460
A Technique for Measuring Permeability Anisotropy and Recovering PVT Samples in a
Heavy Oil Reservoir in North West Siberia
Achourov V., SPE, Schlumberger, and Khamitov I. and Yatsenko V., SPE, Rosneft
Copyright 2006, Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2006 SPE Russian Oil and Gas Technical
Conference and Exhibition held in Moscow, Russia, 3–6 October 2006.
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
Wireline formation testers provide the measurements for the
determination of formation pressure gradient, in-situ effective
oil mobility profile, in-situ downhole fluids analysis (DFA) as
well as taken PVT samples and maintaining them in single
phase condition for lab analysis, interval pressure transient
testing (IPTT) for characterizing of permeability anisotropy
and in-situ minimum horizontal stress estimations.
Pressure and fluid samples are obtained by setting a rubber
packer and small diameter probe. The packer hydraulically
isolates a small part of the formation from the hydrostatic
pressure, while the probe enables communication between the
tool and formation. This conventional technique is well suited
for thick and permeable formations. However, for difficult
conditions such as laminated formations or formations with
low matrix permeability and formations saturated with high
viscosity fluids or fractured limestones, application of a single
probe technique is limited. Under these conditions, the small
packer may not be able to isolate the zone, may miss a thin
zone or in a formation with very low permeability and/or high
fluid viscosity the contact area with the packer may be too
small to let the fluid flow. To help overcome this, technique of
Wireline Formation Tester (WFT) with dual packer module is
used. This wireline conveyed straddle packer has the
capability of hydraulically isolating a minimum of one meter
of formation. The dual packer can be set repeatedly at
different locations on a single trip in the well. Using these
modules, pressures, real-time formation fluid identification,
PVT samples, permeability and flow rate estimations can all
be evaluated in detail.
Within the vast Russian oil and gas fields environment with
different geology, and wellbore and fluids conditions, the
technique of combining probe and dual packer modules in one
string and running the tool on TLC (tough logging conditions)
has been applied successfully to a thinly reservoirs, formations
with low permeability and unconsolidated formations
saturated by high viscosity fluids (heavy oils).
In this paper, application of interval pressure transient testing
done during formation fluid cleaning up from mud filtrate and
during downhole fluid identification is described. The main
objective of using the formation tester was to take downhole
representative PVT samples of high viscosity fluid in a high
invasion wellbore environment in three exploration wells of a
new remote field. Use of dual packer for PVT sampling and
single probe and vertical observation probe together provided
possibility to estimate permeability anisotropy, in spite of
difficult and challenging acquisition (operations were done
from Geophisika Logging unit due to the field remoteness)
and wellbore conditions (well bore stability and high mud
filtrate invasion).
Introduction
There are large reserves and resources of heavy oil present on
the Eastern European (Russian) and Siberian platforms, where
at least 700 billion bbl is present. Heavy oil and natural
bitumen reserves and resources of the Siberian platform
comprise one of the three largest accumulations in the world,
the other two being the Western Canada basin and the Eastern
Venezuela basin 1.
Understanding the nature of reservoir fluids is essential for the
optimization of completion, facilities design and reservoir
production strategies. Gas oil ratios, saturation pressures and
viscosities are among the fluid parameters that determine the
economic viability of a field development. Downhole fluid
analysis (DFA) is a powerful technique to help identify
compositional grading and frequently missed
compartmentalization of the developed reservoirs.
Formation fluid sampling earlier in the life of a well ensures
that necessary information is available for reservoir
completion planning and decision-making. This is in particular
important in heavy oil environment, where a flow assurance is
a major concern.
During any sampling operation, including drill steam testing
(DST) and surface sampling, two main risks exist. These are
excessive miscible contamination of reservoir fluids with mud
2 SPE 102460
filtrate and phase alteration due to excessive drawdown and
these issues are in relevant importance especially while
sampling heavy oils.
In this paper a technique for conducting downhole fluid
analysis (DFA), and recovering downhole PVT Samples in a
heavy oil reservoir in Northwest Siberia is described. We also
show some results of the same measurements in a light oil
reservoir in the same field, where results were acquired in the
same with heavy oil formation testing and sampling survey.
The surveys were conducted under remote conditions, which
required special precautions and preparation, including joint
operations between the service logging company and local
geophisika logging unit. The data acquired is outlined, and an
analysis of the results is given. We also discuss how acquired
data and results were later used for further exploration and
field management as a whole.
During one of the WFT surveys, the dual packer and single
probe combination also enabled to conduct interval pressure
transient testing (IPTT) interpretation, while conducting DFA
and taking PVT samples. These tests were conducted by
producing through the dual packer module and monitoring the
pressure at the dual packer as well at the vertically displaced
observation probe. The acquired pressure and rate data were
analyzed as a vertical interference test, revealing permeability
and permeability anisotropy at selected depths.
Reservoir Description and Formation Testing and
Sampling Objectives
Reference 2 gives an outline of the geological setting of
Vankor field, from which a summary is given below. The
license block of the field is located in the northeastern part of
the West Siberian basin. Tectonically Vankor field is
associated with the northern end of the Lodochniy levee,
located in the southern part of the Bolshekhetskaya structural
terrace. Vankor structure is characterized with the complete
lack of faults, except for one of deep NizhneHetskoe zones,
which is complicated by a local fault. The fault is not tracked
seismically. Vankor field has two productive formations. The
Nizhnekhetskiy formations – the sedimentation was occurring
in the marine environment, during the period of intensive sand
and silt. In general, each sedimentary cycle has the thickness
of 15-20 meters. The Yakovlev formations – represented by
fine-grained and coarse-grained sandstones and siltstones with
carbonate cement with streaks of mudstones and some coals.
The Yakovlevskie set is interpreted as the complex depositions
of the alluvial flat land, deltaic channels, alluvial sandstones
and lagoon coals. Currently the orientation of sedimentation is
not completely clear, but it will hardly be different from the
general trend of the West Siberian basin (from east to west of
from south-east to north-west) or the existing river system
(from south to north). Zone thickness is in the range of 432 to
441 meters.
Figure 1 shows the central part of current license block of
Vankor field, where red marks are wells, formation testing and
sampling results from which are discussed in the paper. Figure
2 show geological cross-section of Yakovlev formation.
Vankor field is considered to be developed with horizontal
drilling in Nizhnehentskie formation and possibly from
Yakovlevskaya formation. Sensitivy analysis of the current
reservoir model for both Nizhnehetsky and Yakovlevskaya
zones has shown that the main factors influencing
effectiveness of field development are reservoirs homogeneity,
permeability anisotropy, GOC and FWL and PVT properties.
PVT properties are especially important in Yakovlevskaya
zone, as it is expected to be saturated with relatively heavy oil.
Formation testing and PVT sampling results, supported by
quick and full PVT analysis of the acquired samples shown
that Yakovlevskaya formation is indeed saturated by oil with
viscosity of more than 10 cp and API gravity of less than 25.
Figure 3 shows light, medium and heavy oils classification 3,
which referes Vankor field Yakovlevskaya formation oil to be
between medium and heavy.
In order to proceed with the field development planning, an
extensive formation evaluation program was conducted on
three wells. In this paper we analyze the results of formation
testing and sampling part of this evaluation mainly for
Yakovlevskaya formation. We show an evidence of increasing
interval oil gradient and in-situ oil density estimated from
formation pressure profiling in Yakovlevskaya zone from the
top of the zone to the WOC (which may be an indication of
biodegradated oil) and analyse downhole fluid analysis station.
We also discuss the necessity of further formations testing and
sampling, including DFA with use of WFT for better
compositional grading of Yakovlevskaya hydrocarbons and
permeability and permeability distribution.
Formation Evaluation
WFT Pressure Profiling, Downhole Fluid Analysis and
PVT sampling.
Pressure gradient profiling surveys are used for initial
reservoir pressure measurement, communication information,
fluid contacts estimations and reservoir fluid mobility
calculations4.
Reference 6 gives an outline of downhole fluid analysis
(DFA), which is emerging as a powerful technique to define
saturation and to help to identify compartmentalization. Fluid
comparisons conducted in real-time and at downhole
conditions help identify compartments, which may not be
achieved by pressure gradients or seismic information.
Moreover, downhole analysis is performed with live fluids at
in-situ conditions, avoiding the possible alteration that may
affect surface samples during sample handling, transfer,
restoration, recombination, or storage. The physical basis of
the measurement is described in the literature 6-17. GOR can be
measured during WFT sampling.9-13. This was achieved by
measuring the dissolved methane vs. liquid oil fraction in a
single-phase crude oil.12 The Live Fluid Analyzer (LFA) can
measure the GOR in the range of 0-2500 scf/bbl. The physical
basis of this measurement is described in the literature.14 The
recently developed Composition Fluid Analyzer (CFA) has
been described elsewhere including the validation of its
measurements in laboratory and field conditions.16 The CFA
provides the weight percentages of methane (CH4), other
hydrocarbon gases (C2-C5), hydrocarbon liquids (C6+), and
SPE 102460
CO2. The CFA also provides downhole GOR for light crudes
to condensates in the range of 1500 - 25,000 scf/bbl. In
general, the CFA is more accurate for GOR determination for
fluids with GOR>2000 scf/bbl, while the LFA is more
accurate for GOR<1500 scf/bbl. For water sampling, a recent
technique to monitor miscible WBM contamination involves a
water-soluble dye added into the drilling fluid14. The colored
WBM filtrate can be easily identified in the flow stream with
the LFA which can perform downhole optical spectroscopy.
Pressure drawdown is necessary to induce flow from the
formation. If the pressure drawdown is excessive, phase
separation can occur, which usually affects sample quality.
Gas phase can come out of solution or liquid dew can drop out
of a retrograde gas. Flowing free gas can be detected with the
LFA by index of refraction.17 It is also possible to detect dew
formation by measuring fluorescence of the flowline fluids
using the CFA16,17 .
WFT Operations on “first”, “second” and “third” wells of
Vankor field:
During the summer of 2005, three wells in the Vankor field
were surveyed well by well using a WFT equipped with a
single probe, dual inflatable packer, downhole pumpout
module and optical analyser4. We will reference these wells as
“first”, “second” and “third”. The objectives of the surveys
were to obtain formation pressure and mobility profile and to
collect PVT fluid samples. The operation, though it had been
applied in other parts of the world and in Russia before, was
the first survey done by an international service company with
use of the local geophisikal company logging unit. Drill pipe
conveyed logging, which significantly decreases accident rate
of formation testing and sampling surveys, was not available
with such a joint operation. Full risk assessment, job design
and contingency plans were made. Due to the remote nature of
the operation, on site service and operating company expertise
was required for fast real time decisions. Remote conditions
affected operations significantly, which resulted in survey
interruptions and prolonged operations and compromised well
conditions, exposing the water-base-mud filled hole for long
times. WFT surveys were conducted after extended set of
open-hole logs, which were used to optimize formation testing
and sampling depths. Resistivity curves were showing deep
drilling mud invasion in the intervals where downhole
sampling was required. It was estimated as more than 2
meters. WFT on the “first” well was successfully finished with
formation pressure profiling and downhole PVT sampling
only in Nizhneketskie formation and with formation pressure
profiling and downhole PVT sampling in Yakovlevskaya
formation without PVT sampling, as WFT toolstring was not
equipped initially with a dual packer assembly. WFT was
equipped only with a standard probe, which was not
appropriate for downhole PVT sampling in the Yakovlevskaya
zone. Although PVT sampling with use of standard probe was
tried in Yakovlevskie formation, it was finished
unsuccessfully due to excessive drawdown and downhole
pump plugging by sand grains and fines. Pre-job planning
encompassed such possibilities, but remoteness of the rig and
contractual issues have not allowed arranging of the several
hardware options and dual packer availability for the “first”
well. After finishing the WFT operations on the “first” well,
3
which confirmed the suggestion of heavy nature of
Yakovlevskaya zone oil, special logistical efforts were
arranged to deliver a dual packer module for the “second” and
“third” well surveys, which on the contrary were successfully
tested and sampled only in Yakovlevskaya formation.
Unfavorable wellbore conditions did not allow going down to
Nizhnehetskie zone on “second” and “third” wells.
The wireline formation tester surveys on all the three wells
started with pressure and mobility profiling using the single-
probe module. Figure 4 shows the data acquired in the “first”
well. Formation pressures and mobility profiles indicate the
presence of light oil over the whole Nizhnehetskie formation,
where interpretable interval gradient was obtained. Before the
WFT survey middle part of the tested zone was expected to be
gas bearing. Followed PVT sampling station confirmed light
oil saturation, which is shown on Figure 5. Downhole fluid
analysis log, followed by PVT sampling correspond to the
typical behavior of light fluid flow. This allowed raising GOC,
and with other logging dat, lowering OWC. This resulted in a
21% increase in reserves in Nizhnehetskie formation 5. Life
fluid analyzer refractometer detects gas bubbles, which can be
an indication of the flow close to the bubble point pressure.
Figure 6 shows formation pressure, mud column and mobility
profile in the “first” well but in Yakovlevskaya formation.
Difference in pressure regimes of 2 atm is discovered between
initially suggested gas cap and oil saturated interval. In-situ
densities for gas bearing and oil saturated intervals observed to
be high, presuming possible presence of retrograde gas or
volatile oil in the top of the tested sand, which is separated by
the impermeable streak from the heavy oil sand with measured
increase slope of oil gradient. Change in slope in oil saturated
sand may indicate compositional grading of heavy oil, caused
by biodegradation, which was confirmed by lab analysis of the
taken PVT samples.
Figure 7 shows downhole fluid analysis log from the middle
part of Yakovlebskaya formation taken in the “second” well,
followed by PVT sampling. DFA log shows typical behavior
of heavy oils after a significant time of filtrate contamination
cleaning up from formation to the wellbore. Pressure
drawdown significantly increases, while cleaning up which
indicates phase change and viscosity/mobility contrast
between water based mud and heavy formation fluid. Total
formation fluid cleaning and sampling time was 8.5 hours.
Radius of invasion was more that 2.5 meters in the sampled
interval.
Figure 8 shows downhole fluid analysis log from the middle
part of Yakovlebskaya formation taken in “third” well,
followed by PVT sampling. DFA log, again, as in the
“second” well shows typical behavior of heavy oils after
significant time of filtrate contamination cleaning up. Pressure
drawdown significantly increases, while cleaning up with
constant pump rate, which indicates phase change, and
viscosity/mobility contrast between water based mud and
heavy formation fluid. Total formation fluid cleaning and
sampling time is 7.5 hours. Radius of invasion was more that 2
meters in the sampled interval.
4 SPE 102460
Figure 9 shows a comparison of formation pressure and
mobility profile for the three wells in TVDSS, suggesting a
slight difference in pressure regimes between wells,
compartmentalization and possible difference in fluid contacts.
Difference in pressures between first and third well is about 1
atm and between first and second well – 0.5 atm. Such a
comparison causes more uncertainty in free water levels
estimations by reservoir pressure profiling. Necessity of
multiple downhole fluid analysis and PVT sampling stations is
demonstrated by pressure profiling ambiguity to definite fluid
contacts.
WFT Interval Pressure Transient Testing:
Monitoring the pressure and rate at the dual packer and the
pressure at the vertically displaced observation probe enables
the user to analyze the data for permeability and permeability
anisotropy.18-28
While downhole fluid analysis and sampling station in the
third well (Figure 8) flow was induced from dual packer
module, observation probe was also set and remained set
during the sampling station. Figure 10 shows Interval Pressure
Transient Testing (IPTT) data for pressure recorded in dual
packer module, pressure response recorded on observation
probe and pump out rates history. Good response on
observation probe and in the dual packer is observed. Note
that the observation probe pressure data could be analyzed
during all the flowing period, however this is not a
straightforward task, as the flowing fluid is continuously
changing from filtrate to heavy (foamy) oil mixture, which is
verified by constant increase in pressure drawdown. Thus,
more emphasis was given to the later sections of the flow
transient. Figure 11 and 12 shows the IPTT drawdown match
at the end of the pumping period of dual packer and
observation probe accordingly, while figure 13 shows pump
out rate match. All these matches are with a homogenous
anisotropic model.23,28. The match indicates a horizontal
permeability of 28.7 md and a vertical permeability of 3.1 md.
Figure 14-15 shows the analysis of the dual packer miniDST
drawdown pressure data using classical well testing
techniques, where Figure 14 is flow regime identification plot
showing typical spherical and radial flow and boundary effect
evidence. Type curve matching for drawdown pressures
derivative obtained for storage and skin wellbore and
homogenous with circle boundary reservoir models. Radius of
investigation of this test is estimated to be about 80 m. But this
value needs to be considered as an indication, as generally
dual packer IPTT (miniDST) test can not be modeled as
classical well test, considering the distance at which a pseudo-
steady-state flow establishes inside the reservoir and assumes
a fully-penetrating vertical well in a homogeneous formation
model, while this assumption might not be always applicable
to the WFT miniDST pressure testing, due to limited distance
of the wellbore interval straddled by dual packer.
Conclusions
Heterogeneity and fluids properties were critical for more
precise reserves estimations and certification processing and
reservoir modeling update on a new filed with two reservoirs
diversed by formation and fluid properties.
Three wells formation evaluation logging, using WFT, helped
to acquire the required data for the further appraisal and
development drilling and reservoir management decisions.
In the “first” well Yakovlevskaya formation testing was
followed by formation testing and sampling in Nizhnehetskaya
formation, where WFT among other logging data resulted in a
21% increase in reserves and increase of recovery factor by a
factor of 1.3. If these reserves and highly permeable zone
would not taken into account in the initial field development
project, the highly permeable interval would lead to a faster
gas break through. To produce these missing reserves it would
be necessary to drill at least 18th additional wells after with
the total cost of $48.6 millions. So, effectiveness of the used
methods of formation evaluation and sampling is 4300%. Here
effectiveness is measured as a ratio of the cost of unplanned
wells to the cost of formation evaluation and testing logging.
Downhole high quality PVT heavy oil samples were acquired
and quickly analyzed with use of movable PVT express lab.
WFT survey also revealed difference in pressure regimes
between gas bearing and oil zones in the same well and
different pressure gradients between different wells.
Local permeability and permeability anisotropy values were
estimated, which should be confirmed and extended for other
part of the field and to be used for full field reservoir
modeling.
Significant experience in operations is gained by operating
and service companies in the particular environment,
complicated by field remoteness. Detailed upfront WFT
surveys planning and procedural design is being made for the
further appraisal and development wells. Planned WFT
surveys include downhole fluids analysis and PVT sampling
with use of sample chambers maintaining single-phase fluid
condition to confirm heavy and biodegraded nature of
Yakovlevskie formation oil.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Rosneft and Schlumberger for
the permission to publish this paper.
References
1. Meyerhoff A. A., Tulsa, Oklahoma, Meyer R. F.,
U.S. Geological Survey Reston, Virginia: “Geology
of Heavy Crude Oil and Natural Bitumen in the
USSR, Mongolia, and China”
2. Rosneft Website:
www.rosneft.com/english/projects/vankorsk.html
3. “Heavy Oil Reservoirs,” the Oilfield Review,
Autumn 2002
4. Zimmerman, T., MacInnis, J., Hoppe, J. and Pop, J.:
"Application of Emerging Wireline Formation
Testing Technologies," paper OSEA 90105 presented
at the Offshore South East Asia Conference,
Singapore, 4-7 December 1990.
5. Khamitov I., Yatsenko V, Bachin S. and Krinin V.:
“Evaluation of Innovative Well Logging
SPE 102460
Technologies on Rosneft Oilfields”, 2006 Rosneft
Fields Development Bulletin.
6. Elshahawi H. Hashem M., McKinney D., Ardila M.,
Ayan C.: “The Power of Real-Time Monitoring and
Interpretation in Wireline Formation Testing-Case
Studies”, paper SPE 94708 presented at the 2005
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
Dallas, Texas, October 9-12.
7. Ratulowski J., Fuex, A.N., Westrich, J.T., Sieler, J.J.:
“Theoretical and experimental investigation of
isothermal compositional grading,” SPE REE (June
2003), 168.
8. Hoier, L. Whitson, C.H.: “Compositional grading–
theory and practice,” paper SPE 63085 presented at
the 2000 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, October 1–4,.
9. Hashem, M.N., Thomas, E.C., McNeil, R.I., Mullins,
O.C.: “Determination of producible hydrocarbon type
and oil quality in wells drilled with synthetic oil-
based muds,” SPE REE (April 1999).
10. Mullins, O.C., Schroer, J.: “ Real-time determination
of filtrate contamination during openhole wireline
sampling by optical spectroscopy,” paper SPE 63071
presented at the 2000 SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, October
1–4, 2000.
11. Dong, C., Mullins, O.C., Hegeman, P.S., Teague, R.,
Kurkjian, A., and Elshahawi, H.: “In-situ
contamination monitoring and GOR measurement of
formation samples,” paper 77899 presented at the
2002 SPE Asia Pacific Oil & Gas Conference and
Exhibition, Melbourne, Australia, Oct 8-10.
12. Mullins, O.C., Beck, G., Cribbs, M.Y., Terabayshi,
T., Kegasawa, K.: “Downhole determination of GOR
on single-phase fluids by optical spectroscopy,”
SPWLA paper M presented at the 42nd Annual
Logging Symposium, Houston, Texas, June 17-20,
2001.
13. Mullins, O.C., Daigle, T., Crowell, C., Groenzin, H,
and Joshi, N.B.: “Gas-oil ratio of live crude oils
determined by near-infrared spectroscopy”, Applied
Spectroscopy, 2001b, Vol. 55, p. 197.
14. Hodder, M. H., Samir, M., Holm, G. Holm and
Segret, G.: “Obtaining Formation Water Chemistry
Using a Mud Tracer and Formation Tester in a North
Sea Subsea Field Development,” paper SPE 88637
presented at the 2004 Asia Pacific Oil and Gas
Conference and Exhibition, Perth, Australia, 18–20
October.
15. Betancourt, S., et al. “Exploration Applications of
Downhole Measurement of Crude Oil Composition
and Fluorescence,” paper SPE 87011, presented at the
2004 Asia Pacific Conference on Integrated
Modeling for Asset Management, Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia, 29-30 March.
16. Fujisawa, G., Van Agthoven, M.A., Rabbito, P.,
Mullins, O.C.: “Near-infrared compositional analysis
of gas and condensate reservoir fluids at elevated
pressures and temperatures,” Applied Spectroscopy,
Vol. 56, p. 1615, 2002.
5
17. Elshahawi, H. et al. “Insitu Characterization of
Formation Fluid Samples - Case Studies,” paper SPE
90932 presented at the 2004 SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition Houston, Texas, U.S.A.,
26–29 September.Eurock ’98, Trondheim, Norway
8–10 July 1998.
18. Pop, J. J., Badry, R. A., Morris, C. W., Wilkinson, D.
J., Tottrup, P. and Jonas, J. K.: "Vertical Interference
Testing With a Wireline-Conveyed Straddle-Packer
Tool," paper SPE 26481, presented at the 1993 SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
Houston, 3-6 October 1993.
19. Ayan, C., Douglas, A. A. and Kuchuk, F. J. "A
Revolution in Reservoir Characterization, "Middle
East Well Evaluation Review, (1996) 42-455.
20. Head, E. L. and Betties, F. E.: "Reservoir Anisotropy
Determination with Multiple Probe Pressures," J. Pet.
Tech., Dec. 1993, p 1177-84.
21. Goode, P. A. and Thambynayagam, R. K. : "Analytic
Models for a Multiprobe Formation Tester," paper SPE
20737 presented at the 1990 Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, 23-26 Sept.
1990.
22. Goode, P. A., Pop, J. J. and Murphy, W. F.:
"Multiple-Probe Formation Testing and Vertical
Reservoir Continuity," paper SPE 22738 presented at
the 1991 Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Dallas, 6-9 Oct. 1991.
23. Kuchuk, F. J. "Multiprobe Wireline Formation Tester
Pressure Behavior in Crossflow-Multilayer
Reservoirs," In Situ, 20 (1) (1996) 1-40.
24. Ayan, C. and Kuchuk F. J.: “Determination of
Horizontal and Vertical Permeabilities Using
Multiprobe Wireline Formation Tester in Layered
Formations," paper SPE 29835 presented at the 1995
SPE Middle East Oil Show and Conference, Bahrain,
11-14 March, 1995.
25. Kuchuk, F. J., Ramakrishnan, T. S., Ayan, C., Akbar,
M., Mahmoud, Y., Young, N. and Al-Matroushi, S. :
" Multilayer Reservoir Testing with Multiprobe
Wireline Formation Tester," paper SPE 36176
presented at the 1996 Abu Dhabi International
Petroleum Exhibition and Conference, Abu Dhabi,
U.A.E., 13-16 October 1996.
26. Badaam H. et al.: “Estimation of Formation
Properties Using Multiprobe Formation Tester in
Layered Reservoirs,” paper SPE 49141 presented at
the 1998 Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, New Orleans, 27-30 Sept. 1998.
27. Ayan C., Haq, S. A., Boyd. A. and Hamawi, M.:
“Integration of NMR, Wireline Tester, Core and
Open Hole Log Data for Dynamic Reservoir
Properties,” paper SPE 53273 presented at the 1999
SPE Middle East Oil Show and Conference, Bahrain,
20-23 Feb. 1999.
28. Onur. M., Kuchuk, F. J.: “Integrated Nonlinear
Regression Analysis of Multiprobe Wireline
Formation Tester Packer and Probe Pressures and
Flow Rate Measurements,” paper SPE 56616
presented at the 1999 Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition, Houston, 3-6 Oct. 1999.
6 SPE 102460

Figure 2 – Cross-Section of Yakovlevskaya zone

Figure 1 – Central part of current license block of Vankor field is

located in the northeastern part of the North West Siberian basin,
where pink marks are wells, formation testing and sampling
results from which are discussed in the paper. Figure 3 – Light, Medium, Heavy and Bitumen oils classifications
used by industry worldwide and local government bodies.

Figure 4 Formation pressure and mobility profile indicates the

presence of light oil over the tested Nizhnehetskoe zone, where
fluid gradient was obtained. Top part of the tested zone
previously was expected to be gas bearing. Followed PVT
sampling station confirmed light oil saturation.
SPE 102460
Figure 5 - Downhole fluid analysis log from the questionable part
of Nizhnehetskaya zone, “first” well, followed by PVT sampling.
DFA log shows typical behavior of light fluid sampling
(refractometer detects gas bubbles), which can be an indication of
the flow close to bubble point pressure.
Figure 6 – Formation pressure, mud column and mobility profile
in the “first” well, Yakovlevskaya zone. Difference in pressure
regimes of 2 atm. is discovered between initially suggested gas
cap and oil saturated interval. In-situ densities for gas bearing
and oil saturated intervals observed to be high, presuming
presence of retrograde gas or volatile oil in the top of the sand
separated by the impermeable streak from the medium/heavy oil
in the middle of perspective sand with increasing angle of oil
gradient.
7
Figure 7 – Downhole fluid analysis log from the middle part of
Yakovlebskaya formation, “second” well, followed by PVT
sampling. DFA log shows typical behavior of heavy oils after
significant time of filtrate contamination cleaning up. Pressure
drawdown significantly increases, while cleaning up which
indicates phase change and viscosity/mobility contrast between
water based mud and heavy formation fluid. Total formation fluid
cleaning and sampling time is 8.5 hours. Radius of invasion was
more that 2 meters in the sampled interval.
Figure 8 – Downhole fluid analysis log from the middle part of
Yakovlebskaya formation, “third” well, followed by PVT sampling.
DFA log shows typical behavior of heavy oils after significant time
of filtrate contamination cleaning up. Pressure drawdown
significantly increases, while cleaning up with constant pump rate
which indicates phase change and viscosity/mobility contrast
between water based mud and heavy formation fluid. Total
formation fluid cleaning and sampling time is 7.5 hours. Radius of
invasion was more that 2 meters in the sampled interval.
8 SPE 102460

Figure 11 - IPTT analysis, matching the drawdown pressure in

dual packer module at the end of the pumping period

Figure 9 - Formation pressure and mobility profile for three wells

in TVDSS, suggests slight difference in pressure regimes between
wells, compartmentalization and possible difference in fluid
contacts.

Figure 12 - IPTT analysis, matching the drawdown pressure in

observation probe at the end of the pumping period

Figure 10 – WFT Interval Pressure Transient Testing while

conducting Downhole Fluids Analysis and PVT sampling.

Figure 13 - IPTT analysis, matching the pump out rate

SPE 102460 9

Figure 14 – MiniDST Drawdown analysis of dual packer pressure

using storage and skin wellbore model and homogenous with
circle boundary reservoir model. Drawdown pressure derivative
may indicate that pressure transient reaching boundary.

Figure 15 – MiniDST pressure drawdown history match plot.

Conversion Factors

atm × 1.013 250 E + 05 = Pa

cp × 1.0 E + 03 =Pa⋅s
m × 3.28 E + 00 =ft
md × 9.869 E - 16 =m2