RFT

ESSENTIALSOF PRESSURETEST
INTERPRETATION
ESSENTIALS OF PRESSURE TEST
INTERPRETATION
 RFT
ESSENTIALS
OF PRESSURE
TEST
INTERPRETATION
TABLE OF CONTENTS
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION. 13 III. INTERPRETATION 29

111.1. QUALITATIVE
II. THE PRINCIPLE OF RFT INTERPRETATION _. 29
MEASUREMENTS. 17 1.1. Pretest validity ___
__...______
____
__._. 29
1.2. Permeability Indication in Valid
Pretests _______ ._____. 30
11.1. THERFTTOOL.. ....................... 17
1.1. Capabilities ................................. 17
111.2. QUANTITATIVE
1.2. Limitations.. ................................ 19
INTERPRETATION.. 31
Introduction ___
_____
___
____ .__ .__ _____
__ 31

11.2. CALIBRATIONS AND

ACCURACY ___ ____
__.._ .._____
____.__ 19 111.3. DRAWDOWN ANALYSIS ____
__._. 32
3.1. Analytical Study .____
___.
_.. 32
3.2. Spherical Flow Skin-Effect. ._____
_.__._. 33
11.3. HIGH PRECISION QUARTZ
19 3.3. Upper Limit of Measurable
PRESSURE GAUGE _____
___. ._.__
Drawdown Rate ..______
___ _. 34
_____ 20
3.1. Principle of Measurement .._______ 3.4. Factors Affecting the Drawdown _____ 3.5
3.2. Comparison with Conventional 3.5. Radius of influence for Drawdown 35
Gauges.. _._. 20
3.3. Quartz Gauge PressureCorrection __. 20
111.4. BUILD-UP ANALYSIS 35
4.1. Spherical Build-up ._______
._ __. 36
11.4. APPLICATIONS OF RFK 4.2. Cylindrical Build-up _.,,_.,_______________
37
PRESSUREMEASUREMENTS 21 4.3. Radius of Influence for Build-up... __. 39
Introduction ___.____
__.. . .._. .._____
__.___ 21 4.4. Depth of Investigation _______....___.____
40
4.1. Analysis of Hydrostatic and 4.5. Upper Limit of Measurable
Reservoir PressureProfiles _. 21 Permeability from Build-up. 40
4.2. Application of the Quartz Gauge to 4.6. Build-up Analysis versus Drawdown
Fluid Density Measurements _______.___ 25 Analysis 41

9
 4.7. Influence of impermeable bed IV. mWITHCSU _________.____............. 61
boundaries ____.________________.
_.. 41
4.8. Influence of the invaded zone 43

V. SPECIAL APPLICATIONS OF THE

111.5. SPECIFIC PROBLEMS RF-r. . 69
ASSOCIATED WITH RFT
RESPONSE _____
___.____.______
_. _,.._ ___ 44
5.1. Relationship between sand-face water
V.I. RFT TESTING IN TIGHT
pressures measured by the RFT and
RESERVOIRS.. 69
phase pressure in a virgin reservoir.. 44
5.2. Suuerchargine . . 47 1.1. Statement of the problem ____......._.__ 69
5.3 Aiemow:..: 51 1.2. Conduct of an RFI job in a tight
reselwxr . 70
111.6. QUICKLOOK
INTERPRETATION FROM
BUILD-UP.. 54 V.2. RFT TESTING IN NATURALLY
6.1. Determination of Quicklook FRACHJRED RESERVOIRS _____
__ 71
Permeability. 54 2.1. Generalities ___________
______. ._________ 71
6.2. Quicklook permeability 2.2. Theoretical pressureresponse 73
from build-up in limited drawdown 2.3. Field example ___.... .___
___
____
_____.
___ 74
tests. ._____.____
__._______
____ ___ 56 2.4. A note on the limit of resolution of
6.3. Field example _____________
__________.______ 56 the method. _... ., .______
_______
___.__ 75
I. INTRODUCTION
 I. INTRODUCTION
The Repeat Formation Tester (RFT) is an
open hole wireline instrument primarily
used for measuring vertical pressure
distribution in a reservoir, as well as for
recovering formation fluid samples.
The point by point reservoir pressure
measurement technique is used to
determine the gradients of both
hydrostatic pressure of the mud column in
the borehole before the tool is set or after
the tool is retracted, and the formation
pressure when the tool is set.
In exploration and delineation wells,
where depletion has not yet affected the
original pressure distribution of the
reservoir, the pressure profile may be
interpreted essentially in terms of fluid
densities and contacts (i.e. OWC, GOC).
13
During infill drilling the RFT pressures
allow definition of vertical and horizontal
communication and/or boundaries. Used
in conjunction with other information
(e.g. Production Logging) RFf pressures
may be interpreted in terms of horizontal
and, in particular, vertical trans-
missibilities.
However, the Repeat Formation Tester is
also a device capable of providing an
estimate of formation permeability
through the interpretation of pretest
pressure data recorded during drawdown
and build-up. This book will discuss the
RFT pretest. For information on recovery
analysis please refer to “ The Essentials of
Wireline Formation Tester “, March 1976
Edition.
 II. THE PRINCIPLE
OF RFT MEASUREMENTS
 II. THE PRINCIPLE OF RFT MEASUREMENTS

U-l. THE RFl. TOOL

1.1. Capabilities
The Repeat Formation Tester tool has been designed
to :
- Measure formation pressures and
- Collect reservoir fluid samples.

Depth accuracy can be controlled by correlating a

Gamma Ray curve or an SP curve with the Open
Hole logs.

Once downhole, the RFf can be set as many times as

desired under normal operating conditions. This
device is capable of high precision pressure
measurements, and it can retrieve two fluid samples
per trip in the hole.

The tool can be set at any desired depth independent

of mud pressure. Even at very shallow depths it still
has enough setting force to provide a good seal with
the formation through the packer.

Two pretest chambers, automatically activated every

time the tool is set, withdraw 10 cc of formation fluid
each. Chamber-l has a lower flowrate than
chamber-2 These rates of fluid withdrawal vary with
tool and downhole conditions but they are in the
neighbourhood of 50 cc/min and 125 cc/min
respectively, giving a flowrate ratio of about 2.5.
These pretest samples are not saved. FIG. II-I: RFr in closed and open positions.

17
 RFT essentials of ~xxzssure test Interpretation

When the tool is set, a packer moves out one side and
back up pistons move out on the opposite side, as
seen in Fig. II-l. The body of the tool is held away
from the borehole wall to reduce the chances of
differential sticking.

Fig. II-2 shows the RFT pretest and sampling

principle. A filter in the flowline probe prevents sand
entry into the tool and a piston cleans the filter when
the tool is retracted. Thus flowline plugging is
substantially reduced. A strain gauge pressure
transducer located in the flowline monitors the
pressure during the test. The pressure is continuously
recorded at surface in both analogue and digital
form, giving pressure drawdown data and subsequent
buildup data whenever the pretest (or sampling) is
concluded.

FIG. 11-2: m pretest and sampling principle.

FIG. 11-3: Typical pressure recording during a pretest.

A typical pressure recording is shown in Fig. II-3
which shows both analog and digital pressure curves
as standard log presentation. The “motor speed”
may be presented on the log also, if desired. This
motor drives the hydraulic pump which sets and
retracts the RFT. The speed curve of the motor can
be used for identifying various stages in the tool’s set
and retract cycles. Initially, in Figure U-3, the
pressure is that of the mud column. When the tool is
set, the pressure rises slightly because of the
compression of the mudcake by the packer. Then the
probe piston retracts and the pressure drops due to
the resulting flowline volume expansion and
communication with the formation. When the piston
stops, the pressure builds up again because the
packer is still continuing to compress the mudcake
until the tool is fully set. Next the pressure drops as
the first 10 cc pretest piston begins moving at a
constant rate. This time is denoted as to. After about
15 seconds the first pretest piston reaches the end of

18
 II. The principle of RFT measurements

its travel. At this time, tl, the second piston begins
moving at a rate 2.5 times faster than the first piston
movement, consequently the pressure drops further.
When both pretest chambers are full, at time t,,the
pressure builds up towards a final pressure. The
running time used for pressure analysis, At, is
counted starting at tz.
Analysis of the build-up curve may yield permeability
and reservoir pressure as with conventional drill stem
and production pressure tests. Finally, after the tool
is retracted, the mud column pressure is again
measured.
1.2. Limitations
Unlike its predecessor, the Formation Interval
Tester, the RFI is limited to measuring formation
pressure and to retrieving formation samples in open
holes only.
gauge and the downhole electronics in a
temperature-controlled oven and calibrating with a
dead-weight tester for a series of different
temperatures. The utimate accuracy thus obtained is
a maximum error of 13 psi for a 10 000 psi gauge
(0.13 % of full scale). The resolution of the presently
used system is 1 psi. A new telemetry system
(telemetry B) is presently being introduced which
allows improving the resolution to 0.1 psi. Similarly,
the repeatability will be improved to 0.4. psi, as
compared to 3 psi with the present measurement
system.
Gauge calibration data are recorded on a graph for
future reference to correct log readings to true
pressure as a function of temperature. A typical
gauge master calibration is shown in Figure H-4,
where the influence of gauge hysteresis is also shown
on the calibration curves.

Minimum hole size required is 6 inches and

maximum hole size is 14s4 inches. Maximum mud
pressure rating is 20,OCQ psi, and maximum mud
temperature is 350°F. Standard sizes for the sample
chambers are l-gallon and 23’4 -gallon, but &gallon
and 12-gallon chambers are also available.

II.2. CALIBRATION AND ACCURACY FIG. 11-4: Example of Strain gauge field master
calibration.

The RFI’ pressure measurement is considerably

more accurate than that obtained with previous
wireline techniques. However, the absolute accuracy
U-3 HIGH PRECISION
of the pressure measurement depends on the
QUARTZ PRESSURE GAUGE
calibration technique. As the gauge and the tool are
temperature sensitive, a good calibration must be
applied in order to achieve the greatest possible
For special formation pressure studies where
XC”G3CY.
absolute accuracy is very important, the RFT can be
run with a high precision quartz gauge (such as the
The standard gauge used in the RFI is a strain gauge.
one manufactured by Hewlett Packard). These
Using a c<dead weight * tester for calibrating the
gauges have an accuracy typically of the order of:
gauge and applying temperature corrections, the
RFT system accuracy is better than 0.41% of full 0.5 psi, if the temperature is known to a 1 OC
scale (i.e. 41 psi for a 10 Ooo psi gauge). XC”GXY
1 psi, if the temperature is known to a 10 “C accuracy
The greatest accuracy is attained by placing both the 5 psi, if the temperature is known to a 20 “C accuracy

19
 RFT essenti of pressure test interpretation

Gauge resolution is 0.01 psi for a 1 second time
constant compared to 1 psi with the standard RFI
gauge.
3.1. principle of Measurement
The high precision quartz gauge consists of two
quartz controlled crystal oscillators basically sensitive
to pressure and temperature. One quartz crystal acts
as a sensor to the fluid pressure and temperature, the
other acts as a reference with the following
specifications :
where pza, is the hydrostatic head due to the 3.47 ft
column of DC 200 (a silicone agent used to protect
the gauge from mud) and pmud is the pressure due to
the 1.33’col”mn of mud. pza, = 1.44 psi at 77OF and 1
atmosphere and must be corrected for downhole
pressure and temperature “sing Fig. 11.6.
FLUID
1.27’ BEING

1) The temperature effect on both crystals is

identical in a condition of equilibrium.
2) The crystals form a matched pair when calibrated.
STRAIN GAUGE
3) The reference crystal is placed in a vacuum (not
exposed to pressure).

TO TWO CHAMBERS

3.2. Comparison with Conventional Gauges

The advantages of the quartz gauge compared to
conventional gauges are its high accuracy, good -SILICONE
repeatability, high resolution, positive depth control, OIL DC200
high data density, and output type (quartz clock with
printout).

Unfortunately the quartz gauge takes a long time to 3.47

stabilize before it reaches the true pressure.
Depending on the accuracy to be achieved,
stabilization times have been observed to last up to
20 minutes for both pressure and temperature
QUARTZ
*changes. The pressure accuracy is also very
GAUGE
dependent on good temperature data.
-

3.3. Quartz Gauge Pressure Correction
Due to the fact that the quartz gauge is located lower
than the strain gauge in the RFT (see Fig. II-S), the
pressure read from the quartz gauge must be
depth-corrected to the pressure reference level (with
is the RFT strain gauge level). The following
expression is used:
Corrected pressure = quartz gauge reading minus
pmud mln”s ~2~~~
i
n
FIG. U-5: Quartz gauge location in the RFT.
It should be noted here that the strain gauge is
usually calibrated in psig (gauge pressure measured
with respect to atmospheric pressure) while the
quartz gage may be calibrated in psia (absolute
pressure, with respect to zero). This difference
(around 14.7 psi) must be taken into account when
doing detailed comparisons.

20
 II. The principle
FIG. U-6: Pressure of Column of DC 200 in HPA-A
Adapter corrected for temperature and pressure.
U-4 APPLICATIONS OF RFT PRESSURE
MEASUREMENTS
lUbdUCtiOIt
Besidesthe retrieval of formation fluid samples and
the measurement of formation pressures, the RFT
has found many applications in the field of reservoir
engineering:
- In exploration of appraisal wells in unproduced
fields, it is known that fornmtion pressuresmust
conform to gravity-capillary equilibrium
establishedover geologic times. Thus the conduct
of the RFT survey and the interpretation of the
data is governed by the constraint that the
formation pressures lie on straight-line fluid
gradients and the main objective of the testing is
of RFT measurements
to delineate these gradients (water, oil and gas)
and their intersections.
- In development (in-Iill) wells, the observed
formation pressuresmay already be affected by
either partial depletion or possibly water
injection. Thus the new development well is used
as an observation location at which the current
state of the reservoir can be measured on a
vertically distributed basis. The measured
pressure profile reflects the response of the
reservoir to production/injection and it is
axiomatic that the pressure information may not
be interpretated in terms of reservoir structure
and fluid distribution without knowledge of the
production which has taken place. Reservoir
simulation may often be the only possible
approach to interpret RFK data on a field-wide
basis. Such simulations may be considerably
enhanced by history-matching to layer pressures
and layer production rather than surface rates.
This subject is beyond the scope of this book and
will be treated in separate publications.
4.1. Analysis of Hydrostatic
and Reservoir Pressure Profiles
As previously noted, the designof the RFT allows an
unlimited number of pressure measurments during
one trip into the borehole. At each measurement
point three different pieces of information are
recorded :
- The hydrostatic pressure (within the mud
column)
- The shut-in (formation) pressure
- The pressuretransient induced by the withdrawal
of 20 cm3 of formation fluid.
Analysis of the hydrostatic pressure
As described earlier, the pressure within the
borehole is routinely recorded before and after each
setting cycle. Comparison of both pressuresallows an
easy verification of the stability of the measuring
system. Stability may be improved by keeping the
tool stationary for a few minutes before setting it.
Then pressuresbefore and after the pre-test should
not differ by more than one or two psi.
This is subject to the previso that the mud level in the
21
RG. 11.7: Hydrostatic and reservoir pressure profiles in a well of the Triassic Province

22
 II. The principle of RFT measurements

borehole remain constant throughout ‘the recording downhole just before pulling the drill pipe to
(50 C”I of mud column correspond to a pressure minimize the risk of blow-out.
difference of about 1 psi).

On the typical recording of Fig. 11-3, the pressure A plot of formation pressure (either read directly or
readings immediately before setting and after derived from build-up plots) against depth can give a
retracting the tool are identical : 7 039 psi (7 OOII+ 0 large amount of valuable information to the reservoir
+ 30 + 9). This is indicative of a well stabilized engineer.
measurement system.
The pressuregradient can be interpreted in terms of
The hydrostatic pressure which is thus obtained formation fluid density, “sing equation (4.1.1). The
should be continuously plotted against depth while approach is similar to the one described above for the
the RFT operation proceeds. Such a plot should hydrostatic pressureand it gives an indication of the
show a pressuregradient corresponding to the actual nature of the formation fluids (gas, oil, or water) as
density of the mud. well as the positions of the interfaces between
different phases(gas-oil contact, oil-water contact).
I” order to convert the pressure gradient
measurement of psi/m into a metric mud density It should be noted that the intercept of the pressure
(g/cm’) for this example, one uses the simple gradients, corresponding for instance to oil and
relation : water, is representative of the so-called free water
FInid density (glrn3) = P*~ww gradient @i/m) level; it may thus be somewhat below the 100 per
1.422 (4.1.1) cent water level, as indicated by logs, due to capillary
pressure effects. This is shown schematically on
To calculate the gradient, care should be taken to “se Fig. 11-S.In the transition zone, both oil (or gas) and
true vertical depths rather than logged depths. water may be mobile; hence the pressuredistribution
will be somewhere between the gradient for oil (or
Abrupt variations of this gradient may be indicative gas) and water.
of “on-stabilized pressure recordings. Gradual
changesmay be due to either a drop of the mud level
(the pressure decreaseswith time) or to segregation
of the mud with heavy particles settling towards the
bottom of the hole. This is well illustrated on
Fig. II-7 which showsthe hydrostatic pressureprofile
in a well.
t
The analysis of the pressures measured above
2 700 m shows a gradient of 2.11 psi/m
corresponding to a mud density of 1.48 g/cm’. Note
that the mud pressure measured at 2 700 m is about \
5 780 psi, giving a total gradient of 2.14 psi/m or an
average mud density of 1.50 g/c”?. The agreement
behveen these two values is good, indicating that the
mud column is quite homogeneous between surface
and 2 700 m.

However, below 2 700 m, the pressure gradient

increases progressively until it reaches a value
corresponding to a mud density of 2.79 g/cm’ just
above the bottom of the hole. This is probably due to
the settling of mud weighting material. But such an
increasemight also be indicative of the presence of a FIG. II-8 : RF’I free water level comparedto CPI water
cctrip slugD) a heavy mixture of mud pumped level.

23
 RFf esentiaIs of pressure
The above is, of course, strictly valid only for
reservoirs whose pressure distribution has not been
affected by depletion. If after some depletion and
pressure drop the pressure gradient is still uniform
and parallel to the original fluid gradient, then
depletion can be considered as being uniform and
vertical pressure communication within the reservoir
(either direct or through the aquifer) must be good.
Conversely, if depletion is not uniform, this will be
indicated by the fact that the pressure no longer
follows a unique gradient. Various situations are
depicted on Fig. 11-9. Permeability barriers within
the water zone may limit the efficiency of the natural
water drive or that of water injection. Bypassed oil
will be easily identified by its pressure remaining at,
or close to,. the original pres&re.
FIG. II-Y: Effect of depletion on the reservoir pressure
pdile.
We have already studied the hydrostatic pressure
profile shown on Fig. 11-7. Looking now at the
formation pressure profile, we can interpret it as
follows : zone C shows a very distinct gradient change
at 2 717 m. The fluid density above can be calculated
to be 0.17 g/cm3 which fits closely with what one
would expect for gas at this depth.
The gradient below corresponds to a fluid density of
24
test interpretation
0.63 g/cm’, again in good agreement with the
expected value for oil. Hence the gas-oil contact can
safely be put at 2 717 m. This is confirmed by the
open hole log interpretation reproduced on the left
side of Fig. 11-7.
The oil-water contact is less easy to see since the
formation is not thick enough to establish a reliable
gradient.
However, the four lower measurements in zone D
fall on a straight line with an apparent gradient
corresponding to 1.12 g/cm’. Pressures above
2 750 m were taken in a transition zone and exhibit
an intermediate gradient of around 0.8 g/cm3. Again
this can be confirmed by the open hole log
information. Thus the nature of the formation fluids
and interfaces can be positively identified with the
RF-I-.
As far as the uniformity of the depletion is
concerned, the pressure distribution is easily
interpreted. This well was drilled in early 1979 into a
reservoir which has been producing since 1966.
Zone C, with its fluid gradients which can be clearly
identified, has been uniformly depleted and good
vertical communication can be expected (in fact, it is
the uniform pressure distribution which identifies
zone C as a reservoir unit). However, it seems that a
shalier streak visible &I the open hole interpretation
might impede somewhat the communication between
the main body of zone C and its lower part (called
zone c’ on Fig. U-7).
Fig. II-10 shows a similar application in a gas field
where three zones are producing through the same
tubing. The hydrostatic pressure measurements fall
on a single well-defined pressure gradient indicating a
homogeneous mud of 1.62 g/cm) density, in excellent
agreement with the surface data of 1.61 g/cm3. The
formation pressure plot indicates a large gradient
change within zone C at 2 223 m ; the density above
(0.25 g/cm3) fits dosely with the expected gas
density; the gradient below corresponds to the
density of the reservoir salt saturated water
(1.17 p/cm’). As far as depletion is concerned, zones
B and C show uniform depletion. Therefore, a good
vertical communication exists between these hvo
reservoirs. On the contrary the slightly higher
pressure of zone A would indicate an imperfect
communication with zones B and C.
 II. The principle
The higher pressures exhibited by zones A and B
clearly identify them as being separate reservoir units
FIG. H-10: Pressure profile in a gas well of the M’Zab
basin in Algeria.
unconnected with each other or with zone C. The
higher pressure of zone A together with its low water
saturation production, and its pressure remains
probably close to the original reservoir pressure.
(But note that the presence of small ccbreaks z as
indicated on logs does not necessarily mean the
presence of a vor5cal permeability barrier. Compare
for example on Fig. II-7 the shale at 2 670 m with the
shale at 2 600 m).
Zone D which is partly depleted has been perforated
in all nearby wells. It has a good permeability and
hence shows the highest depletion (lowest pressure).
of RFT measurements
Its communication with the water zone E (and hence
probably the aquifer) is not perfect, as shown by the
difference in absolute pressures. Should water
injection be needed for pressure support, this should
therefore preferably not be attempted in zone E.
The application of FST pressure measurements to
reservoir management can of course be much
enhanced by comparing pressure variation from well
to well. The principle is rather straightforward:
continuous resenroir layers will be identified by
uniform reservoir pressure distribution. Disconti-
nuities will be indicative of faults or other
permeability barriers. It should be remembered that
true vertical depths must be used for this approach.
4.2. Application of the Quartz Gauge
to Fluid Density Measurements
Due to the improved resolution of the Quartz Gauge,
it is possible to determine formation fluid density in
relatively thin beds. If, as in Figure II-11 a crossplot
hl 442 hm
FIG. 11-11: Plot of mud pressure versus Formation
pressure.
of formation (P,) and hydrostatic (P,) pressures are
made in a bed with vertical communication, a line
whose slope depends on the formation fluid density is
obtained. Assuming static equilibrium, it follows
that :
PO - pn = p&h
and
pti - P,, = p&h
25
thus : 0.01 psi), as the slope would have been between
&yy 5.02/9.98 and 4.9W10.02.
Pti -
where p, and pm are respectively the densities of oil
and mud

Now pm (the mud density) may be obtained by

measuring the hydrostatic gradient over a distance h :
Pm2 -Pm’ = pm
gh
The advantage in using the Quartz Gauge to
determine fluid density in this manner is best
illustrated through an example. Let us take the
theoretical situation described in Fig. 11-12.
Theoretically the slope of the line should be :
FIG. II-12 : Them&al example of a Pressure versusdepth
diagram to illustrate gauge resolution importance in the
determination of Pressure gradient.

If the pressures were measured with a strain gauge

whose resolution can be taken as 1 psi, Ap,fAp,
could be anything from 7/S to 3112. Thus the ernx
could be as much as 75 %. This error would be
drastically decreased to 6 % if these pressures were
measured with a quartz gauge (resolution of
Note however that using more than two pressure
measurements would, of course, enhance the
statistical accuracy of the gradient determination
both for the conventional strain gauge as well as for
the quartz gauge.

26
III. INTERPRETATION
 III. INTERPRETATION

III.1 QUALITATIVE INTERPRETATION

The analog prestest pressure cmve as it appears on

Track I is helpful in determining the validity of the
pretest for further analysis. When the pretest is valid
it will be used to consider whether or not to take a
sample.Under certain conditions, a valid pretest can
also be analysed in terms of formation permeability
and pressure.

1.1. Pretest Validity

Fig. III-1 shows a number of tests in which seal
failures of different kinds have occurred. Fig. III-la
is a total seal failure with the gauge reading the
hydrostatic value of the mud column. An explanation
for this would be that the tool was set in a portion of
the hole where the diameter was too large. If the
pump motor revolution curve is recorded on the
sametrack one will notice the opening and closing of
the pretest chambers from that curve. Fig. III-lb
shows partial seal (or probe plugging) obtained FIG. III-i (a. b, c) : Typical RFT pretest recordsduring
before final seal failure. In Fig. 111-1~there is some sealfailures.
indication of seal at the beginning but later the mud
leaks around the packer. That this is in fact a seal
failure is shown by the build-up pressure curve,
which a builds-up B back to the hydrostatic value Fig. III-1 e showsa more significant caseof plugging
in this case during the first pretest ; nevertheless in
Partial probe plugging during pretest as shown in Fig. III-ld and e the build-up data are still usable for
Fig. III-ld is indicated by erratic drawdown. further analysis. Shown in Fig. III-lf is the case

29
 RFT essentials
FIG. III-1 (d, e, f) : Typical RF7 pretest records showing
probe plugging.
FIG. III-1 (g, h): Typical RFT pretest records in tight
formation and when gas is present in the Bowline.
where complete plugging occurs during the second
pretest. Complete plugging at the beginning of the
of pressure test interpretation
first pretest (fig. 111.lg) might be mistaken for a test
in a tight formation.
If gas is trapped in the flowline, the pressure profile
will look as shown in Fig. III-lh. Due to the
expansion of gas in the system, the pressure drops
with the piston motion. Consequently, the flow into
the pretest chambers is not at a constant rate and
permeability cannot be derived from drawdown.
1.2. Permeability Indication
in Valid Pretests
Qualitatively, the analog pretest pressure protile
gives an excellent quicklook estimation of the
formation permeability in the vicinity of the probe.
More quantitative permeability evaluation is
possible, as will be explained in a later chapter of this
book.
Fig. III-2a is an example of good permeability, above
100 md; Fig. III-2b is an indication of moderate
permeability of about 10 md. Fig. 111-2~ suggests low
permeability, of the order of 1 md, while Fig. III-2d
shows a very low pretest flowing pressure, indicative
of a permeability of the order of 0.1 md or less. The
limit is the dry test or total plugging as in Fig. III-l%
ABOUT 10 md b
30
 III. Interpretation

whosepattern is essentially spherical in character, as

illustrated in Fig. 111-3. Hence the analysis of the
dynamic pressureresponseof the pretest is based on
the theory of spherical flow of a slightly compressible
fluid in a homogeneous medium.

PRESSURE
DISTURBANCE
/

RFT
%be

ABOUT O.,md d

FIG. III-2 (a, b, c, d): Typical RFT pretest recording

under various conditionsof formation permeability.

in which the pretest flowing pressure remains near

zero or even drops below zero to a negative value.
This negative reading may be explained by
temperature effect.

Theoretically the lowest possible pressure which the

RFT can measure is the vapour pressure of the fluid
within the pretest system (usually mud or filtrate).
This vapour pressureis a function of temperature and
can be obtained from appropriate handbooks. For
250 “F for example (absolute) vapour pressure for
water is 30 psia. Readings below the vapour pressure
and, in particular, negative readings, can only be
explained by a combination of temperature effect
(which is shown on the gauge calibration chart) and
gauge error (which depends on the calibration
method used - see chapter 11-2).
III-2 QUANTITATIVE INTERPRETATION
Introduction
During the pretest, the formation fluid is withdrawn
through the RFI probe into the pretest chambers.
This generates a localized Bow in the formation
I--BORE HOLE AXIS
FIG. 111-3:Sphericalflow model
This drawdown pressure depends on the effective
permeability of the formation to the flowing fluid,
which is usually mud filtrate from the invaded zone.
At the end of the drawdown period when the pretest
chambersare full, the pressuredisturbance continues
to advance in a similar pattern due to fluid flowing
from the undisturbed part of the formation towards
the low pressure area in the vicinity of the RFI
probe. This period is termed the build-up period.
The pressure measured at the probe continues to
build-up until it reaches equalization, which is usually
that of the original formation pressure. The time
required for this build-up is essentially a function of
the formation permeability of the uninvaded
formation to the mobile phase of the formation fluid.

31
 RFT essentials of pressure test interpretation

Thus there at two different approaches to derive the and is illustrated in Fig. 111-4. Depending on well
formation permeability from the pretest : diameter, the actual flow will lie somewhere between
the limiting cases of spherical flow for an infinitely
1) From the drawdown;
small borehole where C is 0.5, and hemispherical
2) From the build-up flow for a very large borehole where C is 1. The exact
value of this flowshape factor has no significance in
itself but only as part of the total proportionality
constant which is given by:
c
III-3 DRAWDOWN ANALYSIS
2n rD

3.1. Analytical Study

As a consequence of the spherical nature of the fluid
flow which implies that most of the fluid movement
takes place in a small volume immediately
surrounding the probe, steady state conditions are
usually obtained very quickly during the drawdown
period and the resulting pressure drop can be
described as follows :

APP,, = C &$ (1 -$) (3.1.1)

where A p.. is the drawdown pressure, C is the

flowshape factor, q is the flow rate, p is the viscosity
of the flowing fluid, rP is the effective probe radius*,
r. is the outer radius of the pressure disturbance, and
kd is the permeability that affects the pressure
drawdown.
/
The effective probe radius, rP, can be considered as
much smaller than the outer radius of the pressure
disturbance, re, and consequently the equation can -.-\I
be simplified to:

k,=C x
271Ap rP
(3.1.2)
‘/
@/ \
c * 1.0
HEMISPHERICAL
/\ c = .5
SPHERICAL
FLOW FLOW
Since the RFT probe enters the formation form the
borehole, the flow pattern cannot be exactly
spherical; this deviation from an exactly spherical F’IG. 111-4: Flow shape factor for various flow pattern.
flow pattern is expressed by the flow shape factor, C,

Detailed computer simulations of three-dimensional

* Note the u effective * probe radius for spherical flow is smaller steady-state flow into the probe set in a g-inch
than the actual probe radius. Carslaw and Jaeger (s Conduction of borehole have been made in order to derive the
Heat in Sotidsn) have determined the equivalent spherical radius
of a disc (for the Row into a half-space) to be given by 2 times its
actual flow geometry and to solve for the
actual value divided by n. This updates the previously assumed proportionality constant. Using this simulator-
(Mu&at) value of r,Q derived constant we can write the permeability

32
 III. Interpretation

equation for the standard probe-packer configuration cp is taken as the in-situ viscosity. The drawdown
in its final form as: permeabilities can then be calculated as:
k, = 5660 2 (3.1.3)
kd, = 5660 0.65 x
o.25 = o.45*d
APP,, 2050
where
k, = 5660 1.64 x 0.25 = 0,52 md
kd = drawdown permeability (md) 4.470
4 = flowrate (c&x)
In this example there is a good agreement between
k = viscosity of flowing fluid, usually mud filtrate
the two values of the drawdown permeabilities.
(cp)
Apss = drawdown pressure (psi)

The flowrate, q, can be derived by dividing the

volume of the pretest chamber by the corresponding
flowing time. One computation can be made for each
stage of the drawdown. At very low permeabilities,
the achml Bowrate is difficult to estimate since it is
not determined by the rate of the pretest piston
displacement, but by the formation permeability i.e.
the ability of the formation to produce 20 cc of
formation fluid.
For the “Large Diamenter Probe ” or the “Fast
Acting Probe” the proportionality constant to be
used is 2395 and for the “Large Area Packer” it is
equal to 1107.
The limitation of the application of the drawdown
method is two-fold:
3.2. Spherical Flow Skin-Effect
The probe only penetrates a very short distance into
the formation and its aperture is located in the thin
annular region of formation around the wellbore
which is affected by mud solid invasion. Since the
steady-state fIowing pressure registered at the probe
is essentially determined by the permeability in the
vicinity of the probe, the properties of this altered
zone strongly influences the drawdown behaviour. In
addition, localised changes in permeability may be
induced by the act of introducing the probe into the
formation. It is possible to envisage either
compaction and fines plugging causing permeability
impairment, or local fracturing resulting in an
increase in effective permeability near the probe.

- At very high permeabilities, the drawdown Theses ideas may be quantified by introducing the
pressure is too small to be measured accurately concept of a spherical flow skin factor, denoted S,,
with the strain gauge, which has a 1 psi which accounts for the additional pressure drop due
resolution. This limitation may, to some extent, to the altered zone in the vicinity of the probe. In an
be reduced by using high resolution quartz infinite isotropic formation steady-state drawdown is
gauges. described by this equation:
- At very low permeabilities, the pressure may
drop below the bubble point (or vapour @i - P), = APP, = s (3.2.1)
do
pressure). Gas (or vapaur) is liberated and the
flow-rate of the liquid withdrawn from the
formation is less than the volumetric where both the numerator and the denominator of
displacement of the pretest pistons (see also equation 3.1-2 have been multiplied by two.
chapter 3.3.).
In the case where there is formation alteration near
Eample : probe, this equation is written in the form:
An example of drawdown analysis of pretest using
data recorded on Fig. II-3 gives: (P, - P),, = & (2C + SJ
dP
p, = 2050 psi ql = 1005.4 = 0.65 c&x in which :
p2 = 4470 psi q2 = 1016.1 = 1.64 cdsec
s, = !kh 4rrk,r, (3.2.2.)
As this well was drilled using oil-base mud, CL= 0.25 4P

33
 RFT essentials of pressure test interpretation

where Ap,,,. = incremental pressure drop due to pretest system will be drawn to the bubble point of
alteration. the sampled fluid (water, for example) and flashing of
that fluid will occur in the chambers. The analog
In RFI units this equation becomes: pressure record then has the characteristic form
1170 qu illustrated in Fig. 111.5. This phenomenon occurs in
(P, - P),, = 7 w + SJ (32.3) very low permeability formation or if there is
*P plugging or formation damage near the probe giving
where : a large spherical skin factor, S,.
s = Aprlrinki*p
1170 qp
When the medium is anisotropic, it is suggested that
the isotropic permeability k be replaced by k,, the
equivalent spherical permeability from build-up
analysis.

In practical situations the spherical flow skin factor,

S,, can only be obtained by measuring (pi - p)= at FIG. 111-5: Record limited drawdown test.
the end of a flow period, determining the
permeability of the unaltered zone from build-up
analysis, and using the equation: For the following typical parameter values and
standard probe size:
(Pi - P),, = F (2C + SJ
p = 0.5 cp
IP
s, = 0
to calculate S,. pb = 15 psi (at 250“ F)
pi = 4 000 psi

the maximum inflow rate becomes q,,,,, = 1.4 kd,

Hence drawdown permeabilities of less than around
3.3. Upper Limit 1 md yield maximum inflow rates less than the second
of Measurable Drawdown Rate piston displacement rate.
The maximum inflow rate, e,,,,,, at which fluid can
In a case where the first piston displacement rate also
flow to the RFI probe from the formation without
having the system pressure fall below that fluid’s exceeds qs.max, the pressure in the chambers rapidly
falls to pb at which point vapourization commences.
bubble point pressure (at reservoir temperature) is :
The probe inflow rate and chamber pressure now
k,*, (P. - ~b) remain essentially constant at qs,max and p,,
emax = (3.3.1) respectively until a cumulative volume of 20 cc of
1170 w (2C + S,)
filtrate has entered the system. This fill up time, Tr, in
where : Fig. III-5 depends on the value of q5.maxand is longer
than the period of piston motion T2. Flashing of
kd = spherical drawdown permeability in md water continues until the second piston stops at time
‘P = effective probe radius - in cm Tz ; from Tz until Tr the water vapour condenses as
pi = formation pressure - in psi incoming filtrate refills the pretest system with liquid.
pb = bubble point pressure of filtrate in psi
P = filtrate viscosity - in cp It is apparent from the pressure response that when
c = sow shape factor flashing occurs, the flowrate does not follow the
S, = Spherical flow skin factor two-rate process but essentially remains constant,
I.e. :
The displacement rate of the first piston is
q,.,,, is also = V,/Tr
approximately 0.67 cc/set and for the second piston is
1.67 cc/sex. If one of these rates exceeds q,,,,, the where

34
V, = total piston displacement volume (20 cc) again to a pessimistic permeability evaluation. On
the other hand, in hard, brittle formations, the
Tr = fill-up time (set).
penetrating probe may cause localized miniature
fracturing and therefore lead to an over-estimation of
permeability.
3.4. Factors Affecting the Drawdown
a. Radius of investigation b. Water saturation

The fluid flow through the RFT probe is essentially The relative permeabilities of the formation change
with the water saturation. The total effective
spherical, and it can be demonstrated that almost all
of the pressure drop occurs very near the probe. permeability in the invaded zone at saturation close
About 50 percent of the pressure drop occurs within to irreducible oil saturation may be considerably less
one probe radius (0.55 cm). than the absolute permeability, as illustrated in
Fig. 111-6.
Thus the drawdown is affected by the condition of
the formation very close to the probe, which may
differ significantly from the conditions deeper within 3.5. Radius of influence for Drawdown
the formation.
During a period of flow into a point sink, the region
Some of the very fine solid particles suspended in the of the formation affected by the fluid withdrawal
drilling mud may pass through the mudcake formed expands radially outwards. The extent of
on the borehole wall and penetrate into the propagation of the flow disturbance is given by the
formation, blocking pore constrictions. The clay equation :
contained in the formation can also be de-stabilized
close to the well-bore because of the ionic imbalance rlnf = (A&c) 1’2 (3.5.1)
between mud filtrate and formation water, thus
impeding the flow of fluids in the pores. The
damaged zone caused by these effects will affect the which gives an estimate of the dimension of the
drawdown, leading to an under-estimation of the spherical region around the sink and is termed the
permeability. radius of inlluence. This is the spherical equivalent of
the formula :
In soft formations, the area immediately surrounding
r, = (4kt/‘&C,)1” (3.5.2)
the probe may become compacted, thus leading
so commonly encountered in radial cylindrical flow.

rLni in RFT units is given by :

Lf (3.5.3)

III-4 BUILD-UP ANALYSIS

When, during the pretest, the two pretest chambers

0.2 are full, the formation fluid stops flowing through the
probe. The pressure increase propagates spherically
0.1
and continues to do so until at least one impermeable
0 barrier is reached. At this stage the spherical flow
s, WaterIot”ra?tlon.
‘ractlon s.. rmngr pattern is altered, and, in the case of two parallel
boundaries, the spherical propagation becomes
FIG. 111-6: Relationship between absolute and effective radial and cylindrical. This phenomenon is illustrated
permeabilities. in Fig. III-7a and b.

3s
 the respective flow periods, provided the probe
pressure during drawdown does not fall below the
bubble point of the fluid being sampled giving rise to
gas liberation in the piston chambers. The analysis of
the build-up pressure response is accordingly based
on a Iwo-rate drawdown and neglects compressibility
(storage) effects in the prestest sampling system.

4.1. Spherical Build-up

The probe pressure response during build-up is
obtained by superposition of the two single
drawdown responses, and calculations based on
spherical flow in an infinite homogeneous medium
lead to the expression:
FIG. III-7a: Spherical propagation of pressure
disturbance. 8 x 106 9,~ ( ‘l$KJv2
P, - P, = x f,(At) (4.1.1)
1,2
k,
in which :

where :

Pi = initial formation pressure - in psi

R = probe pressure (spherical buildup) - in psi
41 = flowrate during the first sampling period - in
cdsec
q2 = flowrate during the secondsampling rate - in
cdsec
Ir = viscosity of fluid in uncontaminated formation
-incp
FIG. III-7b : Cylindrical propagation of Pressure 9 = porosity of formation - in fraction of the
disturbance. total volume
c, = total compressibility of fluid in unconta-
During this period of outward propagation the minated formation - in psi-’
pressure gradient near the probe rapidly approaches k,= isotropic spherical build-up permeability - in
zero. All the flow therefore takes place deeper into md
the formation, and conditions near the probe have no T1 = sampling time related to q1 - in secondsor
effect on the pressure history during the later stages minutes
of the build-up. Tz = sampling time related to qz - in secondsor
minutes
For this reason, the build-up analysis may be used to At = elapsed time after shut-in - in seconds or
obtain information about the undamaged part of the minutes (see figure U-3).
reservoir immediately surrounding the well.

As mentioned in the previous chapter, the pretest A plot of p.. the observed pressure during build-up,
flowrates q, and q, may be considered constant over verstls f,, the spherical time function, on a

36
 III. Interpretation

linear-linear grid graph as shown in Fig. III-8 will and q2 = 1.64 cc&c as already computed, the points
ideally result in a straight line of slope m. plot on a straight line, confirming the spherical flow
Extrapolation of this straight line to fS (At) = 0, i.e. hypothesis. On the contrary, the radial (cylindrical)
infinite time, yields the static formation pressure pi. hypothesis cannot be retained as the corresponding
The equation of this straight line can be written as: points do not form a straight line. The slope of the
straight line is computed as 12.5 psisec -In. The
p, = m.f, (At) + pi permeability k, is obtained using the following
where values :
8 x 104q+ (@&,)“* C, = 1.5X10+ psi? (m-situ total compressiblity
“I= (psi/secl’2)
k ,n p = 0.25 cp (in-situ oil viscosity)

T
- -
@ = 0.08 (porosity from open hole logs)
This results in k, = 0.69 md. The permeability from
drawdown which was derived previously is k, = 0.52
md.

In the above example the well was drilled with oil

/ base mud; consequently the formation damage
should be negligible and the fluid viscosities and
relative permeabilities in invaded and non-invaded
/ zones should be similar.

The spherical pressure propagation is affected by

both horizontal and vertical permeabilities of the
formation. This is given by the following relation :
k I =k’“k
1 r2’3= A’” k (4.1.3)

i3 where k, is spherical permeability

anisotropy here defined as k&.
and A the

7 It should be noted that the anisotropy may vary

greatly as a function of the investigated volume since
it is a combination of a microscopic anisotropy due to
the sedimentary texture of the rock and a
macroscopic anisotropy due to the reservoir
heterogeneity (layering).
-

4.2. Cylindrical Build-up

F’IG. 111-8:Pressureplot in the caseof a sphericalflow.
From the slope, m, of the spherical build-up plot, the
isotropic permeability k, can be determined as:
k, = 1856 ,J (z) “’ (‘NJ,)“”
As mentioned earlier, the spherical flow pattern
changes to a radial-cylindrical flow pattern when it
reaches the upper and lower impermeable
boundaries. In relatively thin beds this phenomenon
is quite significant, the build-up is affected only by
(4.1.2) the horizontal permeability.

The build-up equation is given by:

Example :
Fig. III-8 showsthe build-up plot obtained using the p.I - pc = 2687 2 x f (At) (4.2.1)
data recorded on Fig. 11-3. Taking q1 = 0.65 cc/set k,h ’

37
 RFT essentii3I.5 of pressure test interpretation

in which:

T, + T, + At T, + At
f, (At) = log + 25 log ___
T, + At % At

where :

Pi = initial formation pressure in psi

P, = probe pressure (cylindrical build-up) in psi
q, = llo;e;te during the first sampling period - in

q, = Bowrate during second sampling period - in

c&x
P = viscosity of fluid in uncontaminated formation
- in cp
k, = cylindrical build-up permeability - in md
h = the distance between the two impermeable
boundaries - in cm
T, = sampling time related to q, - in seconds OT
minutes
Tz = sampling time related to q, - in seconds or
minutes
At = elapsed time after shut-in - in seconds or
minutes

Pressure readings from the log are plotted versus the

cylindrical time function f, (At), as illustrated in
Fig. III-lo. If the pressure propagation is cylindrical,
the pressure versus cylindrical time function plot is
then ideally a straight line which intersects the line f
(At) = 0, i.e. infinite time, at the static formation
pressure.

Example :
An example of a pretest performed in a thin streak
closeto the upper boundary of the reservoir is shown
in Fig. W-9, the pressure data are plotted on
Fig. III-10 versus both spherical and cylindrical time
function.

The points fall on a straight line, confirming the

cylindrical flow hypothesis. On the contrary, the line
corresponding to the spherical time function is
curved.

From the pressure record we get T, = 15.45, Tz =

5.65, and therefore q, = 0.65 c&x and q2 =
1.8 cc&c. From the pressure plot, the slope, m, can
be determined, m = 220 psi/cycle.

FIG. III-9 : Pretestrecordingof a cylindrical flow example.

38
 The pressure behaviour in the formation during
spherical build-up is illustrated in Fig. III-U. Since
the pressure gradient is specified as zero at the probe
and at infinity, it must pass through a maximum value
at some intermediate position.

/ FIG. III-11 : Pressure behaviour in the formation during

/ .
I spherical build-up.
4 /-

06
me
- - The slope of the build-up curve at any time is largely
influenced by the permeability of the zone through
which most of the flow is taking place at that time.
FTG. III-IO: Pressure plot in the case of a cylindrical Row The slope will largely be unaffected by the
(from the data of fig. 111-9).
permeability in the negligible flow regions as long as
these regions have sufficient permeability to allow
pressure communication.
The permeable bed of thickness h may be estimated
from the open hole logs, in this example h = 40 cm Thii can be quantified by defining the radius rmar at
(1.3 ft). The hydrocarbon in-situ viscosity is equal to which q attains a maximum value, and the inner
0.30 cp. Knowing these parameters k, may be radius, I,,,~“, at which q attains some small value, say
calculated from equation 4.2-l giving k, = 0.06 md. 2 % of the total flow. The following equation can be
derived :

4.3. Radius of Inlluence for B&up

L” = ,.,,Jg x m x ($)I”
So far the analysis considers that the reservoir is
homogeneous. Since reservoirs are not homogeneous (4.3.1)
and since changes in the build-up slope associated
with permeability variation are often observed, it is
therefore important to relate the observed pressure
response to what is happening in the formation. A rmax = 0.0205~ x i/T=T x (&)‘”
simplified analysis of the build-up based on a single
rate drawdown of flowrate, q, and duration, T, will
be considered. (4.3.2)

39
 RFT essentials of pressure test interpretation

4.4. Depth of Investigation 4.5. Upper Lit of Measurable

The build-up permeability computed from the slope
of a build-up plot represents a value averaged over
the region in which flow has occurred but with
progressively less weight being given to late time
data. It is obviously important to establish what
volume of rock has significantly contributed to the
calculated k value. Although theoretically the
build-up can be prolonged indefinitely, eventually
the changes in observed probe pressure become so
small that no more information on flow properties
can be gained. Hence the depth of investigation is
closely related to the gauge resolution.
The question of depth of investigation arises because
reservoir formations are heterogeneous, and
permeability variation with position is commonplace.
Hence the concept of depth of investigation can be
identified with the problem of the detection of
permeability changes at some distance from the
probe. The easiest change in permeability to quantify
is of course the case where an impermeable boundary
is encountered. The mean value of bed thickness, h,
in terms of RFT variable is:
h = 1.2 ( 4rr (p- z*, ,,) I”
Permeability from Build-up
An important issue concerning the measurement of
formation permeability from a pretest build-up is the
relation between the maximum permeability which
can be detected with any accuracy and the resolution
of the pressure gauge. Obviously the earlier in the
build-up the pressure recordings are taken the larger
the observable pressure changes ; this is particularly
important in a rapidly reacting environment in which
the product @PC, which controls the rate of response
in real time, is very small such as in a water zone.
However there is a practical limit as to how early in
the build-up an analysis is feasible.
Analysis of field data has shown that for a total
pretest flowing time of 20 seconds the straight line
section on a spherical build-up plot may begin at 6
secondsafter shut-in, in some observed cases this
means that t/T may reach as high as 1.3. The
analytical solution in RFT units for this value of t/T is
given by the spherical build-up equation:
!!c!!$f (&) 1’2= 0.95 x 10s (4.5.1)
(4.4.1)
where :

k = spherical permeability
where :
q = probe flow rate in cdsec
P = tluid viscosity in cp
h = bed thickness in ft
$ = formation porosity
= probe flow rate in cc/set
C, = total system compressibility in psi?
; = duration of flow period = T1 + Tz
T = total probe flow time in set
Pi = initial formation pressure in psi
p* = final build-up pressure at infinite close-in time
$ = formation porosity The Ap value which is equal to (Pi - P,) represents
C, = total system compressibility the observable drawdown at the beginning of the
A = kJkr is the anisotropy build-up. In order to obtain reasonable accuracy in
the determination of the slope of the spherical build
If the influence of a boundary at a distance h/Z from
plot it is necessarythat the gauge resolution, bp, be
the probe is to be detectable, the pressure gauge
of an order of magnitude less than this initial
resolution 6p must be smaller than the observable
drawdown, i.e. 6p = 0.1 Ap. Hence the relation
pressure effect (pi-p*). The radius of investigation, ri,
may be equated with h/2. Accordingly the relation between gauge resolution and measurable
between depth of investigation and pressure gauge
permeability becomes:
resolution becomes :
F (&) I’*= 7.56 x l@ (4.5.2)
ri = 0.6 ( &) 1’3 (4.4.2)
the maximum permeability k,,,, may be written in
the form:
Note that the depth of investigation for the RFI does &, = 390
not depend on permeability.
 III.
From the point of view of upper detectable
permeability, it is obviously better to withdraw the
sample as rapidly as possible.
The value t/T, that is the time it takes for the build-up
to attain linear spherical behaviour, is a function of
the following influences :
- Storage-due to compressibility of fluid in pretest
sampling system. A total volume of fluid in the
sampling system, more exactly pretest chambers
and flow line, of approximately 60 cc is
compressible. As the pressure builds-up a small
flow from the formation is required to sustain the
compression, causing after-flow into the probe,
consequently causing an appreciable dynamic
pressure drop distorting the pressure build-up
response. At early shut-in times the pressure does
not build up as rapidly as in an ideal system and
hence initial data fall below the later straight line
segment where after-flow effects have become
negligible. The problem of after-flow
compounded by any reduction in permeability in
the vicinity of the probe-spherical skin effect -
which will increase the dynamic pressure drop
associated with the continuing flow into the
probe.
- Borehok effect - upon shut-in there is a rapid
transition from hemispherical to spherical
build-up but early time data will show some
deviation from pure spherical behaviour. Since
the actual steady-state pressure drop during
drawdown is greater than in spherical flow, the
initial build-up data will lie below the
extrapolation of the straight line portion of the
build-up plot representative of true spherical
flow. This effect is superimposed on the influence
of sampling system storage.
- Dynamics of prtxw~-t~mea.wrenzentsystem -
these problems arise particularly with the high
precision quartz gauge which, when subjected to
a step change in pressure, exhibits a response
with a settling time of several minutes. Although
the isothermal resolution of the quartz gauge is
0.01 psi, it cannot be taken advantage of in
transient pretest conditions, and this gauge does
not allow the measurable permeability range to
be significantly extended. However the quartz
gauge greatly improves the accuracy of the
absolute value of the final build-up pressure and
this feature is of considerable benefit.
Interpretation
4.6. Build-up Analysis
versus Drawdown Analysis
In general the analysis of pressure build-up is much
more accurate than the analysis of drawdown. The
drawdown is significantly influenced by the skin
effect (local damage in the immediate vicinity of the
probe).
On the other hand some limiting factors have to be
considered in the build-up analysis such as:
- In formations of medium to high permeability,
generally above a few millidarcies, the build-up
occurs too rapidly to be analysed quantitatively.
- The possibility of spherical and/or cylindrical
propagation occurring complicates the inter-
pretation. In the first case, knowledge of porosity
and compressibility is necessary; in the second
case the bed thickness has to be estimated. The
spherical analysis yields a permeability which
is requires the knowledge of anisotropy if it is to be
translated into horizontal permeability.
4.7. InIluence
of impermeable bed boundaries
It has been demonstrated that the pressure
disturbance created by the flow into the RET probe
initially propagates quasi-spherically outwards and
upwards and the pressure build-up following the
pretest will fall on a straight line when plotted against
the appropriate time function as shown on Fig. 111-8.
The slope of such a build-up can be used to
determine the spherical permeability of the
formation.
If on the other hand the spherical propagation of the
pressure disturbance is limited vertically by
impermeable bed boundaries then the mode of
pressure propagation changes. In practice the RFT
probe could be set close to a single boundary or
placed at some location between two boundaries.
The simplified case where the probe is situated
midway between two impermeable boundaries has
been considered for the analysis of the
radial-cylindrical Bow behaviour. This corresponds to
the classical well test analysis and allows the
41
 RFT essentials of pressure
determination of the permeability-thickness product
k,,h as explained eadier.
Actually both models are limiting cases of a number
of practical possibilities. We shall consider here the
eventuality of the probe being set:
1) Far enough away from one or two boundaries so
that aftetiow effects have time to die out before
boundary effects are felt,
2) Close enough so that the boundary (or
boundaries) are within the radius of investigation of
the test.
If these conditions are fulfilled, then one could
except to be able to detect the change in pressure
propagation mode by observing pressure build up
behaviour.
The theoretical basis of this has been treated in some
detail in Ref. 1, in this book we only want to look at
the conclusions :
- in the case of only one boundary affecting the
build-up this will result in an apparent upswing of
the spherical plot, the late-time asymptote of this
upswing is another straight line of double the
slope of the non-bounded case.
- in the case of two boundaries affecting the
build-up a similar upswing wiU occur on the
spherical plot. When plotting this pressures
against a cylindrical time function the points will
fall on a straight line thus confirming
radial-cylindrical propagation mode.
In principle these features could be used to establish
whether one or hvo boundaries arc interfering with
the tool response. However in practice pressure
gauge resolution will limit the ability to discriminate
between late-time straight lines on radial and
spherical plots. Under favourable circumstances
however such features may actually be observed and
interpreted in terms of apparent bed thickness. A
numerical example of this technique is presented
under III-5.2.b (Field example).
The procedure is based on the simultaneous
observation of build-up on both a spherical and a
cylindrical time function plot: At early times the
spherical plot is linear and the cylindrical plot
concave downwards (see Figs. III-10 and 111-g). At
42
test interpretation
late times the cylindrical plot is linear and the
spherical plot concave upwards. The linear portion of
the spherical plot extrapolates to a lower pressure
than the linear portion of the cylindrical plot. Both
plots have to be examined to see whether they
present the characteristic behaviour as shown on
Figs. III-10 and III.8 since it is easy otherwise to
confuse the late stage of a true spherical build-up
with a straight line on a Homer-type plot, as has
often been done in the past. Radial-cylindrical
(Homer-type) flow can only be presumed when both
plots have the requisite characteristic shape.
The slope of the early-time straight portion of the
spherical plot is found and multiplied by 1.03 (to
correct for quasi-spherical behaviour). The spherical
permeability can then be calculated in the usual way
(Equ. 4.1.2.), the extrapolation of this straight line
gives p*. the extrapolation of the linear portion of the
cylindrical plot gives pi, its slope can be interpreted
in terms of k,h. (see Fig. III 12).
If we assume for the moment that the anisotropy A =
k& is known then we can solve in principle for the
three unknowns h, k,, k, by using the three
equations :
h = 1.2 ( 4rr (p- -=& k,wc) “3 (4.7.1)
kh = 2687 %!
m
(4.1.3)
where V = q, T, + qr Tz
Analytical and numerical analyses have also led to a
relationship between the time of the observed
build-up change t* and the distance of the
boundaries. The corresponding equation is:
h = (As)“z (0.02956 - 0.007378 $) (4.7.2)
where A t* = t* - T (T = flowing time)
Actually these equations are not independent and it
is impossible to solve for k, k, and k, when A is
unknown (or for A, k, and k, when h is unknown).
Information from other logs (h) or core analysis (A)
must be used to solve for this.
 III. Interpretation
Thus a value of c h B may be derived from either the
pressure match (eq. 4.7.1.) or time match (eq. 4.7.2)
and compared with the permeability thickness
FIG. III-12 : Typical sphericalplot and the different time domains
product derived from (4.2.1.), provided and
independent estimate of anisotropy is available.
Comparison of the different CC h>> values allows
verification of the consistency of the data. Such an
approach can give interesting results when
permeabilities are favourable (up to a few
millidarcies with the present RFT design) and
support from other sources (logs, cores) is available.
- In the non-invaded zone only oil is mobile with k:
4.8. Iufluence of the invaded zone
So far tbe analysisof the pressure build-up has been
basedon single-phaseflow theory. In practice there
are often two mobile fluids present in the vicinity of
43
the well bore i.e. water and oil (exceptions are
water-zones, and oil-zones if drilled with oil-base
mud). In the case of the pretest very little fluid is
withdrawn and no perceptible change in the
saturation profile will result.
Hence the following simplified model may be
adopted :
- Only water is mobile in the invaded zone with Q
= k. kywwhere k’& is the relative permeability to
water at S,, (typlcally around 0.3 in a water-wet
rock).
= k.Qo where kFo is the relative permeability to
oil at connate water saturation (close to 1). Note
that it is only these end-point permeabilities
which may be detected with the RFI (see
Fig. 111-6).
 Rm essentials of pressure test interpretation

This model was studied using a two-dimensional saturation and phase pressure from the water zone
finite-element numerical simulation. The results of through the capillary transition zone into the oil
this study are detailed in Ref. 1 and have shown that is as shown in Fig. 111-13. In the transition zone the
almost identical spherical build-ups can arise from phase pressure difference is given by the capillary
either the effect of impermeable boundaries or due to pressure which is a function of the wetting phase
radial discontinuity with the invaded zone having a saturation :
higher mobility than the non invaded zone (provided
P, = P, - P, = P, (SW)
the build-up has a radius of influence larger than the
radius of the invaded zone). which at hydrostatic equilibrium :

Thus the familiar problem of non-uniqueness arises P, (SW) = Ap g h

in which the observed response can be attributed to where :
more than one possible cause. Therefore the depth of Ap = pw - p. (pw and p0 being the phase densities)
invasion must be determined separately to see if any h = vertical height above free water level (FWL)
observed change in slope can be ascribed to
composite fluid behaviour. If the deviations cannot Note here that generally the free water level is not
be explained on this basis, then the presence of coincident with the oil-water contact. The OWC
impermeable streaks may be considered. Thus it is corresponds to the depth at which the oil saturation
possible to consider the detection of barriers only if starts to increase from zero. The FWL is the depth at
one the following conditions applies: which the capillary pressure is zero. The OWC lies
1) The test has been run in a water zone, above the FWL by an amount depending on the
capillary pressure, which in turn depends on
2) The test has been run in an oil zone and oil-base formation parameters such as grain size,
mud has been used, permeability, etc.
3) The depth of filtrate invasion is greater than the
radius of influence in water, Provided the phase is continuous, the pressures in the
respective phases are given by:
4) The mobility in the invaded zone is close to the
mobility in the virgin reservoir, PO = P- - P&h
Pw = P- - pwgh
5) The depth of invasion is small and the whole
build-up essentially occurs in the non-invaded zone.
On a depth-pressure diagram the intersection of the
continuous phase pressure lines occurs at the free
water level as shown in Fig. 111-13. In the water zone
and in the oil zone, only the respective phase
pressure (water or oil) is relevant. In the transition
III-5 SPECIFIC PROBLEMS zone, both phase pressures need to be considered
ASSOCIATED WITH RFT RESPONSE together.

5.1. Relationship between sand-face water
pressures measured by the RFT and phase
pressure in a virgin reservoir
In an oil or gas reservoir drilled with mud, the fluid in
the vicinity of the well-bore consists of two phases,
mud filtrate and oil or gas. Their pressures are
different because of capillary pressure effects and
therefore it is important to assess exactly what is
measured by the RFT. In a homogeneous water-wet
reservoir with an oil-water contact the variation of
In the oil zone the fluid loss from the mud causes an
influx of water into the formation which displaces oil
radially outwards. The coresponding near well-bore
saturation distribution is illustrated in Fig. 111-14.
The shape of this saturation profile changes with time
and is determined by:
- Mud loss characteristics (e.g. overpressure and
mud cake properties).
- Capillary imbibition of water into the formation.
- Gravity drainage of filtrate.
To understand the problem it is important to realize
that the aqueous phase is not in hydrostatic
 FIG. III-13 : Pressure gradients around the water-oil contact.
equilibrium but is flowing under the influence of
capillary, gravitational and viscous forces.
To demonstrate that in the oil zone the RFT
measures the undisturbed formation oil pressure, pOf,
a model is considered where the vertical permeability
is assumed to be zero. Also it is proposed that the
filtrate influx is radial and the oil displacement
process is governed by viscous and capillary pressure
forces. The mechanics of such an invasion process
depend on the injection rate, fluid viscosities,
formation permeability, relative permeability and
imbibition capillary pressure as illustrated for a
water-wet reservoir in Fig. 111.15.
Ideally, where capillary pressure is negligible and the
mobility ratio is favourable the saturation profile
follows the dotted line as in Fig. 111.14. However, in
practice, there exists a continuous water saturation
profile in which SW changes from 1 - Sor in the
swept zone, where the oil has been left trapped as a
residual discontinuous phase, to Swc, the virgin
formation saturation. The corresponding pressure
45
profile for the case of low displacement rate is also
illustrated in Fig. III-14. Since the oil displacement
rate is low, the oil phase is virtually at uniform
pressure, pO. equal to pOf.
It can be seen that as the water saturation approaches
1 - Sor in the swept zone the water phase pressure
becomes indistinguishable from the oil phase
pressure. Hence the water phase pressure at the
sandface, p+ which is measured by the RFT, is
identical to the oil phase pressure in the reservoir,
pOf. This analysis applies both to the oil zone and to
the capillary transition zone, providing the oil phase
is continuous. Hence the RFI pressure data in the
transition zone will follow the oil gradient line.
Another model can now be considered, in which the
capillary pressure is negligible and in which there is a
sharp interface between the invaded water and the
oil, caused by filtrate in the formation slumping
downwards under the influence of what is known as
gravity drainage, as illustrated in Fig. 111.16. Its
extent depends on the vertical permeability and on
 FIG. 111-14: Saturation and pressure profiles during filtrate invasion.

the phase density difference p,,, - p,,. (This drainage (which exhibits a downward flow vertical gradient).
is continuous unless interrupted by an impermeable At any depth the pressure in the two phases must be
barrier). In the reservoir, the oil phase is at equal since capillary pressure is assumed negligible.
hydrostatic equilibrium : Considering the two levels as in Fig. 111-16, it follows
that :
& = p. - p. g D = constant
p’Y = p10
where : pzY = pz0
& = oil phase potential P: - pi = pZ - pf = PO gAD
D = vertical depth measured from any reference (since the oil column is static)

The potential difference AI$ in the water phase is

the water phase potential is written as: given by:
Vw = pw - ~w g D AQ=V’-$=p&&+pPwgAD=(p,-pp,)gAD

46
 III. Interpretation

the formation. This statement applies to oil or

water-wet reservoirs, as we11 as to transition zones
created by capillary forces above water contacts. The
only exception is when the formation pressure is
supercharged due to mud filtrate influx.

5.2. supercharging

a. Theory
As a consequence of mud filtrate invasion in the
immediate vicinity of the well-bore, the formation
may exhibit pressures higher than the actual
formation pressure. This is known as supercharging.
This effect should not be confused with intrinsic
formation overpressures.

When the well is drilled, all permeable zones are

locally overpressured by the invading filtrate ; this
overpressure dissipates when the mud cake is built,
and invasion becomes negligible. However, in low
permeability formations this overpressure still exists
I+. at the time of the RFT measurement.

FIG. III-15 : Relative permeability and capillary pressure

functions.

Thus :
$I’ - $ = ApADg

This driving force sustains the drainage of water

downwards. The flux is determined by AQ. the water
viscosity and the vertical permeability. The
important point is that the water phase is not at
hydrostatic equilibrium (g - & = p,,,gAD). The
pressure and its gradient measured in the flowing
water column are equal to those in the adjacent static
oil column, and therefore the sand-face pressure
measured by the RR will be equal to the static oil
pressure.

Capillary pressure effects may have to be examined

more closely when dealing with water-gas contacts
(large vettability contrast) and low permeabilities.
This is under investigation. In more general terms,
the RFT pressure is equal to the pressure of the
continuous fluid phase in the undisturbed region of RG. 111-16: Gravity drainage of filtrate.

47
 RFT essentials of pressure test interpretation

The presence of supercharging in a zone may help
predict future production problems in heterogeneous
formations.
There are three kinds of mud filtrate invasion ; the
initial spurt loss leading to a rapid build-up of
mudcake ; the dynamic filtration which occurs when
the mud cake attains an equilibrium thickness, and
the static filtration which takes place after circulation
of the mud has stopped. Ferguson and Klotz studied
mud loss in an oil well model. Typical results of these
tests are presented in Fig. III-17 for the dynamic
filtration and Fig. III-18 for the static filtration. The
static filtration rate for the mud is given by:
0.217
’ = (AtI + 15.5)1’2
where :
q = Ruid loss in cc/min/lOO cm*
At, = time from termination of circulation - hrs
Note that the standard API filter loss test is not
representative of down-hole conditions and cannot
be used to predict filtration rates in the well.
Following the observations of Ferguson and Klotz,
the supercharging effect can be adequately modelled
assuming constant influx rates of both dynamic and
static filtration. From the analytical solution of the
diffusivity equation, the amount of excess pressure,
Ap’, can be determined.
Using the principle of superposition, the excess
pressure at a time At, after circulation is stopped, is
given by:
Ap1 = 44.62
+ log At, - 3.23 + log 2 k
%.G~; >

where :

Ap’ = excess pressure - in psi

q,., = equilibrium dynamic filtration rate in

q,,* = equilibrium static liltration rate in cdminlcm

k, = radial permeability in md
P = fluid viscosity in cp
C, = total compressibility in psi-’
Lv = well bore radius in ft
T,,, = duration of circulation in hrs
At, = time after circulation is stopped - in hrs

The above equation is based on single-phase flow in

an infinite reservoir.

An example of supercharging in a typical case is

given below :
q,,, = 0.066 cdmin/cm
ql,* = 0.033 cc/min/cm

These influx rates correspond to double those given

by Ferguson and Klotz since their data was taken at
75O F, whereas at a more realistic reservoir
temperature of 150” F the viscosity of water is
approximately half that at 7S’ F.
k, = 0.34 md

FIG. III-17 FIG. III-18.: Mud fluid loss.

48
 III. Interpretation

*w = 0.34 ft At, = 14 hn dynamic pressure change associated with spherical

TI,, = 20 hrs $I = 0.12 build-up), will in principle be influenced by mud
filtrate invasion.

The variation of Ap’ with time is given approximately

For these parameter values, the overpressure derived by:
from the above equation is:
Ap’ = 14.2 psi ~d (API) = 44.62 y + & in Psi/hr
dt I 1
In this case the supercharging is already quite
significant. It can become much more important if For the same parameter values given above, this
the permeability is low and filtration rates are high. corresponds to 0.0016 psi/min which is quite
insignificant and could not be detected on a build-up
The variation of excess pressure, Ap’, with formation plot.
permeability and mud static filtration rate (on a per
unit basis) is illustrated in Fig. III-19 which refers to For comparison, the rate of increase of the probe
an 8-inch borehole, assuming a 12-hour dynamic pressure in the absence of supercharging, for a single
filtration followed by 12-hour static filtration at half rate drawdown is given by:
the dynamic rate.
d (p,) 8 x lo4 w (‘WY” L
dt k3” 2

Taking typical values of these parameters for a

pretest in a 0.34 md formation (q = Icc/sec, p = 0.7

FIG. III-19 : Excess pressure due to filtrate influx into an

infinite reservoir.

It is apparent that the excess pressure Ap’ depends on

both formation permeability and filtration rate.
Since the overpressure, Ap’, varies with time.
build-up plots which reflect the sum Ap’ + P, (the FIG. 111.20:Effect of supercharging on spherical build-up.

49
 RFf essentials of px?sswe
cp, Ct = 33X l@psi?, k = 0.34 md, t = 50 set, T =
20 set), this gives a pressure buildup rate of 117
psilmin.
Hence the effect of supercharging on build-up is
simply to increase the pressure by a iixed amount,
Ap’, and the slope of the build-up plot is not altered.
This is illustrated in Fig. 111-20. Supercharging
therefore does not affect permeability estimation
from build-up plots.
b. Field Example
An example of supercharging effect is shown in
Fig. 111-21, where a series of tests were taken in a gas
reservoir. The data points lie on a straight line except
for points A and B. The gradient of 0.453 psi/m or
0.138 psi/ft corresponds to an in-situ gas density of
0.319 p/cc. Test A at 3626 m shows an overpressure
of 28 psi registered after a build-up of 12 minutes
duration, indicating a very low permeability at this
point (less than lC+ md).
FIG. 111-21: Field example supercharging effect on a
pressure versus depth plot.
The pretest pressure response at A indicated the
presence of gas in the tool, which precludes a proper
50
test i”terpretati0”
permeability analysis ; however, the observed
overpressure is certainly associated with a layer of
extremely low permeability and supercharging is the
obvious explanation for this anomaly. The open-hole
logs indicated that the location of test A
corresponded to a shaly streak.
Test B shows an overpressure of about 10 psi and the
build-up took approximately 2 minutes to stabilize.
The spherical plot of this build-up is shown in
Fig. III-22a, with a slope of 123 psilsec’” giving a
spherical permeability, k, of 0.17 md. The late time
data fall on a straight line on a radial cylindrical plot,
with a slope of 46.6 psiilog cycle giving a radial
permeability-thickness product of krh of 0.4 md-ft.
FIG. III-22 a: Field example test B. Spherical plot showing
probable presence of an impermeable bed boundary.
From Fig. III-22a the late time deviation from
spherical behaviour commences at about At* = 30
set (i.e. t = 50 sex), and the extrapolated pressure p*
is 8 psi less than the static pressure pi. The thickness,
h, from the pressure match equation:
V. A l/3
h = 1.2 (4.7.1)
4n (pi - p*) oc, I
with
A = k,/k, = formation anisotropy
is 2.4 ft assummg A = 1, whIe the corresponding
value of h from the time match equation:
h = [+!?k]“‘( 0.02956 - 0.007378 5) (4.7.2)
is 3.6 ft. Taking for h an average value of 2.8 ft, the
radial permeability corresponding to the krh product
of 0.4 md-ft derived from the cylindrical plot of Fig.
III-22b is k, = 0.14 md. Since A = kJk, has been
assumed equal to unity in this case the spherical and
 III. Interpretation
62&a
t for determining the possible occurrence of
1.
F’IG. 111-2.2b : Test B - Radial cylindrical plot of late time
data.
radial permeabilities should be equal. Hence the four
methodsof interpretation (III,, m,,, pi-p*, and At’)
are reasonably consistent.
However if the formation is highly anisotropic e.g. A
= 0.01, the values of h from the pressure and time
match equations are 0.51 ft and 0.68 ft respectively.
Taking 0.59 fi as an average, the radial permeability
is now 0.68 md, whereas the value of k, from k, = k,
.A’” is 0.79 md. The results are still consistent, but
the formation has a much higher horizontal
permeability. The important point is that the RFI
cannot in itself resolve the question of anisotropy,
and it should be emphasized that spherical
permeabilities are, in general, considerably lessthan
radial permeabilities.
The observed overpressure is associated with low
permeability rock. Of the 37 tests, (in addition to B)
three allowed a permeability calculation from
build-up slope; the pressure and permeability
(drawdown and bluid-up) data for all tests is given in
Table III-I. The three build-ups, each of
approximately 30 sec. duration, gave permeabilities
of 0.96 md, 1.23 md and 0.61 md respectively, and
none of these three tests showed any evidence of
overpressure.
Thus it may be concluded that in this well
superchargingwill not become signihcant at spherical
permeabilities above 0.5 md. This threshold value is
fairly typical for a large number of analysed field
data. Notable exceptions have been observed in wells
drilled with oilbasemud where build-up with up to 12
51
minutes (k, = 0.03 md) duration did not exhibit any
overpressure. The important point is that the
spherical build-up plot becomes the diagnostic tool
overpressure. Pressure tests exhibiting very low
spherical permeabilities may be in error due to
supercharging.
Also included in Table I are the drawdown
permeabilities computed from the equation :
k,=5660% (3.1.3)
b
for both flow periods (denoted kt and kz
respectively). It can be seen that the average
drawdown permeability is consistently higher than
that from the build-up by a factor of 5 to 12, implying
a negative spherical skin factor, indicating that the
formation may be slightly fractured as the probe
enters the formation.
5.3. Afterliow
a. Theory
The compressibility of the volume of fluid contained
in the portion of the tool flowline system
ccmummicating with the formation e.g. connecting
lines, pressure gauge bellows and pretest chambers,
has an important effect on the dynamics of the Rm
pretest response. When the second pretest piston
stops, fluid flow from the formation persists in order
to sustain the compression of fluid up to reservoir
pressure. This is known as afterflow. It causes the
pressure build-up response at early time to be
anomalous, falling considerably below the later
straight line section of a spherical plot. The effect of
the aftetiow is illustrated in Fig. 111-23,where the
idealized flowrate schedule based on the piston
displacement, denoted q, is compared to the actual
sandface flowrate, q,, at the probe. Note that q.
always lags behind q.
An analysis of the dynamics associated with the
capacity of the RFI fluid system gives a quantitative
estimate of the duration of the afterilow, based on a
very simple model. A time constant, is defined, such
that :
1170 v (2C + S,) v, c,
T=
k’P
 RFT essentials of pressure test interpretation

VERTICAL RESERVOIR PERMiABILIlY FRL)ll

DEPTH PRESSURE DRAWDOWN

0 P k k i k
i 1 2 1.2 5

(ml (psi) (md) (md) hd) (md)

3484 6236 10.6 9.2 0.96

3488 6236 7.7 1.23
3492 6238 1::: 10.9
3497 6241 GAS
3505 6242 GAS
3508 6245 23.8 23.8
3515 6247 GAS
3521 6251 9.9 9.9
3527 6252 GAS
3532 6255 GAS
3537 6257 2.7 3.4 3.1
3542 6260 6.7
3547 6263 56:: 5.2
3550.5 6265 29.3 52-I
3554.5 6266 25.4 12.8 19.1
3559 6267 UNSATISFACTORY DRAWDOWN
3564 6270 UNSATISFACTORY DMWDOWN
3568 6272 21.3 24.4 22.9
3570 6276 4.7
3580 6276 i:: 4.5
5.3 5.8
3585 6279 GAS
3589.5 6282 13.0 10.5 11.8
3593 6284 20.1 23.0 21.0
3596.5 6286 12.6 17.9 15.3
3601 6286 4.4
3606 6289 3::: 3::: 31.5
3615.5 6292 3.5
3619 6295 63::
3623 6297 19:9
i-i 1::: 19.7
3626 A 6327' GAS
3630 6300 12.5 13.5 13.0
3635.5 6303 UNSATISFACTORY DRAWDOWN
3640.5 6304 3.3 0.61
3644 6306 5z.i 43.0 5:-z
3652 6311 23:3 28.9 26:1
3653.5 6312 45.7 45.7
3656 B 6320' 2.4 2.6 2.5 0.17

Arithmetic Average Drawdown Permeability = 16 md.

TABLE III-I: Comparison of drawdown permeabilities and build-up pxmeabilities.

52
 III. Interpretation

exponentially with the time constant t as defined

above.

In order to have an idea of the dynamics of afteriIow,

it is useful to consider some typical values for the
parameters in the expression of the time constant.
For a pretest the volnme V, of fluid within the RFI
system is 60 cc, i.e. pretest chambers plus flowlines.
Using the standard probe proportionality constant of
5f560 and k = 0.5 cp, C, = 3 lp as fluid
characteristics, we get :
0.509
k
After&w can be considered to have decayed to a
negligible amount after eight time constants.
Therefore the duration of the after&xv can be
written as : Taft = 4/k. For a permeability of 1 md, the
expected afterflow duration is then 4 sec. This figure
gives an estimate of the minimum shut-in time
required before a spherical plot becomes linear.

Note that when a quartz gauge is used, the active

volume within the system is increased to 110 cc.
Ct = compressibility of the fluid
The above analysis is based on the assumption that
V, = total volume withdrawn
the system is liquid-filled and that the compressibility
(flowline + chambers)
could be taken as that of filtrate. A small quantity of
‘P = probe radius
gas in the system will appreciably increase the time
C = flowshape factor
constant since the effective compressibility is
S, = skin factor
increased. Hence the beginning of the straight line on
For the standard RFI probe without skin effect this spherical plot will occur later if gas is trapped in the
system.
becomes :
T = 5660 p V,CJ(k,rJ
b. Presence of gar in the system
The product of system volume and compressibility, When the pretest flow system is completely filled with
V,CI, is known as the storage constant, Cs. water, i.e. CI = 3X1@ psi-‘, afterflow is not a
serious problem. However, if gas is trapped in the
- (T+) active volume, the overall system compressibility
P, - P, = (P, - P,“) V,C, (V,C, = V,C, + V&a for a liquid-gas mixture)
where p, = pp at t = to, and the afterflow is given increases considerably since gas compressibility C, is
high. In this event afterflow will be of much longer
by the equation :
-2% duration, and care must be taken in choosing the
q=$e T straight line section of a spherical build-up plot for
permeability analysis.
where :
At = t - P, and Q = spat t = P The best indication of the presence of gas is the shape
of the drawdown response which is also influenced by
Also : storage effects. If the drawdown does not exhibit
$= h, cl4 - Pzl
rapid attainment of the steady-state condition, then
1170 p (2C + S,) gas is probably present and the ensuing build-up will
The above equation shows that after&w will decline also suffer from prolonged afterflow. The influence

53
 RFT essentials of pressure test interpretation

of system storage on drawdown is illustrated in III-6 QUICKLOOK INTERPRETATION

Fig. III-23 where the probe flowrate is shown to lag FROM BUILD-UP
behind the piston displacement rate, due to the
expansion of the fluid in the active volume when the
pressure is falling. The time needed for the
drawdown pressure drop to reach steady-state 6.1. Determination of Quicklook
condition will be controlled by this process. The Permeability
volume of fluid in the sampling system is greater than
that contained in the small region of formation As an alternative to a fall analysis of the build-up
around the probe over with the steady-state on a spherical plot, the overall time taken for the
formation pressure drop occurs. Hence the pressure to stabilize may be used as a
drawdown pressure drop should reach the <<quicklook B permeability indicator. This quantity
steady-state after a period of 8 r since the difference is synonymous with the duration of observable
between the probe flowrate and the piston build-up, denoted Tab, as illustrated in Fig. 111-24.
displacement has the same dynamics as afterflow. For a single-rate drawdown of flow period T, the
concept of observable build-up is given by the
If the drawdown pressure drop does not reach the equation :
steady-state in a period of less than 8 T, (z calculated 1 1 dp k”*
using water compressibility), then gas is probably
present in the system. Note that since the first piston vm c 8 x 1Oa w (U&)“*
is in motion for twice as long as the second, there is a (6.1.1)
better chance of attaining steady-state condition
daring the lint drawdown period. Conversely, if the where Sp is the pressure gauge resolution. The
permeability based on the second drawdown is larger actual duration of observable build-up for a
than that calculated from the first drawdown, then particular pretest may be estimated from the
steady-state may not have been reached. However, digital pressure record; a convenient definition of
formation cleanup would also result in the second Tab is the time measured from the initiation of
drawdown permeability being greater than the first. first piston motion until the shut-in pressure p.
Therefore great attention should be paid to the attains the value pi-6p, where pi is the final
nature of the drawdown beheviour before a build-up stabilized value. Fig. III-25 illustrates the
is analysed for permeability. determination of Tab.

FIG. 111.24: The concept of the duration of observable F’IG. 111-2.5: Determination of the actual duration of
build-up on a single-rate spherical plot. observable build-up Tab from a pressure - Time record.

54
 In. Interpretation

The <<quicklook >xpermeability computed from the 1

- = 0.0256 T,, - 0.3
estimation of Tab is denoted $ in order to iz
distinguish it from k, derived from the slope of a
spherical build-up plot. Solving for & the equation However, for values of Tab greater than 100 sen,
for a standard pretest becomes: the approximate relation :

& = [8 x 1W qv (@&J1” ] 2’3

is sufficiently accurate and particularly useful for

obtaining rapid estimates of spherical permeability
or supercharging index from Tab. For build-ups
longer than 2 minutes, Tab is inversely proportional
Note here that a single drawdown formula is used to &.
for l& This hypothesis is validated since in low
permeability tests where the above method
applies, the drawdown rate is controlled by the
permeability of the formation near the probe and
not by the piston displacement.

In this equation, q is taken as V,K*, and T as Tz +

Tt.
For the following typical parameter values:
I$=025 T2+T,=20sec C, = 3 X l@ psi-’
w = 0.5 Cp q = 1 cc/xc dp = 1 psi
the relation between Tab and & is given in Table
111-2.

Obviously Tab cannot be measured with the same FIG. 111-26: Supercharging index, l/1;,, as a function of
precision as the build-up slope, m,, and hence the observable build-up time, Tab, for a standard pretest.
quicklook permeability is subject to some
uncertainty. However, the build-up duration, Tab.
is evident from the pretest pressure record and it TOb
is fairly easy to determine when Tab has been
reached while monitoring the test. (set) (ml) bl&
The excess pressure due to supercharging, Ap’, is 30 2.20 0.45
inversely proportional to the permeability. The
values of this reciprocal permeability, Ilk,, are
also given in Table III-Z. A plot of 14 against 60 0.80 1.26
T ob as illustrated in Fig. 111-26, shows that the
degree of supercharging is directly proportional to 120 0.36 2.80
the duration of the observable build-up, To,,.
Hence Tab turns out to be an excellent criterion 180 0.23 4.34
on which to assess the probability of a particular
pretest being supercharged. The reciprocal 240 0.17 5.87
permeability, l%, is referred to as the supercharg- 360 0.11 8.94
ing index, SI. It is rare for supercharging to be
observed at values of SI less than 3 corresponding
600 0.066 15.07
to Tab of less than 2 minutes.
TABLE III-Z: Relation between the duration of
The linear relation between lk and Tab which is observable build-up, Toh, and spherical permeability, &,
illustrated in Fig. III-26 has the form: for a standard pretest with a gauge of 1 psi resolution.

55
 RFT essentials of pressure test interpretation

When quicklook build-up permeabilities, based on requires Tz = Tf and q = V,Rf where Tf is the
T ob estimates, are compared with the chamber fill-up time. In this event both Tf and
corresponding values derived from the slope of a Tab must be obtained from the pressure record, as
spherical plot, it is found that in most pretests & illustrated in Fig. 111-25. The quicklook perme-
is approximately twice the value of $, i.e. : ability now becomes :

Hence the quicklook formuIa appears to

overpredict the permeability by a factor of 2 when
the standard strain gauge (1 psi resolution) is
used. The difference will be smaller for gauges
with better resolution. In most common pretests Tz is essentially constant
and there is a unique relation between
For build-ups longer than 2 minutes, the terminal permeability, ic, and Tab. However, with limited
pressure recorded is frequently on the order of drawdown rate, the quicklook permeability
1 psi less than the true formation pressure, pi depends on both Tab and Tf. Since pretests which
extrapolated on a spherical plot. Hence the exhibit significant supercharging are often also of
observable build-up time measured directly on the the limited drawdown rate type, it is important to
chart corresponds to a 6p of around 2 psi rather use the correct equation for &. Incidentally this is
than equal to the gauge resolution of 1 psi. The also the main reason for adopting a quicklook
correction factor of 2 given above allows for this formula based on an average drawdown rate. If
discrepancy and is based on a survey of many some of the pretests show limited rate behaviour,
pretests in which both & and k, were measured. only the reciprocal permeability l&, should be
employed as the supercharging quality control
On this basis a quicklook estimate of the build-up parameter.
slope spherical permeability, h, may be obtained
for a standard pretest from the approximate In order to appreciate the extent of the possible
equation : supercharging, the following approximate relation
k,=$ has been derived from examination of a limited
(6.1.4)
Ob number of supercharged pretests.

Suffice it to say that application of Eqn. 6.1-3 or

Eqn. 6.1-4 (or of a relation with a different lip’ = 4SI = * = f
constant of proportionality) will depend on the k s
resolution of the particular gauge in use and on
how well Tab is <<picked, from the pressure It should be emphasized that this equation only
recording. gives an order of magnitude estimate of Ap’. The
actual value of the proportionality constant
This is illustrated in 6.3 with a field example. depends on the particular mud-fluid loss character-
istics and other factors.

6.2. Quicklook permeability from build-up 6.3. Field example

in limited drawdown tests
In the case -of a standard pretest the quicklook
formula for k, in terms of Tab is eqn. 6-l-2.
In the case of a pretest, where the flowrate is
determined by the formation deliverability rather
than the piston movement, the quicklook formula
A typical pressure record for a standard pretest is
shown in Fig. 111-27, with a final pressure of
2028 psi. Following the practical definition of the
observabIe build-up duration, To,, is read as
210 sec. It is clearly seen from the digital
recording that for times longer than 210 set the
gauge resolution prevents the build-up from being

56

FIG. 111-27: Field example -
quicklook permeability &.
observed. The quicklook permeability
210 set is:
& = 0.2 md
III. Interpretation
based on:
p = 0.5 cp, @ = 0.25, T, = 19.7 set
and Ct = 3 x lo-6 ps-1.
The spherical build-up plot of this test was made
for T1 = 14.5 set and T2 = 19.7 set, both values
being read from the record. The build-up exhibits
a classic straight line response of slope -
493.6 psi/s.@ giving spherical permeability of:
k, = 0.105 md
Thus the quicklook permeability, k,, is very nearly
double the permeability, k,, determined from the
build-up slope. The final, stabilized, extrapolated
pressure on the plot is 2028.4 psi whereas the
terminal value on the log is around 2027.5 psi.
Determination of the This difference together with the subjective nature
of choosing Tab. accounts for the discrepancy.
However, it is worth noting that this factor of two
is obtained in many similar pretests (low
drawdown rate). This tends to show that the
for Toh =
quicklook permeability is a meaningful quantity,
which has the advantage of being easily computed
from rapid examination of the build-up profile.
57
IV. RFT WITH CSU
 IV. RFT WITH CSU

Many advantages can be offered by the application

of the Cyber Service Unit* to oil field technology.
The RFT also takes part in this through the
introduction of sofhvare which enables the user to
make easier and more accurate analyses of
pressure or sample formation tests, either in real
time or in playback mode at the well-site.

1) The RFT “Quicklook” program processes the

RFT field data tape. Outputs include:
- Build-up plots
- Build-up slope computations
- Extrapolated pressure determination
- Permeability computations (drawdown and
build-up)
- Test summaries.

A playback of a pressure test is given in Fig. IV-l.

The playback pressure outputs from the field data
tape are presented both in analog and digital
formats with numerical display. The numbers
correspond to the pressure value at the line
touching the top edge of the figures. Pressure
from the high precision quartz gauge is presented
on the third track in a similar way to the strain FIG. IV-l : Playback of an RFT test using the CSU RFT
gauge pressure, except that the pressure value has Quicklook program.
hvo decimal figures which are in correspondence
with the digital pressure output. The numerical
elapsed time output is also displayed in addition to
the pressure outputs. A blown-up profile, as
* Mark of Schlumberger. shown in Fig. IV-2 may give a better idea of what

61
 XlYIi ETIM YlXli SBP
Xf”W IDEll YFWI *Drn

FIG. IV-2 : Pressure versus time plot using the CSU RFT
Quicklook pmgram.

is happening during the pretest. The sequence

from the setting of the packer until the build-up is
reached, as mentioned earlier in chapter II-l, can
thus be seen clearly.

Build-up plots of pressure against a Homer time

function (HTF) or against a Spherical time
function (STF’) may be generated. These plots can

FIG. IV-5: FIG. IV-6:

351111. CSU build-up sunmnry CSU build-up summary
Spherical plot. Homer plot.

3000. be used to verify the quality of a test and to assist

in the best determination of build-up slope and
final build-up pressure. Fig. IV-3 shows the
2500.
spherical build-up plot of the data from Fig. IV-I.

The cylindrical or Homer time function plot of the

FIG. IV-3: Spherical plot produced with the CSU. same data is given in Fig. W-4. A straight line can

62
 IV. RFT with csu

be overlain on the build-up plot for accurate slope performed. The objective is to generate the time
determination. function (cylindrical or spherical) and the build-up
plot in real time, so as to facilitate the decision of
Finally, build-up summaries of both spherical and whether to continue testing or not. Indeed, there
cylindrical build-up plots can be obtained on the would be no need to keep testing when the
same film. Examples of these build-up summaries Homer region of a cylindrical plot has been
are given in Figs. IV-5 and IV-6. reached, and rig time can be saved if it can be
decided that all the requested parameters can be
2) The RFT “Real Time” program makes it derived from the data already acquired.
possible to better monitor the test while it is being
However valid pretests take only a small amount
of time (a few minutes at most) and little, if any
time can be saved by stopping the build-up
prematurely. As a rule, pretests should not be
stopped before the pressure has reached a
NAME DESCRIPTION
stabilized value unless the build-up time exeeds
time limits set from supercharging or safety
considerations.
HTF Homer Time Function
HPGD HP Gauge Digital Pressure
LORD Line Ordinate
LABS Line Abscissa
LSLO Line Slope
LLPL Line Left Plot Limit
LRPL Line Right Plot Limit
LTPL Line Top Plot Limit
LBPL Line Bottom Plot Limit
FTN Formation Test Number
TSI Test Sample Identifier
MTD Measured Test Depth
BTFS Build-upTime Plot
(Homer or Spherical)
OGS Oil or Gas Selection
PGS Pressure Gauge Select

TFI $%$r%z?on Time

CFF Compressibility of Formation Fluid
FFV Formation Fluid Viscosity
PHI Porosity
C2V Chamber 2 Volume
PTP Pressure at TP Elapsed Time
HPRE Hydrostatic Pressure
FBS Final Build-up Slope
FPRE Formation Pressure
KD2 Permeability from Drawdown
KIB Permeability from Build-up
KTP Permeability Thickness Product
SGP Strain Gauge Pressure
PONE Pressure L’s Digit
FHPG Fractional Pressure HP Gauge
FIG. IV-7: Real time CSU presentation of RR data.
FIG. IV-S: Real time spherical plot produced on CSU FIG. IV-9~.

6.8%) L , /
I I I .I

FIG. IV-9 a. FIG. IV-9d.

Better use of the real time plotting may be made

during sample tests when large volumes of
formation fluids are withdrawn and system storage
becomes significant.

This program automatically determines the

beginning and the end of the flow period, then
computes at each time step the value of the
selected time-function. The plot thus generated
can be automatically and repetitively c<blown up )>
so as to provide larger scale readings when times
become too much compressed on a *Homer >) or
spherical scale.

FIG. IV-9b. Fig. IV-7 shows an example of an RFT recorded

64
 IV. RFT with csu

with the strain gauge. The corresponding real-time obtained, also in real time, each successive plot
spherical plot is represented in Fig. W-8. being a x5 magnification of the last fifth of the
Optionally, four build-up plots could have been plot, as shown in Fig. W-9, IV-9a, b, c, d.

65
V. SPECIAL APPLICATIONS
OF THE RFT
 V. SPECIAL APPLICATIONS OF THE RFT

V-l RFT TESTING IN TIGHT RESERVOIRS have the appearance shown in Fig. V-l if plotted on a
pressure-depth diagram. The circles represent

1.1. Statement of the problem

In low permeability reservoirs, the determination of
fluid gradients will often be hampered by the effect of
supercharging, which creates abnormally high
sand-face pressures caused by mud filtrate influx
during and after drilling.
x

Supercharging has been covered in Chapter 111-5. A

theoretical analysis, corroborated by many field
examples, shows that in the case in which the layer
under test is unbounded in the radial direction (and
can be considered as infinite-acting), the excess
pressure A p’ due to supercharging is, in a first order PRESSURE -

of approximation, inversely proportional to the

radial permeability of the layer. For a typical
water-base mud, the proportionality constant is of
the order of 4.5, and one may write:
Ap’ = 4.5/k,
Thus supercharging will be observed whenever the
layer radial permeability is low enough for Ap’ to be
higher than the gauge resolution, 6 p. When testing
with a 1psi resolution gauge, supercharging will affect
the results when radial permeabilities are of the order
of 4.5 md or less.
When testing in tight formations a series of tests will
FIG. V-l : Supercharging rejection criterion.
pretests in good permeability zones where
supercharging is negligible, but scattered to some
extent because of errors in both pressure and depth.
The crosses represent pretests in low permeability
zones where supercharging causes the points to lie to
the right of the gradient by an amount equal to Ap’.
When using the RFI in a tight reservoir, a necessary
step in finding the fluid gradient is the elimination of
supercharged tests. This can be done using a
pressure-depth diagram such as the one used in
Fig. V-l

69
 RFT essential.5of pressure test interpretation

1.2. Conduct of an RFT job in a tight measurements.The points lying inside the uniform
IWtZVOir scatter band, if defined, will all be subject to some
degree of supercharging, and the measured gradient
First, it is essentialat the well-site to plot all data on a
pressure-depthdiagram assoon asit is obtained. This
plot will be the basic document from which it will be
decided whether or not enough tests have been
made, and from which the gradients will be drawn
once supercharged tests are rejected.

Second, it is advisable to label each point on the

diagram (seeFig. V-2) with the corresponding value TVD
of the supercharged index, SI, which has been I
defined in Chapter III-6 as the reciprocal of the
quicklook permeability 14. It has been shown how k,
can be derived from the observable build-up time FW
To,,, itself read directly from the pressure record.
One may write : SI = T,,,/ZO, and in reservoirs where
there are enough tests in good permeability zones to
categorically establish the fluid gradient, it is easy to
spot supercharged tests as lying to the right of the
uniform scatter band. In this way a cut-off value of SI
(or Toh) may be determined, below which
supercharging is negligible. Note however that this
cut-off value depends on local conditions,
FIG. V-2: Recommendedprocedure for fluid contacts
particularly mud fluid loss characteristics.
determinations.

Third, it is necessary to test as many zones as

necessary for a reliable determination of the
gradient. The objective is to try to obtain pretests in
relatively high permeabilities (thus unaffected by
supercharging) and which are sufficiently separated
in depth so as to accurately define the fluid gradient.
The approach is to search for maximum permeability
zones during the course of the survey. In that line of
action, pretests which exhibit long build-up times are
not useful since they are most likely supercharged.
When this happens, it is better to terminate the test
and to take a new one at about the same depth or
elsewhere in an attempt to find good permeability
zones, of course together with the help of open-hole
logs.
In some cases it might be impossible, even after
extensive searching, to obtain non-supercharged tests
to allow an accurate definition of the fluid gradient.
When this is the case, A p’ must be considered as an
effective error in the determination of the true
formation pressure pi, which is added to the
experimental error associated with pressure
will lie somewhat to the right of the true fluid
gradient becauseof this bias, asshown in Fig. V-l. In
extreme cases,the determination of a fluid gradient,
which is subject to errors in pressure measurements,
in depth measurement, in the number and quality of
the data points, and in the depth range over which
data points are available, cannot be made with any
XC”*aCy.
Good usemay be made of a relationship such as A p’
= C/k, where the proportionality constant may be
determined empirically (or taken as 4.5 as shown
previously). Plotting the observed overpressure
(measured from an assumed “best-fit” pressure
gradient) against the inverse of permeability (from
To,, or drawdown or build-up) one should observe
a reasonably coherent straight-line relationship if
the pressure gradient is chosen correctly (both
in absolute value and in slope). Conversely a
non-typical trend and/or a large scatter will result.

70
 V. Special applications of the RFT

V-2 RFT TESTING IN NATURALLY fracture system is small and open-hole logs respond
FRACTURED RESERVOIRS to the fluids in the matrix blocks. However the
reservoir produces the fluid(s) present in the fracture
system and it frequently occurs that the fluid content
of matrix and fractures are quite different. Hence
2.1. Generalities logsmay give an erroneous view of what the reservoir
will actually produce.
The Repeat Formation Tester has important
applications in naturally fractured reservoirs In order to understand the complex production
composed of a highly permeable fracture network mechanism of a naturally fractured reservoir it is
and low permeability blocks whose average necessary to consider the original oil accumulation
dimension is controlled by the fracture density. The process. In many fractured reservoirs the matrix and
fraction of the total porosity contained within the fracture system are initially filled with water and oil

5 -----_

>-----_

_)------_

‘7-----__

SW
5
1
MATRIX s,
BLOCKS

FlG. V-3: Diagramaticrepresentationof saturation and

pressuredistributionsin a naturally fractured reservoir.

71
 RFT essentials of pressure
migrates upward through the fracture system. The
situation then arises where the matrix blocks
containing water are surrounded by oil in the fracture
system. Due to the density difference between the
phases water is displaced from the blocks and is
replaced by oil until a gravity-capillary equilibrium is
reached as shown in Figure V-3. Since the matrix
block originally contained water it is water-wet and
the drainage capillary pressure curve is appropriate.
This means that the lower portion of each block will
remain saturated with water to a level which depends
on the threshold capillary pressure and the density
difference between oil and water. Above this level
the oil saturation in the block increases upward and if
the block is large enough the irreducible water
saturation may be attained. The important point is
that the logs will register this water held in each block
by capillary forces but initially the reservoir will
produce only the fluid in the fracture system, i.e. oil.
Evidently the size of the blocks has an important
effect on how much oil has accumulated in the
reservoir. If the average block size is small very little
oil will have migrated into the blocks and vice-versa.
Blocks smaller than a certain critical size will contain
no oil at all since the hydrostatic head over the block
due to the density difference is less than the threshold
displacement pressure. As a fractured reservoir is
produced gas is liberated which migrates upward to
form a secondary gas cap. Also water may enter the
FIG. V-4 : Naturally fractured reservoir model.
72
test hlterpn?tation
fracture system either from aquifer expansion or
water injection. Thus the GOC and OWC in the
fracture system as well as the saturation in the blocks
will change as the reservoir is produced. A detailed
analysis (Ref. 2) has led to the conclusion that within
each matrix block (if large enough for sufficient tests
to be made) the RFI gradients will correspond to the
mobile continuous phase within the block. However,
the overall pressure gradient will be determined by
the fluid in the fracture system e.g. :
- if oil is present in the fractures the overall
gradient will correspond to the oil density as
shown in Figure V-3, since at the base of each
block the local water phase pressure is equal to
the oil phase pressure in the fracture at that level.
- conversely, if water is present in the fractures a
water gradient will be observed.
It is apparent that RFT pressure data can give much
insight into the producing mechanism of fractured
reservoirs. This capability may be enhanced by the
analysis of the build-up response. The environment
for this is favourable since most naturally fractured
reservoirs have low permeability and pressure
build-ups after pretest may be observed effectively.
This analysis will primarily result in the
determination of the matrix permeability using the
techniques described under 111-4. This is not as easily
EQUIVALENT SPHERCAL SYSTEM
 V. Special applications of the RET

accessible from conventional well testing. Under

favourable circumstances one other most important
parameter may be derived: the size of the matrix
block. This is discussed below.

2.2. Theoretical pressure response

It is possible to develop a simplified model of the pi............_..._............................
-
pressure build-up response of the RFT in a naturally
fractured reservoir, by making use of the constant PWSSURE YP*
pressure outer boundary analytical solution to the
spherical diffusivity equation. Such a model assumes %s
a matrix made up of parallelepiped blocks separated
by the fracture network. In the context of the RFT
pretest, it is sufficient to consider a single matrix L!r--- !
block crossed by the borehole, surrounded by a
constant pressure fracture system. It is assumed that
the probe is set in the centre of the matrix block, and
that the fracture network pressure remains F’IG. V-5 : Single flowrate schedule used for the naturally
undisturbed by the withdrawal of the pretest fractured reservoir model solution.
chamber fluid. It is also convenient to regard the
matrix block as spherical in shape, since the
analytical solution to this problem for a cubic block
would require a complicated superposition in order
to generate the constant pressure boundary
I
condition. LINEAR SPHERICAL
I BUILD-UP
Fig. V-4 shows the model envisaged, and the I
equivalent spherical system used to obtain the I 7E”FL~
solution to the problem.
3
2
The build-up response was analyzed using the n
i
flowrate schedule in Fig V-5, where a single rate
drawdown q of duration T was adopted. The results
obtained are shown in Fig. V-6. One aft&low effects
have died out, the pressure vs time diagram shows a
straight line which reflects the infinite-acting
behaviour of the matrix block. The slope m of this
straight line is given by:

m = 7.999~104 qp (@p C,)‘” I ky psi. see-’

where k, is the matrix spherical equivalent f,(T,t)=&. +
permeability, which is related to vertical permeability
k, and to horizontal permeability k, by:
FIG. V-6: Typical spherical build-up in a naturally
k, = (k,. k,z)‘” fractured reservoir.

At shot-in time At* (corresponding to total elapsed pressure pi. This levelling off is the effect of the
time t*) the diagram starts to deviate from a straight constant boundary pressure condition existing in the
line, and tends to level off to the fracture network fractures.

73
The straight line segment of slope m can be 4 = is the flow rate in CC/SW
extrapolated to a pressure p*, which is higher than T = is the flow time in set
reservoir pressure pi. Both the shut-in time A t*, at
which deviation from linear behaviour occurs, and b. Time match
the pressure difference, p’ -pi. reflect the radius of
The average block size h, is given by the equation :
the spherical system envisaged, i.e. the average size
hb (hb = 2r,) in which the RFI probe is set.
h, =
The next step, in order to quantify the determination
of hb either by a pressure match (p* - pi) or by a where At* is the shut-in time at which deviation from
time match (A t*) equation, is to develop suitable
linear behaviour occurs, and where t* is the
correlations for the above two quantities, as
corresponding total elapsed time (t* = T + At*).
functions of hb under various sets of environmental
conditions (namely T and q). The results, obtained in
each case by least squares regression method, can be
written as: 2.3. Field example
The test shown in Fig. V-7 was taken in a fractured
a. Pressure match
reservoir, using one pretest chamber (qT = 10 cc)
The average block size hb is given by the quadratic only. Fig. V-8 shows the spherical plot, where as
equation: (2301.9xD’) h,* + (C - 115.1 D) hb -
0.3 = 0, with

4n @* - p,) UC, ‘/3

c=
qT 1

p* = is the extrapolated pressure in psi

pi = is the reservoir pressure in psi
$I = is the matrix porosity (decimal fraction)
C, = is the matrix fluid compressibility in psi’

FIG. V-8: Field example of a fractured reservoir -

Spherical build-up.

expected, deviation from a straight line build-up is

obvious. Fig. V-9 is a magnified section of the late
time build-up for this test, from which the slope is
computed as :
FIG. V-7: Field example of a fractured reservoir. m = 208 psi.sec-’
 V. Special applications of the RFI’

Relevant data for this test are: b. Time match

= 0.5 cp The elapsedtime at which boundary effects start to
il, = 0.3 show up is read as:
C, = 3X10-6 psi-’
T = 12 set t* = 47 set, giving At* = 47 - 12 = 35 sec.
qT = 10 cc from which q = 0.833 cc&c
The time match formula defined in 2-3 above gives
Using the formula: then :

The values of hp and 8 check reasonably well,

k, is computed as: considering the various uncertainties in the
k, = 0.23 md determination of all the parameters involved. Also it
should be considered that the pressure match is
Extrapolated pressure is read as: p* = 5930 PSI essentiallysensitive to the volume of the matrix block
Meanwhile reservoir pressure is read as: while the time match is sensitive to the distance from
pi = 5926 PSI the constant pressure boundary. Both should strictly
speaking only agree if the matrix block is actually a
sphere with the probe set in the centre as postulated
Coefficients C and D as defined above in 2-3 are in the analytical solution.
computed as :
c = 0.017 Such a measurement is only of value if supported
D = O.OQO41 statistically. In this example s observed x best block
sizesvaried between 2 and 4 feet which corresponded
and the quadratic equation giving hb is: to expectations. However, the limitations of this
0.00038 h,’ - 0.030 hh - 0.3 = 0 method to detect larger block sizes must be
giving considered, as explained below.
hg = 88 cm

2.4. A note on the limit of resolution of the

method
Boundary effects will not be observed on a spherical
build-up plot if the difference between the
extrapolated pressurep* and the reservoir pressurepi
is lessthan the gauge resolution (1psifor the standard
strain gauge). Therefore a block larger in size than a
maximum limit will give a pretest responseidentical
to that of an unbounded reservoir, because the
build-up will be indistinguishable from an
infinite-acting response.

The actual maximum measurable block size, h,, is an

independent function of all the parameters proper to
the test considered : v, @, etc. However, an order of
magnitude can be obtained by making use of the
matching equations in the test studied above in 2-4.

a. Pressure match
FiG. V-9 : Field example of a fractured reservoir enlarged
spherical plot. The value of hz is obtained by substitution of the
 RET essediaIs of pressure test interpretation

value of the gauge resolution to the difference p* - (At* = 125 sex). Setting these values in the time
Pi- match equation, with all other parameters
unchanged, gives :

Setting p* - p1 = I psi, with all other parameters lg = 180 cm

unchanged, gives :
k = 103 cm
b. Time match
The value of &, is obtained by assuming that the
build-up keeps following a linear response until the
recorded pressure equals p* less the value of the
gauge resolution.
In the subject example, the recorded pressure equals
p” less I psi, or 5929 psi at elapsed time t* = 135 set
Values of & and & are rather different this time,
which again can be explained by the many
uncertainties surrounding the parameters used.
However this is irrelevant for the purpose of this
study, which is illustrated by one example only. The
important conclusion here is that in general, due to
the limitation in the range of application of
quantitative methods with the RFT (formation of
around or less than 1 md), fractured blocks of a size a
little mcxe than 100 cm, say generally above 200 cm,
will not be seen as such, and will give a build-up
response identical to those observed in unbounded
reservoirs.

76
 1 ATL-Marketing 1

M-081 022 Nov. 1981