SPE 150549

Downhole Fluid Sampling in Shallow Viscous Reservoir - Innovative

Techniques Helped in Overcoming the Challenge
Khalid Ahmed, SPE; Ibrahim Al-Sammak, SPE, Fatma Ahmad, SPE; Faisal Abbas, SPE, Kuwait Oil Company;
Rafael Vasquez, Naim Al-Jabari, and Reg Cook, Halliburton

Copyright 2011, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Heavy Oil Conference and Exhibition held in Kuwait City, Kuwait, 1214 December 2011.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of th e paper have not been
reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohi bited. Permission to
reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
Downhole fluid sampling in shallow unconsolidated reservoir having high inter-granular porosity and filled
with viscous oil is quite challenging. The dominant formation properties, relevant to fluid flow, like low pressure,
rocks mechanical weakness, drilling damage and fluids mobility ratios, despite very high permeabilities, have
resulted in the failure or impracticality of the conventional and most obvious methods- for example the sampling
with Dual/Straddle Packers.
The problems faced during sampling are: i) plugging of flowline, ii) emulsion generation iii) sand
production- leading to caving around sampling tool and iv) marginal operating limit of pressure drawdowndictated by extremely low formation pressure and little difference between hydrostatic and formation pressures.
Mostly, the flow happens in surges and any increase in flow rate causes large drag on sand grains and excess
pressure drawdown.
A thoughtful mix-up of technology, understanding of rock mechanics, innovative operating techniques and
proper coordination by aligning all concerned has helped in meeting the challenge of sampling viscous oils in the
unconsolidated sand.
A log-based Geo-Mechanical study suggested very low unconfined compressive strength for the sand,
restricting the flow rate to as low as 2 cc/s. Dual/Straddle Packers, with its large volume at this low flow rate,
would require very long hours of pumping. Typically, the volume between packers would take 5 to 6 hours of
continuous pumping at the suggested maximum rate of 2cc/s; just sufficient to start pumping out from the
formation. A normal probe would cause sanding at probe head due to the reduced cross section to flow. The most
successful approach was the selection of: a) probes with enlarged cross section to flow, which reduce the
drawdown by decreasing the flow velocity at the sand face, b) ultra slow pump out rates to negotiate drawdown,
formation weakness and mobility ratios of water/filtrate and viscous oil.
Multiple sand filters in the flow line, segregation of emulsified filtrate through innovative techniques and
state-of-the art fluid analysis methods helped to determine exactly when the viscous oil started to flow. However,
the surge nature of flow still resulted in 20 to 30% contamination in the sampled oil.
The obtained PVT-quality downhole sample helped in determining the in-situ fluid properties of the
viscous oil.

Introduction
The case of fluid sampling of viscous oil and water in an unconsolidated clastic reservoir of Kuwait is
presented in this paper. The reservoir is a shallow depth sand-shale alteration belonging to Middle Miocene age.
The sands are highly friable, having quite low UCS. Average porosity is in excess of 30 pu and permeability
ranging from 300 mD to 6 D. The viscous oil sands are present in two main depositional units (Sand 1- S1 and
Sand 2 S2), separated by a shale layer and bounded on top by a thick Cap shale layer. Relatively thin silty/
calcitic layers acting as baffles further subdivide the main sand bodies in to two sub-units (S1 in to S1A and S1B;
S2 in to S2A and S2B). Fig-1 shows the stratigraphy of the reservoir. Because of shallow depth, pore pressure of

SPE 150549

the rock is quite low (0.37 to 0.39 psi/ft). The deposits are spread over a large area and the area is gently dipping
from South to North; the top of sand varies from 400 ft to 680 ft from lower South to deeper North part. Viscosity
of the oil varies both laterally and vertically. Vertically more viscous oils are present in S2 sand as compared to S1
sand and similarly, in the shallower South part oil is more viscous than those in the North due to more
biodegradation.

Initial Attempts of Sampling

i) Dual Packer: Taking world-wide heavy oil sampling analog, Dual (Straddle) Packer was attempted in the pilot
hole. A sensitivity analysis was carried out for a 3 ft straddle packer with the following assumptions about the
reservoir parameter:
Reservoir Pressure = 230 psi, Reservoir Temp. = 100 F, Oil Viscosity @ Res Pr & Temp = 320 cP, Porosity = 30
p u, Permeability = 500 to 2000 mD, Sor = 20%, Swi = 20%, Invasion Diameter = 1 ft, Minimum FBHP = 30 psi,
Pump Rate = 40 cc/s. With an assumed Kv / Kh = 0.1, the results for permeabilities of 500, 1000 and 2000 mD are
shown in Table-1. It shows a strong dependency on permeability for sampling time and pump out rate. Fig-2
shows the time vs. filtrate contamination for the three permeability cases. Fig-3 indicates pump out rate and
bottom hole flowing pressure vs. time for the 500 mD rock. With increased permeability anisotropy (Kv / Kh = 0.5),
more liquid shall be required to be pumped out to reach the same contamination level. The results are shown in
Table-2. Presence of water zone with in the high viscous oil layers has significant influence on pump out volume
and clean up time. A 3 ft thick water zone situated some 4 ft below the sampling depth was modeled using a
horizontal permeability of 1000 mD and Kv / Kh ratio of 0.1. It shows increase in clean out volume from 156 liters
to 269 liters with 8% contamination level. It is near impossible to reach a contamination level of 4%. The results
are shown in Table-3.
The assumed rate of 40 cc/s was found to be too high during actual sampling and the rate was to
decrease appreciably to match the minimum bottom hole flowing pressure (BHFP) of 30 psi. With in couple of
hours, the flow line was choked due to fines migration. It was cleaned couple of times but recurrence of choking
forced aborting sampling.
ii) Oval Pad: Learning from this first unsuccessful attempt at sampling, the search continued with alternatives.
Large diameter probe, extra large diameter probes were also considered. As it was evident that we need to pump
at very low flow rate and for longer duration, the probe tools sealing might not withstand such long pumping. We
look to the alternate option of Oval pad, which has a flow area much larger than the probe tools and looks like a
nd
small straddle packer (Fig-4). This was attempted in the 2 pilot hole. In the first few attempts, either there was
no seal or the seal failed within minutes. With repeated attempts seal could be established and a pumping was
initiated with a pump rate of 8 cc/s, the flow line got plugged after 10 min. flow line was cleaned and the tool reran and set at another depth. At a flow rate of 5 cc/s the flow line again was plugged after 15 min. tool was pulled
out, flow line purged and re-ran to another depth. Oil signature appeared on the downhole MRIL Lab after 4 hrs of
pumping at 2 cc/s. Another 2 hrs of pumping brought more volume of oil, though the flow was in surges and the
contamination level was still high. Oil samples were collected at two different depths when contamination level
was estimated to be 10 to 20%. At each depth, 4 to 6 hrs of pumping out was attempted, with a pumped out
volume of 35 to 40 Litres. However, when the samples were analysed at the PVT Lab, it established a
contamination level in excess of 30%. These were the first-ever PVT quality viscous oil samples from this
reservoir.
This successful sampling with oval pad established two facts: i) the oil at reservoir condition is viscous yet
pumpable and ii) sanding during sampling is an issue, as the formation rock compressive strength is very low.
These two facts overwhelmingly suggested that sampling with a 3 ft straddle packer was not a practical option,
with its large pump out time and volume involved. It prompted us to try out the standard probe tool, instead of
straddle packer in our future sampling jobs. Before establishing this, we carried out i) a log-based mechanical
properties study of the rock to know its unconfined compressive strength which was then translated to a flow rate
and maximum drawdown computation and ii) a sensitivity analysis of various dual probes available .

Rock Mechanical Properties

Density, Caliper and shear sonic data from logs were used to compute a log-derived mechanical property.
Fig-5 shows the compressive strengths of the rock at different confining pressures. Against the pay sands of S1A/
S1B/ S2A the unconfined compressive strength was calculated as 800 psi; whereas compressive strength at 200
psi, 500 psi and 1000 psi confining pressures were found to be 1250 psi, 1650 psi and 2000 psi respectively. Fig6 shows the rock mechanical properties like Biot's coefficient, internal friction angle and static Poisson's ratio at
nd
the confining pressure of 500 psi in the 2 track, along with the calibrated unconfined compressive strength. The
average friction angle was 15, Poisson's ratio was 0.175 and Biot's constant was 0.98. The biggest surprising
factor was the calibrated unconfined compressive strength, which was found to be only 90 to 120 psi. Track-3

SPE 150549

shows the over burden stress, horizontal stress, formation pressure and the critical drawdown pressures for sand
and gas production. Against the pay sands, the over burden stress was in excess of 600 psi, horizontal stress
was over 300 psi. Against the formation pressure of 230 psi, the critical drawdown pressure for sand was found to
be 150 psi while for gas it was only 110 psi.
Fig-7 shows the critical draw down rate for the probe tool translated from the mechanical properties. The
nd
draw down rate was found to be as low as 2 cc/s the same flow rate which was established in the 2 pilot hole
by hit and trial method with the oval pad.

Sensitivity Analysis of Probe tools

Fig- 8 shows the comparison of various probe tools and dual packer. In this the large diameter probe is
the reference probe. A sensitivity analysis of the extra large diameter probe tool was performed to establish the
pump out volume before first oil surfaces and when the clean sample is obtained for various depth of
investigation. 0.5 hr to 5 hrs was required to see first oil in the flow line with a pump rate of 2 cc/s for the various
invasion radii. For a clean sample with contamination level <10%, a much longer operational time such as 5 to 35
hours was required. Table-4 shows the pump out volumes needed. With the pressure drawdown, flow rate and
mobility expected from this formation, when the pressure drawdown as a function of mobility was plotted, we
found the extra large diameter probe and oval pad far out perform the dual packer. That is, in terms of drawdown
and pumpout times, they provide a practical approach to sampling heavy oil in this viscous oil reservoir. The
results are shown in Fig-9. This plot finally established the reason why dual packer did not perform well for this
reservoir, where as probe tool was expected to sample the viscous oil successfully.
With this understanding, sampling was attempted with probe tools (Large Diameter, Extra Large Diameter
and Oval Pad) and obtained samples wherever tool could be set. In some wells the best oil sand had excessive
hole enlargement due to bore hole break out, which reduced possibility of sampling using the probe tool.

Successful Viscous Oil sampling using modified Tool

Initial attempts at fluid sampling in this reservoir with the conventional tool flush pump proved to be
unsuccessful due to the shallow depths which limit hydrostatic and formation pressures which are vital for efficient
pumpout operations. The flush pump requires a significant differential pressure to operate properly and this
cannot be achieved in shallow wells with low formation pressures. Secondly the flow rates required to pump out in
the viscous oil formations are beyond the lower limits of pumpout speed of conventional flushing pumps. Another
factor hindering the efficient operation to flow-control pump-out section utilizing check valves and other pressure
controlled or activated valves is the sanding up of the valves. The formations produced fine sands due to its low
compressive strength. It was found in initial attempts of sampling with the flow-control pump-out section that
valves and screens were plugging off with sand.
The modified method of pumping out in the tool utilizes a continuous pump method with the pretest piston
(Fig -10). It was designed in such a way that the pretest piston with a capacity of 100 cc could be utilised as a
pumpout system backup to the flush pump. Though this pretest piston is not the most efficient pumping system
due to the fact it is only unidirectional as opposed to the bidirectional operation of the flow-control pump-out
section; it does provide an important benefit. This is the continuous fine rate pumping method due to the control
servo system which operates the pump. The pretest pump can be operated at pumpout rates as low as 0.05 cc/s
very accurately. This proves to be the key aspect in the sampling of the viscous oil in the field. The viscous oil
requires pumping out at very slow rate to avoid sanding or plugging. The formation wall can also be damaged if
initial pumpout rate is too high, causing problem in sampling.
Initially when pumpout begins the formation is going to be saturated with filtrate and the following fluid is
going to be formation water. When the neighboring formation water cleans out and the oil begins to come in, there
will be a sudden decrease in flowing pressure. If the rate is too high, this influx of viscous oil can pull in soft sands
or collapse the area within the oval pad- thereby plugging off the tool screens or plugging the surface area of the
oval pad. It is critical to reduce the pump rate at this point to maintain a low differential pressure to prevent this
sanding/ plugging happening. Some initial burst of sand production is inevitable, till it cleans out. The modified
pretest pump can handle pumping these fine sands without affecting performance of the pump or system as there
are no check valves or similar systems in the pretest piston assembly. Another factor influencing the successful
pumping out of viscous oil in this formation is the slow consistent pump speeds achieved by the pretest pump. If
the pump rate is too high, this can result in the break thru of formation water, hence failing to collect oil sample.
In general, good oil sample in this shallow unconsolidated formation requires a pump rate in the vicinity of
0.2 cc/s. Pump out times can range from a few hours to twenty hours or more. The modified tool utilizing the oval
pad and the precision operation of the pretest pump is capable of delivering these samples in most situations. The
oval pad provides a sufficient surface area to the formation to flow, where as the standard probe tool is limited by

SPE 150549

its flow area and hence flows of viscous oil. Finally controlled pump out procedures enable the modified tool to
sample successfully as compared to other tools and techniques which mostly failed sampling the viscous oil.

Results
Fig-11 shows an example of open hole logs. Oval pad was used to collect oil in all 4 sand units and water
samples from the water leg. MRILab module was used for ascertaining the contamination level. The module is
based on NMR concept where T1 of the flowing fluid in the tool was measured. Due to the difference in bulk fluid
polarization between oil and water, MRILab can identify the level of contamination.
Fig-12 shows the contamination level of the oil sample during sampling. The T1 measured by MRILab
showed water signal arriving first with long T 1 in the distribution. As oil started flowing from formation, early T1 oil
signal became stronger until it reached the maximum level (lowest contamination). At this point, sample was
collected. The T1 oil signal appeared to have several peaks indicating mixed viscosity oil. Second MRILab display
shows several other measurements made such as hydrogen index, T 1LM and viscosity index to help identifying oil
signal (Fig-13). Water samples were collected in the water zone, whose response can be seen in Fig-14 and 15.
No oil signal appeared in the MRILab, only a water signal was detected.

Conclusion
To successfully collect a downhole fluid sample in unconsolidated shallow sand formations one must find
solution to plugging of flowline, emulsion and sand production and low formation pressure. In this paper, the
experience of overcoming these problems in three steps is being shared. First step is to understand the
mechanical properties of the unconsolidated sand which including the critical drawdown which initiates sand and
gas production. This information was then put in to classical formation fluid sampling modeling to compute the
required pump rate. Finally, the oval pad pump configuration was optimised to be able to sample viscous oil
without breaking the sand face in contact with the oval pad. Dual Packer was discretly used as flow line plugging
remained a major issue due to larger area for flow.
The key to the oval pad success was combination of ultra slow pump rate, high tolerance to fines
production and most importantly experience of the logging engineer.

Acknowledgement
The authors are thankful to Kuwait Oil Company and Ministry of Oil, Kuwait for allowing the release of information
and data for this paper.

SPE 150549

Nomenclature
BHFP
HI
Kh
Kv
MRIL Lab
Oval Pad
pu
Sor
Swr
T1
T1LM
UCS

Bottom Hole Flowing Pressure,psi

Hydrogen Index
Horizontal Permeability, mD
Vertical Permeability, mD
Magnetic Resonance Imaging Logging downhole Laboratory- used with Halliburton RDT
Used with Halliburton RDT- Reservoir Description Tool
Porosity Unit, %
Residual Oil Saturation, %
Irreducible water Saturation, %
Longitudinal Relaxation Time, s
Logarithmic Mean Longitudinal Relaxation Time
Unconfined Compressive Strength, psi

References
1. Jesus A Canas, Steven Low, Nicolas Adur and Vinicius Teixeira: " Viscous Oil Dynamics Evaluation for
Better Fluid Sampling", SPE/PS-CIM/CHOA 97767, Presented at the SPE International Thermal
Operations and Heavy Oil Symposium held in Calgary, Alberta, Canada from 1 -3 November 2005
2. N R Nagarajan, M M Honarpour, K Sampath: "Reservoir Fluid Sampling and Characterization- Key to
Efficient Reservoir Management", SPE- 101517, Presented at the Abu Dhabi International Petroleum
exhibition and Conference, 5 8 November, 2006
3. Javier A Franquet, Gregory Stewart, Luc Bolle, Seehong Ong: "Log-based Geomechanical
Characterisation and Sanding Potential Analysis on Several Wells Drilled in Southern Part of Oman, SPE/
PAPG Annual Technical Conference held in Islamabad, Pakistan from 28-29 November, 2005
4. Cosan Ayan, Hafez hafez, Sharon Hurst, Fikri Kuchuk: " Characterizing Permeability with Formation
Testers", Oil Field Review, Autumn, 2001
5. Rick Von Flatern: "Delivering the perfect formation fluid sample", Asian Oil & Gas, 24 August 2006
6. Seehong Ong, Zigiang Zheng, Richin Chhajlani: "Pressure-Dependent Pore Volume Compressibility- A
Cost Effective Log-Based Approach", SPE-72116, Presented at the SPE Asia Pacific Improved oil
Recovery Conference held at Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia from 8-9 October 2001
7. C Russel, N Luise, R Chhajlani: "Log-Based Pore Volume Compressibility Prediction- A deepwater GOM
case study", SPE- 95545, SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Dallas, Texas from 912 October 2005
8. Peter Weinheber: Heavy Oil Sampling with Wireline Formation Tester, IPTC 13917, IPTC-2009, held in
Doha, Qatar from 7-9 Decemeber, 2009

SPE 150549

Fig-1: Typical Stratigraphy

Fig-3: Drawdown Rate vs Time

Fig-5: Rock Compressive Strength at

Different Confining Pressures

Fig-2: Contamination vs Time

Fig-4: Oval Pad (L- Undeployed, R-Deployed)

Fig-6: Rock Mechanical Properties

SPE 150549

Flow Area
Increase,%

EFR (effective flow radius,in)

Standard Probe , r=0.22 ins

- 82 %

Large Diameter Probe, r=0.52 ins

Extra Large Diameter Probe, r=0.83 ins

Dual Packer

Fig-7: Critical Drawdown Rate

+ 155%
+ 1237%

Fig-8: Comparison of various probe tools

XLDP

Oval Pad
EXPECTED MOBILITY
Dual Packer

Fig-9: Comparison of XLDP, Oval Pad & Dual Packer over expected Mobility

Fig-10: Oval Pad Schematics and dimension

Reference

SPE 150549

Fig-11: Typical Open hole log shows S1A, S1B, S2A and S2B (Circle shows where sampling was attempted)

SPE 150549

Fig-12: MRIL Lab contamination detection during

Oil Sampling

Fig-13: MRIL Lab contamination detection-2nd display showing

T1LM, Hydrogen & Viscosity Indices

Fig-14: MRIL Lab contamination detection during

Water Sampling

Fig-15: MRIL Lab contamination detection-2nd display showing

T 1LM, Hydrogen & Viscosity Indices

10

SPE 150549

TABLE-1: Dual Packer Sampling Time & Pump out Volume, Kv/Kh =0.1
4% contamination

Permeability
(mD)

500
1000
2000

Hours

Litres

5 hrs 4 min
2 hrs 43 min

247

8% contamination
Hours

Litres

4 hrs 42 min
2 hrs 27 min
1 hr 28 min

156
156
155

TABLE-2: Dual Packer Sampling Time & Pump out Volume, Kv/Kh =0.5
4% contamination

Permeability (mD)

500
1000
2000

Hours

Litres

3 hrs 16
min

343

8% contamination
Hours

Litres

4 hrs
3 hrs 45 min
2 hr 20 min

283
281
278

TABLE-3: Contamination Reduction with Water Zone Sampling Interval

8% contamination

Permeability (mD)

1000
1000

No Water Zone
With water Zone

Hours

Litres

2 hrs 17 min
5 hrs 43 min

156
269

TABLE-4: Extra Large Diameter Probe Pump out Volume vs. Invasion Radius
Invasion Radius
(in)
4
6
8

First Oil (Litres)

Clean sample (Litres)

4.5
15.2
36.2

40.3
121.3
262