{1

Society of Petroleum Engineers

SPE 30610

Wireline Fluid Sampling

John Michaels. Mike Moody. and Than Shwe. SPE, All are employees of Western Atlas Logging Services Division of
Western Atlas International, Inc.

recover samples of fluid from formations at selected depths.

No other method can provide this type of information.
Pressure data are used to estimate mobility, fluid contact
and fluid density. Samples are used to verify fluid type,
measure fluid properties, and to develop the phase and
precipitation behavior.
The importance of obtaining samples which are truly
representative of the formation has been emphasized in
developing the next generation ofWFT.

Copyright 1995, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Inc.

The paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Annual Technical Conference &
Exhibition held in Dallas, USA, 22-25 October, 1995.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, heve not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and .are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessanly reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Paper presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Permission to copy is restricted to an abstract of n~ more than 300
words. Illustrations may not be copied. The abstract should contam conspIcuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper is presented. Write Librarian, SPE, PO
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, USA, fax 01-214-ll52-9435

Background on Wireline Fluid Sampling

This method of testing was originally developed to recover a
fluid sample. Over the following three decades several
improvements were made. Means were added for pressure
measurement, multiple pressure tests on one run, to reduce
loss of packer seats during sampling, and a pressure control
system to regulate pressure during sampling.
In the same time period, resolution and accuracy of pressure
transducers were improved two orders of magnitude and
successful sample recovery improved from one out of three to
nine out of ten.
Although these improvements are significant, sample
quality has improved only marginally. While filtrate and
drilling mud problems have been reduced, concern is now
being expressed for maintaining fluid composition prior to
analysis.
The use of samples has changed from demonstrating that
hydrocarbons could be recovered to predicting phase behavior
and conditions under which waxes and/or asphaltines
precipitate.
These uses require that contaminants be
eliminated or at least significantly reduced.
It also
emphasizes the need to recover the sample without causing
changes in composition.
Mud filtrate invades the formation as a result of the drilling
process. Preventing this fluid from being in a sample is
difficult at best and can be near impossible when the filtrate is
miscible with the formation fluid.
Previous WFT were limited to removing fixed volumes of
filtrate because one of the two sample tanks had to be used.
The problem is worse because the volume to be removed is at

Abstract
Accurate PYI data are crucial to well completion and production,
fonnation evaluation and reservoir characterization. This is
especially true for initial reservoir characterization where the
PYI sample needs to be obtained prior to production. It is
essential that the fluid sample be recovered as closely as possible
to in-situ conditions whether by drill stem or wireline formation
tester. The need to remove drilling mud filtrate prior to collecting
a sample has been widely recognized. Wireline testers which can
pump fluid from a formation until filtrate is reduced to a
minimum overcome this problem. While reducing sample
contamination has been addressed, little emphasis has been
placed on the need to control inlet pressure during filtrate
removal or during sampling. Reducing contamination is
important; however, there is equal need to determine the
critical sampling pressure. The purpose is to prevent phase
separation in the formation by regulating the sampling
process based on this information and thereby obtain a more
representative reservoir fluid sample.
A recently introduced wireline instrument provides the
capability of measuring the critical pressure prior to
sampling, of controlling the sample pressure and of
increasing the pressure in the sample container to compensate
for temperature decline during delivery of that sample to a
testing laboratory. Example of pressure tests while pumping
and during pressure buildup are presented along with
indicated sample properties.
Introduction
Wireline Formation Testers (WFT) provide an cost effective
means to determine pressure as a function of depth and to

871

information regarding formation or bubble pressure gradients

which are needed to identify fluid contacts and isolated
layers.

best an estimate. The fluid which will flow into the

instrument depends on the relative mobility of filtrate to
formation fluid. Recognizing this constraint, the volume to
be removed may extend around the circumference of the well
bore. Three techniques for sample recovery that are used
WFf are illustrated in Fig. 1. These methods are: 1)
with
atmospheric tank, 2) a water cushion to restrict water flow
into an atmospheric tank, and 3) variable pressure control
(VPC), to restrict sample flow into an atmospheric tank:. In
all cases, the pressure to be regulated is the differential
between the formation and an atmospheric tank.
The first method often resulted in recovery of well bore
fluid because of the high differential pressure between the
packer and the well bore when the atmospheric tank was
opened. Water cushions were developed to reduce the
frequency of these "mud runs" by limiting the flow rate of
water displacement. The method is effective; however, water
must be compressed from atmospheric to flowing pressure
before regulation can occur. The difference between flowing
and atmospheric pressure along with the water volume
determine how much formation fluid flows without
regulation.
The ability to regulate the sample flowing pressure from the
surface was first accomplished by Western Atlas Logging
Services with a valve which can be gradually opened until the
desired flowing pressure is achieved!. This method was
disclosed in 1983 by US Patent 4,507,957. The basic
principle of this pressure regulation system is to control the
back pressure applied to a throttling valve from the surface.
The fundamental problem is the large variation in
formation pressures which must be sampled. The pressure
difference will range from a few hundred psi to 20,000 psi.
Controlling a pressure difference which may vary over two
orders of magnitude is difficult. When the permeability of
these formations may also vary by two orders of magnitude, a
design compromise is made. This usually takes the form of
component replacement on location.

Advances in Wireline Formation Sampling

An objective review of sampling methods and associated
limitations is the first step in defining design requirements for
a new WFf. The following requirements were developed
from such a review.
Verify that the pressure response and gradient are
consistent with an appropriate reservoir model.
Remove as much filtrate as possible in the shortest possible
time. '
Provide a means to indicate fluid type while removing
filtrate.
Measure the in-situ bubble pressure prior to collecting a
sample.
Control the sample inlet pressure to preclude changes in
composition.
Control pressure in the sample tank to avoid precipitation
and/or coagulation.
Reduce the pressure difference that exists during sample
collection.
Increase the sample pressure to compensate for cooling
during recovery or shipment.
Measure the volume of fluid that is pumped to verify that a
tank is filled.
The problem of eliminating filtrate prior to sampling is
illustrated in Fig. 2.
The Reservoir Characterization Instrument (RCI) being
introduced by Western Atlas Logging Services was developed
following these design considerations. Development costs
and the benefits of changing configurations led to the use of
functional sections which can be connected in any sequence.
This concept is illustrated in Fig. 3.
Buildup pressure readings can be validated by repeating a
test without resetting the instrument.
The new tool has
capability for carrying considerably more sample tanks than
previous testers.
This allows samples to be taken at slightly different
conditions to validate sampling procedures.
A sensor which responds to electrical properties is used for
fluid identification while pumping. In-situ bubble pressure
measurement and PVT response in the pump chamber are just
being introduced. These new features allow independent
confirmation of the fluid type.
Analysis of these downhole PVT data using accepted
industry practices! provides a new standard for evaluating
sample quality prior to collecting the sample.
Providing a system to utilize this capability during data
acquisition is the subject of recently filed patent applications.

Comparison of Sampling Methods

The objective of reservoir fluid sampling is not always
straightforward. It could be to determine fluid composition,
or physical properties which affect flow, or phase behavior, or
the conditions which cause coagulation or precipitation of
waxes and ~s~haltines. The purpose could also become all of
these.
Samples may be recovered from a drill stem test, a well test,
and/or from a WFf. The first two can provide large volumes
of sample; however, if the producing interval consists of
multi-layered zones, the sample consists of combined fluids
from each layer and the phase behavior of that sample is
erroneous. A comparison of these methods is given in Table
1.
It is obvious that well tests offer the best possibility for
eliminating filtrate from the sample followed by drillstem and
then wireline testing.
Produced water is the major
contaminate for well tests. It should be noted that neither
well tests nor drill stem tests can provide downhole

Bi-directional Pump Module. Extracting fluid from a

sample tank without altering the physical properties usually

872

requires that neither pressure nor temperature be changed

during the process.
Meeting this requirement would
preclude fluid flow; therefore, temperature and pressure are
raised slightly above reservoir conditions for transfer in the
analytical laboratory.
A similar problem exists for collecting a sample or for
producing a reservoir. While heat from the reservoir is
available to maintain temperature, pressure at the sand face
must be decreased to cause flow. Controlling the magnitude
of this decrease is crucial to recovery of representative
samples.
A bi-directional pump was developed for the RCI to
perform drawdown tests and to pump either fi-om or into a
formation or a sample chamber and to determine the in-situ
bubble pressure. This pump was designed to work between
hydrostatic and formation pressure, thereby limiting the
magnitude of the pressure difference which must be
controlled during sample collection. These features are the
subject of US Patents 5,303,775 and 5,337,755.
A double acting piston pump, an absolute pressure gauge, a
temperature sensor, and a displacement sensor are necessary
for continuously monitoring these parameters.
Because fluid is pumped into the sample chamber, the
pump can also be used to increase the sample pressure above
hydrostatic prior to sealing the tank. This over pressure will
minimize phase separation when the sample cools during the
return to surface and transport to the analysis laboratory.
Since PVT characteristics are somewhat different for oil,
water and gas, measuring these parameters provides a
straightforward method to confirm indications from the fluid
identification sensor.
Continuous monitoring of the resistivity and capacitance
sensor in the packer module will indicate when the fluid
entering the tool changes. If it is not clear that the fluid is a
hydrocarbon, PVT relationships can be used to clarify that
issue.
Once the in-situ bubble point is determined, a Y correlation
plot can be made to indicate whether the sample contains
hydrocarbons2 . In this manner, a method which is
independent of other fluid sensors is provided.

compressibility while the pressure increase will relate directly

to fluid compressibility.
The pump can be used to increase the sample pressure
above hydrostatic prior to sealing the tank. This extra
pressure will aid in preventing phase separation when the
sample cools during recovery and transport to the analytical
laboratory.
Fluid Identification. When energy is added to or removed
from a known volume of fluid, pressure and temperature vary
in accordance with the physical properties of that fluid.
Considerable work spanning several decades has contributed
to understanding the behavior of oil field hydrocarbon
systems2.
Providing an instrument which makes the
appropriate measurements and applying those calculations at
the time of sampling is the subject of another patent recently
filed by Western Atlas.
These simple and straightforward computations are based
on measuring the pressure and temperature change that
occurs when a measured volume of fluid is forced into a
known volume. Referring to Fig. 5, temperature, pressure in
the pump chamber, inlet pressure and chamber volume are all
plotted as a function of time. The temperature variation
indicates that the system contains gas. This inference comes
from considering that the specific heat for a gas is an order of
magnitude larger than for a liquid. Therefore, the work put
into the fluid (pressure times volume) is expected to produce
an order of magnitude larger temperature difference for a gas
than for a liquid.
Continuing with the basics for fluid flow, pressure in the
pump chamber must be less than pressure at the inlet during
the intake stroke and greater during the discharge.
The difference in pressure between inlet and chamber when
combined with flow rate in a specific instrument is directly
proportional to fluid viscosity. However, care must be used
when flow rate is computed from pump displacement data.
Because real fluids are compressible, the volume rate of
fluid discharged is less than the displacement volume rate.
System compressibility (fluid and gas) can be calculated from
the data being gathered while pumping.
Fig. 6 shows pumping data on an expanded time scale to
better illustrate the variation of pressure, volume, and
temperature inside the pump chamber. Since the fluid being
pumped is compressible, a portion of the stroke is used to
compress the fluid while the remainder actually moves fluid.
When fluid is moving into this chamber, pressure will be
nearly constant. When the pressure is changing rapidly, fluid
is not being transpot:1:ed. Pump efficiency is then computed as
the ratio of the displaced volume while pressure is nearly
constant to the volume displaced in one stroke. This ratio is
different at inlet and discharge conditions because of fluid
compressibility and thus provides a measure of fluid type.

Sample Handling. The need for more accurate PVT data

dictates laboratory analysis of samples which have been
disturbed as little as possible. Therefore, the preferred
sample chamber is a transportable tank.
When the invasion fluid content has been sufficiently
reduced, a sample may be directed into a tank for shipment to
an analysis laboratory. This is illustrated in Fig. 4 which
schematically shows that once the tank is filled, continued
pumping will overpressure the sample.
Assuring that a tank is full is sometimes difficult with tanks
referenced to atmospheric pressure. In this situation, pressure
in the sample line is the only indication of a full tank. When
fluid is pumped into the tank, a full tank is determined by the
volume pumped and the pressure increase. The volume
pumped will always exceed the tank volume because of fluid

873

VD - VE
Vc - VE

11in1el

Vc - VB
Vc - VA

100

(1)

VIiQuid

V pumped

11 inlet

(5)

V8"

Where
RVR = relative volume ratio at inlet conditions,
volume/volume of saturated liquid.
Vgas = volume of gas at inlet conditions, cm3
V liquid = volume ofliquid at inlet conditions, cm3

(2)

100

V 8..

RVR=~

Selecting values from Fig. 6, the results are

In this case; determining the volume of gas present requires

knowledge of the pressure and volume relationship. There
are two possible sources for this information. The pump
efficiency computation provides a value for a single stroke or
in-situ bubble pressure test. Equation 6 is developed by
considering the volume reduction between inlet and outlet
conditions.

11discharge= 57 %
11in1el = 70.4 %

Because fluid is compressible, the volume offluid moved at

the higher pressure will be less than the volume moved at the
lower pressure. The ratio of volume of fluid discharged to
volume swept in one stroke divided by the pressure difference
between inlet and discharge is the system compressibility.
This relationship is expressed in Equation 3.

Where

= 'l'Im.ch8lJ!e x _1 _
11inlel

oampIe

V....<i:e

(3)

PdiscIage

Pinlel

Where
Psample
= system compressibility, psi"
11discharge = ratio of volume discharged to stroke volume, %
11in1el
= ratio of inlet volume to stroke volume, %
Pdischarge = pressure during discharge, psia
Pinle1
= pressure during inlet, psia
V.lroke = volume displaced in one stroke, cm3

V pumped= piston displacement volume, cm

Vgas inlet = gas volume at the inlet, cm3
V confined = volume of the tank and connecting lines, cm3

Choosing values from Fig. 6, system compressibility is 17.2

x 10-6 psi' I which suggests the presence of gas as previously
indicated by the temperature variation .
Referring to Figures 5 and 6, the pressure difference
between inlet and the pump chamber is nearly constant even
though the absolute magnitude changes. The variation in
Fig. 6 suggests variable supply from the formation. A
constant of proportionality, K v , needs be empirically
established to compute viscosity.

Pliquid
11in1et

pressure at the location indicated by the subscript,

psia
temperature at the location indicated by the
subscript, 459.7 + F, degrees Rankine
compressibility of the liquid portion, psi -1
fluid efficiency at the inlet, fraction

Using previously computed compressibility and efficiency,

pressure, volume and temperature values are taken from Fig.
7 in which case.
Vgas inlet = 667 cm3

AP K v ,
V

(4)

and substituting into Equation 5

RVR = 1.028 volume/ volume of saturated oil

Where
~ is the viscosity in centiPoise
V is the average velocity
AP is the pressure difference
K v is a constant of proportionality for each tool

By first isolating a sample of fluid within the pump, an

expansion test can be run to determine the in-situ bubble
pressure. Uniike laboratory tests, this operation is completed
in a matter of several seconds. A plot of pressure vs volume
for this test is shown in Fig. 8. The relationship between
pressure and volume is quite similar to the results of a
laboratory PV test at constant temperature. For this fluid, the
linear relationship ends at 1007 psia and 51.68 cm3 If the
sand face pressure is allowed to fall below this pressure
during sampling, th~ sample will be distorted.

With the previously determined efficiency and system

compressibility, the relative volume ratio may also be
calculated from data collected while filling the transportable
tank.

874

Recalling that a plot of the Y correlation against pressure

below the bubble point is normally linear for hydrocarbon
systems, Fig. 9 indicates that this sample is largly
hydrocarbon.
Efforts are continuing to provide methods for estimating insitu fluid properties to assure that a true sample of formation
fluid is delivered for laboratory analysis.

References
1 Formation Multi-Tester (FMT) Principle, Theory, and
Interpretation. Western Atlas Intl. Inc. REV. 12/89
AT98- 405 9575
2. M. B. Standing "Volumetric and Phase Behavior of Oil
Field Hydrocarbon Systems", Society of Petroleum
Engineers of AIME, Dallas, 1977.

Conclusions
51 Metric Conversion Factors

1. WFf samples are superior to Well test and to drill stem

samples in multilayer formations.
2. Downhole bubble point pressure is necessary to assure
that a representative sample is recovered.
3.
When precipitation and/or coagulation problems are
anticipated. overpressuring the sample can reduce that risk.
4. Conventional PVf relationships can be used to verify the
type of fluid being collected.
5. A novel method for evaluating fluid properties downhole
is presented.

cp x 10*
E-03 = Pa's
in. x 2.54*
E+OO = cm
md x 9.869 233 E-04 = p.m2
psi x 6.894 757 E+OO = kPa
* Conversion factor is exact.

Nomenclature
Pdischarge = pressure at pump discharge, psia
= pressure at pump inlet, psia
Pinlet
L\P
= pressure difference between inlet and
pump chamber, psid
Kv
= constant of proportionality for each
tool, cP (cm/sec)/psid
= relative volume ratio, volume/volume
RVR
of saturated oil
= volume at point A, cm3
VA
= volume at point B, cm3
VB
Vc
= volume at point C, cm3
VD
= volume at point D, cm3
= volume of gas, cm3
Vgas
V liquid
= volume of liquid, cm3
V pwnped = volume of mixture pumped, cm3
V confined = volume of tank and connecting
lines, cm3
V.troke
= volume displaced by one pump
stroke, cm3
T discharge = temperature at pump discharge, R
= temperature at pump inlet, R
T inlet
lldischarge = ratio of volume of fluid discharged to
piston displacement, %
llinlet
= ratio of volume of intake fluid to
piston displacement, %
J
~sample = compressibility offluid system, psr
~liquid = compressibility of liquid portion, psi"J
p.
= fluid viscosity, cP

Acknowledgments
We thank Saeed Rafie and Michael Yesudas of Western Atlas
Logging Services for independent derivations, valuable
discussions and review of the fluid property computations.

875

TABLE 1 - Comparison of sampling methods.

TYPE
DRILL
STEM

SAMPLE
VOLUME

WELL
STATUS
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

OPEN
HOLE

CONTAMINATE
I

I 1
I
I
I
I
I
I

UNLIMITED

I
I
I
I
I
I
I

FILTRATE,
DRILLING MUD,
PRODUCED
WATER 1

GAUGE
CORRECTION
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

UNITS OF PSI

DATA
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

AVERAGED
BETWEEN
PACKERS

FLOW
CONTROL
I
I
I
I
I
I

SURFACE
CHOKE

I
I

BUBBLE
PRESSURE

OVERPRESSURE
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

NO

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

SURFACE

COST
DAYS
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

ONE+

~-----~------+--------~-----------~-----------+----------~--------+---------+---------~----WELL
TEST

CASED

SURFACE:

OR
OPEN
HOLE

PRODUCED
WATER

AVERAGED FOR

SURFACE:

UNLIMITED

OPEN

THROTTLING
VALVE

DOWNHOLE

PERFORATIONS

TENS OF PSI

NO

SURFACE

TWO +

DOWNHOLE:
LITERS

FIXED
CHOKE

OJ ~-----r------T--------r------------r-----------T-----------r--------,---------,---------r----I
I
I
WIRE- I
I
OPEN
LITERS
IN-SITU
I FRACTI
FILTRATE,
I TENTHS OF A PSI I
PRESSURE I
YES
DISCRETE
I
I
I
I
I ONAL
I
I
LINE II
HOLE
DEPTH(S)
REGULATED:
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
AT SAMPLE
PRODUCED
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
WATER
POINT
OR
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CONTROL
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I PUMP RATE :
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

"'"

0)

4
5

When formation pressure is sufficient to cause flow to the surface, the volume is essentially unlimited and contamination
can be eliminated.
Pressure gauge may not be run down hole. If not run, the surface pressure must be corrected for the fluid column
height. When a gauge is run, the offset from the gauge to the center of the formation is over several feet.
Based on a transition column height exceeding thirty feet.
Sample is not confined during recovery.
Bubble pressure is for a combination of fluids from all open perforations.

AlMOSPHERIC TANK

WATER CUSHION

Hydraulics
Electronics

D
D

Exit to well bore

VPC
TlI'cttlingVrIve

Sample
chambers

Sample
chambers

Fig.! - Sample recovery techniques

Sample
chambers

Bi-Directional
Pump

Formation Preure
Bubble Point Preure

~ ~

==-::! ~

Packer
Hydro.tatic preure
Inlet preure

Upstream pressure
regulator VPC
Atmospheric
Tanks

Fig.3 - Modular construction allows

~ailoring of the functionality of the
tool to testing requirements.
Fig.2 - Filtrate elimination prior to sampling.

877

PlMtlNO IfTO A TANK

300.00

9000

7000
250.00

6000
200.00
SO 00

Double acting pump

~
:~::~:t:::::::::::::::~t::::

4000

Quartz Pressure GllUge

3000

_~

10000
2000

VOLUME/I 0

SO 00

1000

O.......,e...~ .......................................+-'-'-".............~~ .............~~ .....................................o..+--'-~~ .............................................................l.O.oo

5550

5600

5650

5700

57SO

5800

58SO

5900

5950

6000

TIME. sec:

Fig. 7 Pressure, volume and temperature while

filling and overpressuring a sample tank.

Tank at HydrostaticPressure
or overpressured

Fig. 4 Illustrates pumping fluid from a formation

into a tank counterbalanced to hydrostatic pressure.
PRESSURE V8 VOLUM!

300

10000

300000
9000

TEM PERAnJRE

COMPRESSIBILITY = 615 X 10.(11 voIlvoV psi

R2 = 09896

250

9000

250000

7000
200

.. ,

.. J6000
E

i~500e
f~4000

200000

ii

II

E.

~i

150

(150000

100
3000

sampling Lcwer
Pressure Umit

100000

--------~~~!~-------

500.00

o -'--_----'--_ _~_----'-_ _"--_-'-_--'~_

_'___

2037

2387

2087

2137

2187

2237

2287

2337

__'__ _.....1 0
2437

~~L~ r~~~.
-

000 +---~....o....ot~~___+_-~_+___~~+---~~~~--+-~~--+-~~~~---l
51
512
514
516 5168 518
5195 52
526
528
522
524

2487

TIME,sec:

Volume,cm3

Fig. 5 Relationship of measured variables while

pumping into a well bore.

Fig. 8 Expansion test of fluid near the start of

pumping.

PUMP" 0

Y CORRELATION

TEMPERAnJRE
4000

250
2271F

350

3560.7

3530.3

y=-0.3426x+371.08
200

~=0.973

300

3000
250

2500

2000

150

+-Mr----<>----,:f--!--~--____;I---~--\:=__===:T--

1500

1000

500

INLET PRESSURE

I
100

g: 200

o
>

>- 150

CHAMBER PRESSURE

!~1~~
~
,~
~
~CHAMBERVOLUM~./
...,

33.48

16.34

50

16.32

,,_--+!!-_---f__

c +---'~~~t---~-----t~~-----+----+--~--t--~----!. 0
2060

2065

2070

2075

2080

2085

X~1;:,;"7'

100

50

-+-_--+_ _-+-_--+_ _-+--_--.-::;6

0 + - - - - + - - -.t---

2090

TI", .. sec:

000

10000

200.00

300.00

400.00

SOO.OO

600.00

70000

80000

90000

1000.00

PRESSURE, ,sle

Fig. 6 Detailed variation of pressure, volume and

temperature while pumping.

Fig. 9 Y correlation plot of data from the expansion

test shown in Fig. 8.

878