SPE 69427

A Systematic Approach to Sampling During Well Testing

Bjrn Dybdahl, Petrotech asa, and Hans Petter Hjermstad, Petrotech asa

Copyright 2001, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Latin American and Caribbean
Petroleum Engineering Conference held in Buenos Aires, Argentina, 2528 March 2001.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review
of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper,
as presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are
subject to correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily
reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers
presented at SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the
Society of Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part
of this paper for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an
abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must
contain conspicuous acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented.
Write Librarian, SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972952-9435.

Abstract
The industry is focusing on cost reductions by saving on
expensive rig time and on reducing the impact on the
environment during well testing. Fluid samples for field
developments are more often taken solely by wireline
formation tester/samplers (WFT/S) and not necessarily
followed by flow to surface in a drill stem test. It has also
been more usual to drill exploration wells with oil based
mud in order to increase the drilling rate. These measures
reduce the likeliness for good quality fluid samples and
increase the uncertainty in field development projects
related to fluid data. A systematic approach to fluid
sampling is presented which discuss the different aspects
related the quality of fluid data obtained depending on the
sampling method, type of reservoir fluid system and
formation properties. Recommendations for these decisionmaking processes are presented.
Introduction
Managing efficiently the production of natural gas and oil
requires accurate data on the characteristics of the reservoir
fluid and the phase and property change as the fluid moves
from the reservoir through the transport and production
systems. The objective of reservoir fluid sampling is to
collect a sample that is representative of the reservoir fluid
at the depth and at the time of sampling and suitable for
laboratory studies of the physical and chemical properties
change during production. A non-representative sample will
not reflect the true properties of the reservoir fluid and may
result in costly errors in design and reservoir management
regardless of the accuracy in the laboratory data. One should
also keep in mind that the sample represent at the best only
the point in the reservoir where it was obtained and there is
no assurance that the sample is representative of the fluid
throughout the reservoir.

Planning
A successful sampling program in a well requires good
planning. The right sampling equipment and techniques
have to be used. Also the timing is important. In most
situations the best conditions for taking a representative
sample of the reservoir fluid is during the exploration phase
before the formation pressure has started to drop. Some
specialised fluid studies may be identified later and the
required samples taken successfully during the production
phase. There will be differences in the challenge depending
on if the reservoir fluid is an oil, a near-critical fluid, a gas
condensate or a dry gas. The well will be logged prior to any
reservoir fluid sampling is started. The logging will give
information that is very useful in the planning of the
sampling operation.
It has become more and more common in offshore wells
to plan for most of the samples to be taken in open hole by
wireline formation testers in order to save on expensive rig
time and to reduce the impact on the environment from
standard drill stem testing. The selected sampling intervals
will be based on logs. Intervals with good permeability and
good hole quality increase the chances for a successful
sampling run with a WFT. The height of the hydrocarbon
column may tell if a compositional change with depth will
be important and if several intervals have to be sampled.
One should try to draw advantage of the bubble point
gradient (typically 0.2-0.4 bar/m) in a situation were the
fluid is close to saturation. The pressure gradient in the
hydrocarbon column together with the reservoir conditions
will identify the type of reservoir fluid, Figure 1. The degree
of undersaturation may be evaluated from the use of
correlations. Wire line fluid samples should and will in most
situations be taken as a part of the well logging operation.
These samples will usually not be truly representative due to
the difficulties with well conditioning and an effective clean
up. There may also be effects on the reservoir fluid from the
decreased temperature in the vicinity of the well bore from
the mud circulation. A gas condensate can drop below the
dew point and high molecular waxes/resins may deposit
from an oil. WFT reservoir fluid samples may be of
sufficient quality for many oil developments and have the
potential of saving exploration cost by reducing the number
of drill stem tests in a gas condensate reservoir. The quality
of the obtained sample should be assessed on site by a
laboratory unit with the necessary equipment.
In any case the wire line fluid samples will be important
to optimise the sampling program if the well would be drill
stem tested. The logs and the WFT sample will make it
possible to decide on whether to take bottom hole samples

BJRN DYBDAHL, HANS PETTER HJERMSTAD

or separator samples. It will further give information about

how easy the well can be conditioned prior to sampling. In
the case of a gas-oil contact in the well the gas and oil
columns will be close to saturation and a representative fluid
sample impossible to obtain in situ. If the well is perforated
across the contact the separator phases may be recombined
in the laboratory to give representative samples of the fluids
on both sides of the contact1. Single phase sampling at the
well head may be feasible for a strongly undersaturated
reservoir fluid. If asphaltene deposition may be an issue in
an oil reservoir can be assessed from the saturation pressure
and the density of the reservoir fluid2. This will require
bottom hole samples with full pressure maintenance from
the bottom of the hole to the sample reaches the laboratory.
If the nature of the reservoir fluid is a gas condensate the
leanness of the fluid and the expected production rate
determine if isokinetic split stream sampling at the well head
will be better method than the test separator for accurate
measurement of the sample recombination ratio 3,4,5. The
use of partitioning tracers can also help to establish an
accurate gas-oil ratio (GOR) for surface samples 6,7. This
technique is very useful to provide samples and the
producing three-phase flow rates where the installation of a
large test separator unit is not attractive or feasible8. The
production rate during the highest flow rates of a gas
condensate test may require additional equipment and
measurements in order to correct the measured condensategas ratio for reduced separator efficiency 9,10,11.
In addition to samples for PVT studies more specialized
objectives for the samples may be given in the well
program. The sample volume required for some dynamic
experiments may exclude sampling by wire line fluid
samplers or bottom hole samples only. Larger volumes of
fluids will require flow to surface. Equally important may
trace elements in the reservoir fluid be and the detection
may require larger volume than bottom hole or wire line
samplers can give. Some elements may react or chemisorb
on the walls of the samplers and require inert linings.
Wireline formation sampling
Wireline formation testers (WFT) may give samples of good
quality with a sufficient sample volume for standard PVT
analyses of oils. They can be very cost effective. For gascondensates the volume may be too small for an extended
characterisation of the heavy ends. They can take samples
with very low and controlled draw downs. The closed in
sample can be pressurised to avoid phase separation
phenomena caused by the pressure and temperature
reduction when the sampler is lifted to surface. The main
problem with the WFT is limited possibilities to clean up the
formation from mud filtrate, especially if oil based mud
(OBM) has been used. The later generations of wire line
formation samplers have pump out capability and detection
systems that can monitor the change in the mud filtrate
contamination of the sample12, 13,14. This has significantly
increased the quality of formation fluid samples taken in
open holes.
If the well has been drilled with oil based mud the
samples will be contaminated with the base oil filtrate. The
contamination level will be determined by several factors
where the formation permeability, the volume pumped from

SPE 69427

the formation before the sample is closed in and the seal

obtained by the probe against the formation are the most
important. The contamination of OBM in the wireline fluid
sample can be reduced by pumping fluid from the formation
before the sample is closed in. The fluid is discarded into the
well. There may be limitation to this due to safety aspects
for high pressure gas wells since a small kick is produced
every time a volume of formation fluid is dumped. The use
of an optical detector system that can tell the relative change
in contamination level during the clean up is very useful10.
This can be used to estimate the time needed to reach a
reasonable clean oil sample and if this is feasible at all. The
bubble point pressure of an oil will decrease with increasing
contamination and can be used for in-situ determination of
the relative change in the contamination level during
pumping. There will be an exponential decay in the
contamination level with pumped volume. Experience has
shown that the OBM contamination in the sample will
increase with the tightness of the formation, Figure 2. The
OBM contamination level will be higher at a given pumped
volume from a low permeable formation than from a
formation with better properties. It is not feasible to obtain a
clean sample from tight zones due to the large volumes and
long pumping times needed. As a rule of thumb can be used
that a 100 times increase in pumped volume will be required
in order to reduce the sample contamination level to the
same level from a 10 mD zone compared to a 1000 mD. The
sample will always have some degree of contamination.
There is no technique available to day to measure the clean
up for a gas condensate system. The use of dual packers in
combination with wireline formation testers can reduce the
contamination from a tight formation. Larger volume of
fluid can be produced for clean up and the formation seems
clean up differently. The exponential reduction in OBM
level in the produced fluid is replaced by a more plug-like
flow behaviour giving a sharp transition between highly
contaminated and cleaner sample flow.
Oil systems are less effected by OBM contamination
than gas condensates and a higher contamination level can
be excepted without dramatic changing the main fluid
properties. The bubble point pressure will decrease with
increasing contamination and there will be effects on the
formation volume factors, density and viscosity. The effect
on gas condensates depends on the relative difference in the
molecular weight distribution of the C7+ fraction of the
OBM and the pure condensate. If the OBM contamination
has higher carbon number components than present in the
reservoir fluid the effect on the dewpoint pressure of the
sample can be very significant even for a very small
contamination. For these reasons it is not possible to give a
general contamination levet that can be accepted for a gas
condensate sample. A typical oil based mud will have
components in the carbon number range 9-25, with an
average molecular weight of C14. The effect on the
dewpoint pressure for a North Sea gas condensate will be
small but the liquid drop out will be measured too high,
Figure 3.
There are several techniques to determine the
contamination level in the sample. This has to be measured
on a sample of the stabilised oil or condensate. In-situ
measurement (light transmitance or bubble point) of the

SPE 69427

A SYSTEMATIC APPROACH TO SAMPLING DURING WELL TESTING

contamination level gives only an approximate value and

will be relative to the sample volume at reservoir condition.
If the contamination level is known it is possible to correct
the composition of the contaminated sample based on the
assumption that the composition of the base oil does not
change during circulation.
At moderate contamination levels (>10 w-% in stabilised
liquid) it is possible to correct the PVT measurements made
on a contaminated sample with an Equation of State (EOS).
The technique is to calculated the effect of different amounts
with contamination and extrapolate back to the pure
reservoir fluid. The effect will not necessarily be linear. The
measured data on the contaminated sample is corrected
relative to the change from the extrapolation. Obviously,
any OBM contamination will increases the uncertainty in
the fluid property description and may be unacceptable for
some fluid systems. Water based mud systems are less likely
to effect the quality of the wireline hydrocarbon formation
sample.
In order to reduce the contamination the sampled
interval in the well should be chosen from assessment of the
permeability and the quality of the hole. A hole with large
wash outs will not provide a good seal for the WFT. A
calliper log is useful. Also, intervals with large loss of
drilling fluids should be avoided as targets for the wireline
formation sample.
The use of water based mud will create a similar
contamination problem for formation water samples taken
by WFT. A tracer like sodium thiocyanate can be added to
the mud system and the composition of the pure formation
water calculated from a multi-ion analysis of the mud filtrate
and the contaminated sample.
The quality of the WFT sample should be assessed at
surface and a decision whether the objectives regarding
samples have been reached or if further sampling is needed
either by more WFT runs or by DST testing. If no
information is available from comparable wells the decision
has to be based on that the samples give consistent bubble
point pressures, a reservoir fluid density consistent with the
measured pressure gradient and an acceptable contamination
level in the case of OBM. Small laboratory packages
designed for offshore use are available. The saturation
pressure for a gas-condensate is more difficult to measure on
site and will not be readily available. For a gas-condensate
only the contamination level and the density may be used as
evaluation criterions at site. This evaluation may not be fully
conclusive regarding the quality of the samples. The
decision flow in WFT sampling and sample evaluation is
presented in Figure 4. If drill stem testing is decided the
information about the nature of the fluid, degree of
undersaturation and the gas-oil ratio will also be valuable for
planning of the test and the sampling operation.
Conditioning of well for DST sampling
The objective of clean up and conditioning a well prior
to sampling is to remove all fluids introduced into the well
and the near well bore region during the drilling process.
Further, the conditioning should remove any altered
reservoir fluid from the near well bore region. The clean up
consists of flowing the well to remove the drilling and
completion fluids, filtrate and altered reservoir fluid and

replace it by representative fluids from a more distant

portion of the reservoir. Conditioning the well before
sampling is important and is especially important when the
reservoir fluid is close to saturation at the prevailing
reservoir pressure. Shutting in the well to restore the
pressure will not necessarily change the altered fluid back to
the original reservoir fluid. It is generally necessary to flow
the well and displace the affected fluid. The initial flow will
also re-establish the reservoir temperature in the near well
bore region.
During the clean up the well will be flowed at a low rate
or at several decreasing rates. The flow rate has to be
sufficient to lift the drilling fluids to surface. For gas
condensate the linear velocity of the flow should exceed 1.01.5 m/s at the well head15. The clean up process will be
monitored by measurement of the producing gas-oil ratio,
the well head pressure and temperature and by chemical
analysis of the produced fluid. The chemical analysis will
tell when the drilling fluids and mud filtrate have been
displaced and a stabilised GOR will in principle indicate that
the unaltered reservoir fluid is produced. In order to
compare GORs from different flow periods the effect of
changing separator conditions has to be compensated.
Gas condensates behave differently than reservoir oils.
Experience has shown that a gas condensate close to
saturation pressure can be produced representatively even
though the flowing bottom hole pressure is below the dew
point pressure, Table 1. This observation has been
established from analysis of a proprietary database
(Petrotech) with 93 gas-condensate well tests and 248
individual flow rates, all with both test separator and split
stream measurements at the well head. Within the accuracy
of the measurement it has not been possible to see an effect
on the producing gas-oil ratio or the properties of the
produced condensate. During a relatively short well test the
drainage area will be small and the gas phase with
condensate droplets will be produced with large linear
velocities. The drop sizes will be very small with little
tendency to impact on the formation. This is believed to be
the reason that gas condensates can be produced below the
dewpoint pressure without loss of retrograde liquid. This is
true for relatively short well tests and from formations with
average to good properties. If the production is continue for
a longer time period loss of retrograde liquid will take place
with the following increase in GOR.
Bottom hole sampling
Bottom hole samples seems attractive since they represent
the nearest approach to sample within the reservoir and loss
of solid depositions in the flow line can be avoided. They
may be taken on wire line or enclosed in a tubing conveyed
carrier. Tubing conveyed bottom hole samplers have the
potential of saving rig time by eliminating the need for a
separate sampling flow. Several sampling chambers will be
filled during a run. The start of the sampling can be
triggered electrically, acoustically or mechanically either
from the rig, by a timer or by a pre-designed logic built into
the tool. The sampling principle relies on single phase
hydrocarbon flow in the well and is primarily suited for
undersaturated reservoir oils. Single phase may not be
fulfilled with fluids closed to saturation or with flow from

BJRN DYBDAHL, HANS PETTER HJERMSTAD

tight formations. The well has to be properly conditioned

and producing with a pressure above the saturation pressure
of the fluid at the point where the sampler has been
positioned. Below the bubble point there is no guarantee that
oil and gas enter the sampler in the right proportions. The
position of the water-oil and oil-gas contacts in the well can
be obtained from the pressure gradients and the sampler
should be positioned between. The well should be closed in
or produced at a low rate during the sampling and the
sample not taken before the altered reservoir fluid has been
completely displaced. If the well is flowing two phases
during the conditioning flow bottom hole sampling is not
recommended. Shutting in the well will not bring the gas or
retrograde condensate back in single phase. The method is
not recommended for gas condensates. Bottom hole
sampling may work for rich gas condensates where the
liquid yield is sufficient to obtain a good characterisation of
the heavy ends of the composition.
Modern bottom hole samplers can control the sampling
rate accurately and pressurise the sample before it is moved
to surface. They are especially suitable for oils where
asphaltenes may drop out during pressure reduction but also
give advantages in the transfer of gas condensates samples
since the sample can be maintained in single phase. The
decision flow for sampling of reservoir oil sampling is
presented in Figure 5 and for near critical fluids in Figure 6.
For oils close or at saturation it has been shown that
separator sampling is more likely to give representative
samples than the use of bottom hole techniques16.
The representativity of the sample will be evaluated
from the measured saturation
pressure at reservoir
temperature. The saturation pressure has to be below the
reservoir pressure. Duplicate or triplicate samples should
always be taken in a sampling run. The samples should give
consistent saturation pressures in order to be defined as a
good sample. The sample is suspicious when the measured
saturation pressure equals or is above the flowing pressure at
the sampling point. In the case of a sample for asphaltene
study the bubble point measurement can for obvious reasons
only be made on a small portion of the sample. The flash
GOR of the sample should also be consistent with the
measured separator GOR during the later DST flows. The
test separator GOR for the bottom hole sampling flow will
usually not be accurate enough due to the low flow rate.
Single phase well head sampling
Samples may be obtained directly on the well head if it is
known that the flow is in single phase. The method works
for both oils and gas condensates. When the conditions well
head sampling is satisfied this can be the most reliable,
efficient and cost effective way to collect reservoir fluid
samples.
Normally the required single phase conditions will only
be satisfied for the earlier and lower flow rates of a well test
when also the flowing temperature on the well head will be
low. Well head sampling may not be the best method for
some gas condensates with high wax formation temperatures
and for oils where asphaltene flocculation occur due to the
pressure reduction between the reservoir and the wellhead.
Where these aspects are important bottom hole sampling
should be the preferred method.

SPE 69427

Surface sampling methods

Separator sampling. Separator sampling consist of taking a
sample of the equilibrium oil and gas from the test separator
while making accurate measurement of the separator oil and
gas production rate which prevail at the time of sampling.
The samples can be taken as soon as the well has been
conditioned and both phases should be sampled essentially
at the same time. The sampling time should be longer than
the retention time of the oil or condensate phase in the test
separator. The two samples will be recombined in the same
proportion as the measured gas and oil rates to give a
physical sample of the well stream. Therefore an accurate
measured gas-oil ratio is of utmost importance. The
challenge with separator sampling is primarily to correctly
measure the recombination ratio and not taking
representative samples. Large volume samples of each phase
are easily obtained. This may be the only method to sample
a lean gascondensate in order to get sufficient condensate to
make characterisation of the heavy end.
It is recommended to base the sample recombination
ratio on an analysis of the gas-oil ratio for all flows and not
only the short period when the samples were taken. All
GOR measurements should be corrected to the same
reference conditions both within and between the flows.
This analysis will identify if any two phase flow effects in
the inflow to the well has effected the well stream
composition and thereby the test separator gas-oil ratio. The
flow periods with valid samples will be identified. The
correction is easily made with an EOS. The relative effect of
changing separator conditions can accurately described with
this calculation. The derived GOR for the valid flows will be
corrected back to the actual pressure and temperature during
the sampling to give the recombination ratio for the
identified sample set. This procedure quantifies the
uncertainty in the measured gas oil ratio, which also can be
translated into the uncertainty for each single component of
the recombined composition11. Sample sets should be taken
from more than one flow.
The liquid flow rate is measured by meter. The true
mechanical meter factor will change with the production
rate and a new meter calibration run should be performed
for each flow. The rate dependence of the meter factor
should be established based on an analysis of all calibration
runs. About 35 m3/d will be the lower limit ( 2" Floco
meter). Below this value the uncertainty in the liquid rate
will be large and strongly influence the measured gas-oil
ratio. Testing of lean gas condensates will often require
other means for measurement of the condensate production
rate. Gauge tank measurement will not provide the
necessary accuracy. The separation process will also be
different from the flow through the meter giving different
shrinkage. In this case the best method will be the use of
isokinetic split stream sampling at well head.
All test separators will have an upper gas capacity limit.
At higher gas rates a fraction of the condensate inflow will
be lost through the separator gas outlet. The entrained liquid
starts to be significant for the measured condensate-gas ratio
when the separator efficiency is reduced below 97 %. The
separator efficiency is defined as the ratio between the
condensate collected in the separator and the total
condensate feed in at the operating conditions. For the

SPE 69427

A SYSTEMATIC APPROACH TO SAMPLING DURING WELL TESTING

standard test separator (42" x 10') this efficiency level is

passed at a gas production rate of about 10.000 m3/d11.
This is the actual gas rate at the operating pressure and
temperature of the test separator. Demistors will have little
effect on this capacity limit. The entrainment is caused by
very small droplets and by secondary droplet generation in
the demistor due to flooding. It will not be practical to
increase the size of the test separator to completely prevent
liquid entrainment. Larger separators and cyclon separators
will give a higher capacity before the carry-over starts be
significant, but not sufficient to secure a correct condensate
rates without correcting for the liquid lost through the gas
outlet. Service companies claim too optimistic capacity
limits for their separators. It is obvious that a correct fluid
description will not be possible for higher gas rates without
an independent measurement of the entrainment rate.
The separator efficiency can be measured by an
isokinetic probe inserted in the separator gas outlet. The
conditions are very favourable for this measurement at the
conditions with reduced separator efficiency through small
droplets, high velocity and large void. It is very likely that
the method not will succeed in obtaining a representative
split stream sample at low flow rates. However, at low flow
rates the separator is close to 100 % efficient and the amount
of entrained liquid in the outlet gas insignificant. The
method is self-regulating in the sense that the conditions that
are favourable for split stream sampling also are those that
reduce the separator performance. Several methods can be
used to determine the condensate content of the isokinetic
sample. The method must be able to distinguish between
condensate and water. Both will be present in the separator
gas outlet flow.
The separator gas rate is measured with an orifice. This
measurement will be influenced by entrained liquid and will
result in an over-reading of the gas rate when the
entrainment rate is high. It is the entrainment rate or the void
fraction that determine the error in the reading and not the
separator efficiency11. However, the measured efficiency
can be used to correct the gas rate from the orifice readings,
Figure 8. The decision flow for DST sampling of gas
condensates is presented in Figure 9.
Split stream sampling at wellheads
This method is superior to the test separator when testing
lean gas condensates16, Figure 7. Low well head
temperatures can create reduce the representativety of
samples taken at the separator. Wax precipitation may affect
the samples and producing in the hydrate region will require
injection of inhibitors. A heater before the production choke
will not eliminate the need for hydrate inhibitors in deep
water wells. The problem is larger for gas condensates than
for oils due to the lower heat content of the flow and the
higher wax formation temperatures. If the use of hydrate
inhibitors can not be avoided glycols should be chosen over
methanol due to the much lower solubility for hydrocarbons.
The method was originally developed as a one point
measurement of the condensate-gas ratio with the capability
of taking samples with accurate pressure and temperature
control3,4. A mixing manifold is used to break the annular
flow and to distribute the liquid droplets homogeneously
over the cross section at the sampling point. The method has

been improved by using a traversing sampling probe that for

the droplet and velocity distribution. The traversing probe
should be used for gas rates below 500.000 Sm3/d11.
Condensate-gas ratio measurements by split stream
sampling at the wellhead can with advantage also be used
where the test separator has the sufficient accuracy. It will
provide an independent measurement of the producing
condensate-gas ratio and thereby a better base for
determination of the correct value for the reservoir fluid.
This sampling and measurement technique consist of small
and easy installed units and can also be used instead of the
test separator provided gas is present as the continuous
phase at the well head.
Conclusion
To base PVT properties used for field developments and
reservoir management solely on samples obtained by WFT
may be costly even though they may look attractive from a
cost perspective in the exploration phase. The use of oil
based mud will always give contamination in the WFT
samples. They may provide adequate samples for oil and
some near critical systems from formations with good
permeability, but should not be used for gas condensates as
the only source for fluid data. WFT samples will provide
very useful information for planning the sampling program
during the following drill stem test. Analytical capability
should exist on site to evaluate the quality of the sample and
type of reservoir fluid.
Bottom hole sampling is the preferred sampling method
for undersaturated oils, near critical fluids and rich gas
condensates. The capability of maintaining the sample at the
bottom hole pressure may prevent precipitation and
eliminate errors in the sample transfer.
Representative samples of gas condensates and saturated
reservoir fluids are most likely obtained from the test
separator. At flow rates above 10.000 m3/d at separator
conditions the liquid entrainment in the separator gas should
be measured in order to correct for carry over. In the case of
reduced separator performance the measured gas rate should
be corrected for the over-reading due to the entrainment.
Condensate flow rates below 35 m3/d has to be measured
with an alternative method to the Floco-meter.
Isokinetic split stream sampling at the well head
provides an attractive alternative to the test separator
sampling. It should be the preferred method for lean systems
producing with high gas rates.
References
1.

Fevang, O; Whitson, C.H; Accurate Insitu Composistions in

Petroleum Reservoirs, SPE 28829 (1994)

2.

de Boer, R.B; Leerlooyer, K; Eigner, M; van Bergen, A.R.D;

Screening of Crude Oils for Asphaltene Precipitation
SPE 24193 (1992)

3.

Dixon, A.G; Erbell, H.K; Hydrocarbon Fluid Evaluation for

Hydrocarbon Components, Gas Quality, Elsevier Science
Publishers, 579-588 (1986)

4.

Nautilus Ventures B.V.; Thornton Minilab and Well Head

Sampling, 131083 (1983)

BJRN DYBDAHL, HANS PETTER HJERMSTAD

5.

Witt, C.J; Crombie, A; Vaziri, S; A Comparison of Wireline

and Drillstem Test Fluid Samples from a Deepwater GasCondensate Exploration Well, SPE 56714 (1999)

6.

Nederveen, N; Washington, G.V; Bastra, F.H ; Wet Gas Flow

Measurement, SPE 19077 (1989)

7.

Petrotech A/S; Use of Sampling Apparatus for a Calibration

Electronic Massflow Meters in Pipeline US Patent P 6186
5894080

8.

9.

Konopczynski, M.R; de Leeuw, H; Large-Scale Application

of Wet-Gas Metering at the Oman Upstream LNG Project
SPE 63119 (2000)
Petrotech A/S;Method and Apparatus for Isokinetic Fluid
Sampling UK Patent P 5855 2299167

10. Petrotech A/S;A Device for Positioning of a Trottle/Mixing

Body UK Patent P 5952 2301297
11. Hjermstad, H.P; The Significance of the Test Separator
Efficiency in Testing of Volatile Oil and Gas/Condensate
Wells, Lerkendal Petroleum Engineering workshop,
Trondheim Feb. 5-6, 1992

SPE 69427

12. Michaels, J; Moody, J; Shwe, T; Wireline Fluid Samplin SPE

30610 (1995)
13. Smits, A.R; Fincher, D.V.; Nishida, Katsuhiko; Mullins,
O.C.; Schroeder,R.J.; Yamate, Tsutomu; In-Situ Optical Fluid
Analysis as an Aid to Wireline Formation Sampling, SPE
26496 (1995)
14. van Dusen, A; Williams, S; Fadnes, F.H; Irvine-Fortescue, J;
Determination of Hydrocarbon Properties by Optical Analysis
during Wireline Fluid Sampling, SPE 63252 (2000)
15. Turner, R.G; Hubbard, M.G; Dukler, A.E; Analysis and
Prediction of Minimum Flow Rates for the Continuous
Removal of Liquids from Gas Wells, J. Pet. Tech. Trans.
AIME, 246 (1969)
16. Towler, B.F; Reservoir Engineering Aspects of Bottomhole
Sampling of Saturated Oils for PVT analysis, SPE 19438
(1989)
17. Brummens, H.Field Experience with Gas Condensate Well
Testing without a Test Separator SPE One-day seminar,
Bergen March 23, 1999

SPE 69427

A SYSTEMATIC APPROACH TO SAMPLING DURING WELL TESTING

Figures & Tables

Reservoir fluid density (g/cc)

0.55

0.50

Oil
0.45

Gas Condensate

0.40

0.35
200

400

600

800

Pressure (bar)

Figure 1. Fluid type identification from the density at reservoir conditions

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
10

100

Permeability (mD)

Figure 2. OBM contamination in WFT samples versus log permeability

(CGR = 100 85 Sm3/Sm3, Pumped volume =10 liter)

1000

BJRN DYBDAHL, HANS PETTER HJERMSTAD

CVD
30
4 mole-% OBM
25
20
2 mole % OBM
15
10
0 mole % OBM
5
0
0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Pressure (bar)

Figure 3. Calculated effect of OBM contamination on the liquid drop out during CVD on a North Sea Gas Condensate
(the contamination is given relative to reservoir fluid sample)

SPE 69427

SPE 69427

A SYSTEMATIC APPROACH TO SAMPLING DURING WELL TESTING

S a m pling b y W ire L ine F o rm a tio n T e s te rs (W F T )

Logging

P res s ure,
T em perature

F luid T ype,
S aturation P res .

P res s ure
G radient

P oros ity,
Hole Q uality

M ud
W BM , O BM

WFT
P lan

S am pling

QC
G O R, D ens ity, O BM , P sat

N ew S am ple

D ec is ion

S am ple O K

D S T S am pling
Figure 4. Decision flow diagram of planning, sampling and evaluation of reservoir fluid samples from wireline formation testers

10

BJRN DYBDAHL, HANS PETTER HJERMSTAD

SPE 69427

Table 1. CGR versus flowing bottom hole pressure for a gas condensate (Pi = 358 bar, Psat = 247 bar based on the average CGR)

Flow
period

Pressure
bottom hole
bar
150.7
115.7
195.4
158.3

Sampling
Max
MF 1
MF 2

CGR
20 bar, 25 C
m3/KSm3
28.4
28.8
29.3
31.1

St. Dev.
CGR
%
5.3
6.7
10.8
7.8

D S T S a m pling - O il

W FT

N ear c rit. fluid

N ature of
Res ervoir
F luid

O il

P s at < P b h

P s at

P s at ~ P i

G as c ond.
M ethod

P s at < P w h
Bottom Hole
S am ple

W ell Head
S am ple

Figure 5. Decision flow diagram for DST sampling of a reservoir oil (Psat= saturation pressure,
Pbh=flowing bottom hole pressure, Pwh=flowing well head pressure, Pi=Reservoir pressure)

S eparator
S am ple

SPE 69427

A SYSTEMATIC APPROACH TO SAMPLING DURING WELL TESTING

D S T S a m pling - N e a r C ritic a l F luid

W FT

O il

N ature of
Res ervoir
F luid

N ear Crit. F luid

P s at < P b h

P sat

P s at ~ P i

G as c ond.
M eth o d

Bottom Hole
S am ple

S eparator
S am ple

P s at < P w h

W ell Head
S am ple

Figure 6. Decision flow diagram for DST sampling of a critical fluid (Psat= saturation pressure,
Pbh=flowing bottom hole pressure, Pwh=flowing well head pressure, Pi=Reservoir pressure)

11

12

BJRN DYBDAHL, HANS PETTER HJERMSTAD

Error in measured GOR (%)

30
20
10
Test Sep.
MultiSplit

0
-10
-20
-30
0

500

1000

1500

2000

Gas Rate (Sm3/d)

Thousands

Figure 7. Comparison between isokinetic split stream GOR measurements (Multisplit) and the value
obtained from the test separator (31 individual flows, Test separator GOR +- 13.5 % Multisplit GOR +- 5.5 %)

Gas Rate Correction-factor

1.00

0.25 m3/KSm3

0.95

0.50 m3/KSm3

0.90

0.85
1.00 m3/KSm3
1.25 m3/KSm3

0.80

0.75
70

80

90

100

Separator Efficiency (%)

Figure 8. Gas rate correction factor due to condensate entrainment as a function of separator
efficiency and CGR in separator outlet gas

SPE 69427

SPE 69427

A SYSTEMATIC APPROACH TO SAMPLING DURING WELL TESTING

13

D S T S a m pling - G a s C o nde ns a te

W FT

N atur of
res ervoir
fluid

G as Condens ate

O il

Crit. F luid

Qo

< 35 1

> 35

S m 3 /d

Qg
< 10000

S plit s tream
at w ell head

m /d @
P s, T s

T es t S eparator

1
2

) 2 " F loc o m eter

) S andard tes t s eparator 42" x 10' (1440 ps i)

Figure 9. Decision flow diagram for DST sampling of a gas condensate

> 10000

Is okinetic
m eas urem ent
s ep. effic ienc y