SPWLA 45th Annual Logging Symposium, June 6-9, 2004
FORMATION TESTING
IN THE DYNAMIC DRILLING ENVIRONMENT
Mark Proett, Halliburton Energy Services, Douglas Seifert, Saudi Aramco,
Wilson Chin, Solveig Lysen and Paul Sands, Halliburton Energy Services
Copyright 2004, held jointly by the Society of Petrophysicists and
Well Log Analysts (SPWLA) and the submitting authors.
th
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPWLA 45 Annual
Logging Symposium held in Noordwijk, The Netherlands, June 6–9,
2004.
ABSTRACT
Formation Testers While Drilling (FTWD) tools have
recently been introduced and offer an alternative to
wireline testing. Several questions remain regarding
the accuracy and repeatability of these measurements.
First, the drilling environment is dynamic with
hydrostatic pressure constantly changing. Some
FTWD tools offer the capability to perform pressure
tests with the mud pumps on or off. Invasion and the
resultant supercharge effect can also be factors
affecting FTWD measurements. The emphasis of this
paper is to consider these factors through forward
modeling methods as well as field examples.
Several forward models are developed in this
paper. The simplest assumes single phase invasion
where the mudcake buildup is loosely coupled to the
filtrate invasion. The second is a two-component
fluid model where the mud filtrate invades and
displaces the formation fluid. The third is a
multiphase finite difference model that considers
miscible and immiscible invasion that also couples
mudcake growth to invasion.
Invasion can result in FTWD or Wireline
Formation Testers’ (WFT) pressure measurements
being elevated above formation pressure. This creates
a supercharging effect as a result of mud filtrate
invasion increasing the sandface pressure just behind
the mudcake. A time lapse technique is used that
enables the FTWD tool to estimate the mudcake
properties and invasion rate. This information can be
used in conjunction with the simulators to determine
the supercharge magnitude.
Pressures in the borehole are constantly changing
due to several factors. It is usually desirable to keep
the mud pumps on while testing to avoid hole
deterioration and pipe sticking. Slower hydrostatic
1
pressure changes can also occur due to drill pipe
movement causing a swabbing effect. These pressure
transients can be transmitted through the mudcake
and into the formation. The magnitude of these
pressure transients are simulated using the forward
modeling methods developed in this paper.
Field data from the new GeoTAP* tool are
presented to demonstrate the practicality of FTWD.
The new tool requires the drill pipe to stop
rotating/sliding for about 7 minutes per pressure test.
During this time the pumps can be turned on or off.
The field example demonstrates the robustness of the
measurement. The field example included three
repeat pressure tests taken at three different depth
points where, in each case, the pressures recorded
were within a few psi of each other. Final
conclusions are drawn regarding FTWD technology
and its future direction.
N
INTRODUCTION
When wireline formation testers (WFT) were
introduced decades ago there was a debate in the
industry about the significance of these pressure
measurements. How did they compare to well testing
results and could they be relied on for formation
evaluation? After many years and a number of
improvements in WFT technology, the tables have
turned; and WFT pressure measurements are now
considered the standard for formation evaluation.
One of the contributing factors is the consistent
manner in which wireline formation tests are
conducted as opposed to production or drill stem
testing where procedures and equipment can vary
widely. Also, wireline tests can be repeated many
times over a zone of interest and the pressures used to
determine fluid gradients and flow barriers. More
recently, WFT tools are being viewed as replacement
for DST and production testing. WFT tools are
inexpensive, safer, and have improved ability to
obtain clean samples and to estimate permeability
* A mark of Halliburton Energy Services
SPWLA 45th Annual Logging Symposium, June 6-9, 2004
(Proett, et al., 2000).
With the introduction of FTWD tools a new
debate has begun about the significance of these
tools’ pressure measurements. How do they compare
to wireline measurements and can they be relied on
for formation evaluation? This debate centers on the
fact that FTWD tools can take measurements much
sooner in the life of a well in a potentially more
dynamic environment. Invasion has always been a
concern in all types of pressure testing, but FTWD
pressure measurements have brought these concerns
into focus.
Invasion simulations and their effects on
formation pressures have been subject to increased
interest in the last decade. The primary efforts have
been directed to wireline sampling and, to some
degree, to pressure testing. Most papers dealing with
this problem use detailed numerical simulators to
study these effects (Wu, et al., 2001, Proett, et al.,
2002). While these analyses can produce useful
results, they are usually cumbersome to use and, as a
result, are not routinely used for day-to-day
evaluation of formation tester data.
It is the objective of this paper to develop a range
of methods to analyze pressure tests for the effects of
invasion and supercharging. The first two are
analytical and consider single and multi-component
fluid invasion. These methods are closed form
solutions and can be used for spreadsheet analysis.
The analytical solutions can yield a first order
estimate that in many cases is adequate to evaluate
the conditions where supercharging can be
significant.
A detailed finite element simulator that is
optimized for detailed invasion analysis is introduced
with this paper. This simulator can be used for either
miscible or immiscible invasion. The mudcake is also
simulated as with the analytical models but in this
case is tightly coupled to the invasion process.
The emphasis of these simulators is to predict the
dynamic pressure changes that can occur during
openhole drilling operations. These dynamic pressure
changes affect not only FTWD tools but WFT
measurements.
Log examples are used to illustrate how FTWD
tools perform and are compared to the predictions.
Repeat pressure measurements are presented where
2
pressure stability is studied over several days of
FTWD testing.
PRESSURE STABILITY IN THE DRILLING
ENVIRONMENT
Pressure variations near the wellbore are primarily
influenced by mud filtrate invasion and mudcake
formation. Considerable progress has been made in
understanding how mudcakes form and influence the
near wellbore pressure stability (Wu, et al., 2001;
Dewan, et al., 2000; Sharma and Jiao, 1994). Based
on this research, miscible and immiscible multiphase
simulators have been developed that predict the
filtrate invasion for OBM and WBM (Chin, 2002). In
reviewing this work, it is apparent that, even though
the problem is complex, it is possible to make
simplifying assumptions and still obtain a reasonable
estimate of the near wellbore pressures.
In order to control production of formation fluids
into the wellbore, wellbore pressure is normally
maintained at a pressure substantially greater than the
formation pore pressure. When a producing zone is
penetrated, the wellbore sandface is exposed to
hydrostatic pressure and filtrate immediately invades
the near wellbore. Mudcake is formed when drilling
fluid flows into the formation and solids are
deposited on the surface of the wellbore. This process
is normally referred to as static filtration. As the
mudcake grows it eventually stabilizes to a maximum
thickness. Stabilization is a result of the shearing
action of the mud circulation in the annulus as well as
mechanical action of the rotating drill pipe. This
process is referred to as dynamic filtration. During
these processes a pressure gradient is established in
the formation (see Fig. 1). The pressure in the
wellbore near the surface of the mudcake is at
hydrostatic (Pmh) but drops rapidly across the
mudcake and then gradually reduces in the formation,
approaching formation pressure (Pf) some distance
away from the wellbore. The supercharge pressure
(Psc) can be defined as the difference between
sandface pressure (Pss) and formation pressure (Pf).
Single Phase Supercharge Model.
Assuming single phase Darcy flow, the supercharge
pressure can be predicted using the familiar radial
flow equations for an infinite homogeneous reservoir.
 SPWLA 45th Annual Logging Symposium, June 6-9, 2004

⎡ q µ ⎤ ⎡ 4k f t ⎤ Eq. 3 can be reduced to a simpler form so that the

∆Psc = Pss − Pf = ⎢ m ⎥ ln ⎢ 2⎥
(1) effect that these non-dimensional parameters have
⎢⎣ 4πhk f ⎥⎦ ⎣ γφµcrw ⎦ can be studied.

τ Dmc
p Dsc (t ) = ln(t D ) (7)
2
The dimensionless supercharge pressure pDsc is
the relative degree of supercharging normalized to
the apparent overbalance. The apparent overbalance
∆Pob is the difference between hydrostatic mud
pressure and the sandface pressure. The term pDsc is
the ratio of the actual supercharge ∆Psc to the
apparent overbalance ∆Pob which can be measured
using a formation tester.
Dimensionless time tD determines the transient
response of the supercharging. Its definition is the
Fig. 1—Supercharge effect where hydrostatic pressure same as that used for transient well testing.
and filtration loss cause the sandface pressure Pss to be
The mudcake transmissibility ratio τDmc is the
elevated above formation pressure Pf.
most important dimensionless constant because it
Assuming the mudcake is relatively thin determines the overall supercharge effect based on
compared to the wellbore diameter (i.e., lmc << rw), the mudcake and formation properties. It is a
the flow through the mudcake can be modeled as a measure of the relative resistance to filtrate invasion
linear Darcy flow with the pressure differential from the mudcake versus the formation resistance. If
between the borehole mud hydrostatic (Pmh) and the the transmissibility ratio is small, the mudcake
sandface supercharge pressure (Pss) creating the mud dominates the filtrate invasion and supercharging is
filtrate loss (qm). small. If the transmissibility ratio is large, invasion is N
primarily influenced by the formation; and
2πrw hk mc
qm = ( Pmh − Pss ) (2) supercharging is relatively high.
µ l mc
Now using Equations 1 and 2, an expression for Dynamic Mudcake Growth Model. Two primary
the supercharge pressure can be determined in terms models exist for predicting mudcake growth. The
of the hydrostatic pressure and sandface supercharge most general model was developed for radial flow by
pressure as well as the formation and mud properties. Chin (2002).
⎛ ⎛ lmc ⎞ 1 ⎞ 1
2
r k ⎡ 4k f t ⎤ 1 ⎛ lmc ⎞
∆Psc = ( Pmh − Pss ) w mc ln ⎢ ⎥ (3) ⎜1 − ⎟⎟ ⎜ ln⎜1 − ⎟ − ⎟ +
2l mc k f ⎣ γφµcrw2 ⎦ 2 ⎜⎝ rw ⎠ ⎜ ⎜
⎝ ⎝ rw ⎟⎠ 2 ⎟⎠ 4
(8)
Using the following non-dimensional parameters, k λ ∆P t
Pss − Pf
= mc mc 2 mc
∆Psc µ rw
p Dsc = = (4)
∆Pob Pmh − Pss The derivation of Eq. 8 assumed that mudcake
4k f t differential ∆Pm was constant, but it is not limited to
tD = (5)
γφµcrw2 this constraint. As a mudcake forms, the pressure
differential changes. In this case the integral
rw k mc ∫ ∆Pm(t)dt would simply appear in place of ∆Pmt. In
τ Dmc = (6)
lmc k f this general form, Eq. 8 can be used as a boundary
condition for a multiphase reservoir model where the

3
SPWLA 45th Annual Logging Symposium, June 6-9, 2004

mudcake growth is coupled to the filtrate invasion
(Proett, et al., 2000).
Now, by assuming the mudcake is small relative
to the wellbore radius (i.e., lmc /rw→ 0), it can be
shown that Eq. 15 can be reduced to the following
simpler expression.
2k mc λmc ∆Pmct
lmc (t ) =
µ assumes a mudcake of 0.5 cm was formed instantly
This equation is the well-known lineal filtration
model where the filter cake grows with the square
root of time. It can be shown that the √t
approximation is quite satisfactory for values of
lmc/rw < 0.20; the error is less than 7% (Chin, 2002).
This conclusion applies to radial and linear mudcake
buildup but does not apply to cake buildup on
formations where the mudcake and formation have
comparable permeabilities. Fortunately, the later
situation is rarely the case for most producing zones;
and Eq. 17 is a reasonable short-hand method to
estimate mudcake growth.
The linear mudcake model can be incorporated
into the general supercharge equation, Eq. 7, by
applying superposition to the incremental time
periods used to predict the mudcake growth.
p Dsc (t ) =
1 n
2 i =1
[
∑ ( Ai − Ai−1 ) ln(t D − t D (i−1) )
Where:
Ai = τ Dmc (t i )
This model assumes that the supercharged pressure is
loosely coupled to the mudcake growth.
Assuming that we know the formation pressure,
the following relationship can be developed to predict
supercharging.
Pf + p Dsc Pmh
∆Psc = − Pf
1 + p Dsc
Single Phase Supercharge Base Example. A
base example was chosen to illustrate the supercharge
effect with invasion time using the variables shown
in Table 1. The base example has an overbalance of
1000 psi combined with a formation permeability of
1 md; and, as Fig. 2 illustrates, there are considerable
dynamic supercharge effects. The supercharge
pressure increases rapidly at the very early time
periods and then peaks as the mud cake grows and
chokes off the invasion. This early invasion spurt
occurs in less than a minute after the formation is
exposed to the mud hydrostatic pressure. Then the
supercharge pressure declines as the mudcake grows
to its maximum thickness of 0.5 cm (0.2-in.). At this
point the pressure starts to increase at a slow rate and
approaches the dashed line showing the results for
(9) the static mudcake model. The static mudcake model
when the wellbore was exposed to hydrostatic
pressure. This curve was calculated using Eq. 3, and
the mudcake thickness is constant. Otherwise, the
mudcake would continue to grow, and the
supercharge pressure would decline at a reduced rate.
This simulation demonstrates that supercharge
pressures predominately decrease when the mudcake
is growing and increase at a reduced rate when the
mudcake has stabilized. In this case, the mudcake
stops growing after 30 minutes of invasion. The
transition from static to dynamic filtration is probably
smoother than the modeling results show because the
model assumes an abrupt stop in the mudcake
growth. This change in the mudcake growth tends to
stabilize the supercharge effect. In fact, from 30
minutes to 1000 minutes (17 hours) the pressure
changes about 3 psi. Because of the position of the
] (10)
tool in the string 30 minutes is probably the minimum
time that it would be possible to perform a pressure
test.
Table 1—Supercharge Base Example
(11) Sensitivity variable Units Base
Formation permeability kf (md) 1.0
Formation porosity φ 0.25
Formation & filtrate
µ (cp) 1.0
viscosity
Compressibility c (1/psi) 3x10-6
Mudcake permeability kmc (md) 0.0001
Mudcake compaction mc 10.0
Mudcake max thickness lmc (cm) 0.5
(12)
∆Pob (psi)
Overbalance pressure 1000
Wellbore radius rw (cm) 10.0
Formation Permeability Sensitivity. By varying
the permeability from 0.01 to 10 md from the base
example, the curves in Fig. 3 were determined. As in
Fig. 2, the solid lines represent the dynamic mudcake
growth model and the dashed lines for mudcake with
constant thickness. These examples clearly show that
lower-permeability-formation pressure tests can be

4
 SPWLA 45th Annual Logging Symposium, June 6-9, 2004

heavily influenced by invasion and supercharging. pressure is that a formation tester probe can introduce
While this conclusion is well known, in practice it an error. The probe introduces a disturbance to the
has been difficult to easily quantify. The examples invasion which distorts the sandface pressure slightly
show that supercharge would be less than 1 psi in (see Fig. 4). The pad element can block mud seepage
zones greater that 10 md. These examples have an around the probe and cause a disturbance. This
overbalance of 1,000 psi, which would be considered disturbance is related to the velocity of the filtrate in
high. Normally, overbalance is less than 500 psi. the near wellbore region:
qm kf
vm = = ( Pss − Pbu ) (13)
70 0.6
2πrw h λe re µ
Dynamic Mudcake Growth Model (psi)

The packer element shape factor λe is a local

60
0.5

geometric correction accounting for non-spherical

Supercharge Pressure (∆Pss)

50

Mudcake Thickness (cm)

Mudcake Thickness (cm)
0.4
effects and can be determined both analytically and
40

0.3
numerically (Proett, et al., 1996). The analytical
30 solution for potential flow around a circular flat disk
0.2
can be used, which suffices for simple estimates.
20
Alternatively, finite element simulations can be used
10
0.1 to determine this shape factor which can consider the
well bore curvature.
Static Mudcake Model (psi)
0 0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Time (minutes)

Fig. 2—Base example of supercharge effect using the

variables from Table 1. The dynamic mudcake growth Packer element directs mud
model shows pressure increasing rapidly after exposure filtrate flow around probe
to hydrostatic pressure and as the mudcake grows the
pressure decreases. The static model shown with the
dashed line illustrates how the supercharge pressure
Pbu - sandface build pressure
lower than actual Pss
N
would increase if the mudcake were formed instantly.

1000 Pss - actual sandface

k=0.01 supercharge pressure
Pmh - mud hydrostatic pressure

k=0.1
Supercharge Pressure (psi)

100

k=1.0
Fig. 4 — The sandface buildup pressure Pbu is actually
10
somewhat lower than the undisturbed sandface
pressure Pss because of the shielding action of the
k=10.0 packer element.

1
1 10 100 1000 10000
Introduction of this relationship, along with Eqs.
Invasion Time (min) 1 and 2, defines the measured dimensionless
supercharge pressure pDsm in terms of the measured
Fig. 3 — Supercharge sensitivity to formation
buildup pressure Pbu and the mud hydrostatic
permeability. The dynamic mudcake model results are
shown with solid lines and the static mudcake model in pressure Pmh
dashed lines. The dynamic results approach the static
∆Psc Pss − Pf
results when mudcake growth stops. The supercharge p Dsm = = (14)
effect is reduced to less than 1 psi when the formation ∆Pmob Pmh − Pbu
permeability is greater the 10 md.
1 ⎛ τ Dmc ⎞
p Dsm (t ) = ⎜⎜ ⎟ ln (t D )
2 ⎝ 1 + τ Dmc rDre ⎟⎠
Formation Tester Measurements. An additional (15)
complication to the measurement of sandface

5
SPWLA 45th Annual Logging Symposium, June 6-9, 2004
where ∆Pmob is the overbalance determined using the
wireline buildup pressure and rDre is the
dimensionless constant for the packer element.
λe re
rDre =
rw
The packer element dimensionless radius rDre
determines the relative degree that the measured
sandface buildup pressure Pbu deviates from the
actual sandface or supercharged pressure Pss. It is
primarily dominated by geometric constraints of the
system and not influenced by mudcake or formation
properties.
Now, using the ∆Pmob measured by the
formation tester, the supercharge can be determined
from Eqs. 14 and 15, and then formation pressure,
using Eq. 12.
⎛ 1 + p Dsc ⎞
Pf = Pmh − ∆Psc ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟
⎝ p Dsc ⎠
180
160
140
Supercharge Pressure (psi)
120
100 Formation Tester
Measured Pressures
80
60
40
20
0 that mudcakes form. This relationship is illustrated in
0.1 1 10
Fig. 5—Formation tester measurement deviation from
sandface pressure for a 0.1 md formation. The
difference declines to less than 1 psi when the
maximum mudcake thickness is reached at the curve
inflection points. For permeabilities greater than 1 md,
the difference is less than 1 psi.
In most cases, the difference between the
sandface pressure and the buildup pressure measured
by the formation tester is small. Even at low
formation permeabilities (i.e., < 0.1 md) the
difference is usually less than 1 psi after about 10
minutes of invasion (see Fig. 5).
Mudcake Properties. Mudcake properties can be
determined from a static filtration press, originally
designed by P.H. Jones, and has long been used to
Sandface Pressure k=0.1 md Example
Static Mudcake Model (psi)
100
Invasion Time (min)
characterize static mudcake growth (Jones, 1937).
Since its inception, similar devices have been
developed to measure filtration properties at wellbore
temperatures and pressures. The mudcake
permeability properties, kmc, and the compaction
(16)
factor, λmc, that appears in Eqs. 18 and 19 can be
measured from the static filtration press as follows
(Dewan, et al., 2000; Sharma and Jiao, 1994).
lmc (t ) fs
λmc = = (18)
h(t ) (1 − f s )(1 − φmc )
⎛ kmc ⎞ lmc (t ) h(t )
⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ = (19)
⎝ µ ⎠ 2t ∆p
The quantities lmc(t) and h(t) are the measured
mudcake thickness and filtrate fluid height,
respectively, at time t while maintaining a constant
differential pressure ∆p across a filter used to grow
the mudcake. The mudcake compaction factor
(17)
(Eq. 18) is a dimensionless parameter that can be
related to the porosity φmc and the solid fraction fs of
the “mud.” This relationship was developed
considering the filtration of a fluid suspension of
solid particles by a porous but rigid mudcake. While
mudcakes may not behave as ideal solutions with
solid particles, the compaction factor is a measured
property that characterizes the mudcake growth in
downhole conditions. Additionally, this test is run
routinely to test mudcakes in the drilling process and
data is normally available.
The compaction factor primarily relates to the rate
1000 10000
Fig. 6 where an increase in the compaction factor
increases the mudcake growth rate and reduces
supercharging. For low values for the compaction
factor, the mudcake can continue to grow for days
after invasion starts. More dynamic effects would be
seen during pressure testing. The case shown is for a
1 md zone. A higher permeability would show a
reduced dynamic effect (see Fig. 3).
Mudcake permeability also plays a key role in
invasion and supercharging, as shown in Fig. 7. Here
the mudcake permeability is changed from the base
case, and the results show supercharge changes
nearly proportional to the mudcake changes. This
figure clearly shows the importance that the mudcake
plays in obtaining accurate formation pressures either
for FTWD or WFT tools.
6
 SPWLA 45th Annual Logging Symposium, June 6-9, 2004

Pumps On and Swabbing. Pumps on operation Then, to simulate swabbing, the overbalance is
are common in FTWD testing so that data can be increased linearly. A development similar to the
transmitted to the surface in real-time. Furthermore, supercharging model provides a modified form of Eq.
pumps-on helps prevent pipe sticking. Having the 10 that can appropriately simulate sandface pressures.
pumps on can produce pressure pulses in the However, for this modification, mudcake is constant;
wellbore as high as 100 psi at a 1Hz frequency. and A varies as follows.
⎛ τ Dmc ⎞ G ti
Ai = ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ sin( 2π f ti ) + (20)
⎝ 1 + rDreτ Dmc ⎠ ∆Pob
1000
λmc=0.1

λmc=1.0 Using a mud pulse frequency of 1 Hz for f and a

linear gradient of 5 psi/min for G, Fig. 8 shows the
Supercharge Pressure (psi)

100
λmc=10
results for the probe pressure fluctuations over a 10
λmc=100 second time period. This simulation used the same
input variables as the supercharge base case
10
presented previously (Table 1). Pressures vary as
much as ± 0.3 psi due to pressure pulses, and there is
a gradual increase in pressure of less than 0.1 psi over
1 10 seconds.
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Invasion Time (min)

0.5
Fig. 6—The mudcake compaction λmc influences the rate
0.4
the mudcake is formed. As the compaction factor
Probe Sandface Pressure Variations (psi)

increases the cake is formed more rapidly, thus 0.3

reducing the supercharge pressures. 0.2

0.1
100
0

kmc= 1.0 µ darcy -0.1

N
-0.2
Supercharge Pressure (psi)

-0.3
kmc= 0.1 µ darcy

-0.4

10
-0.5
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Time (sec)

kmc= 0.01 µ darcy

1
1 10 100
Invasion Time (min)
Fig. 7—The mudcake permeability influences the
magnitude of the supercharge as well as the rate at
which the mudcake is formed.
Additional hydrostatic variations can be produced
due to the swabbing action of the drill pipe. When
depth changes are made the friction of the pipe can
create a pressure dynamic. The pipe movement can
create hydrostatic pressure changes of as much as 50
psi over the duration of a pressure test. To single out
and observe these pressure fluctuations, we can
assume the constant mudcake thickness model. We
also assume that the overbalance varies sinusoidally.
Fig. 8 Probe pressure variations considering a 100 psi
mud pulse at 1 Hz in the presence of an increasing
hydrostatic pressure of 5 psi/min.
1000 10000
Because quartz gauges average data between
updates, the mud pulses are sufficiently small such
that they may not be observed. Also, depending on
the length of time that swabbing continues, these
pressure changes could be muted as well. The
magnitude of these pressure changes depends on the
mudcake transmissibility ratio, much like the
supercharging. Therefore, if the permeability of the
formation increases above 1 md, these borehole
dynamic effects should be well isolated from the
FTWD testing.

7
SPWLA 45th Annual Logging Symposium, June 6-9, 2004

MULITPHASE INVASION By incrementing the invasion depth rin and then

solving for time, these equations determine an
Here we investigate a new model for radial invasion
invasion history. The sandface supercharge pressure
where the growth of the mudcake and position of the
is determined using the general equation for
moving invasion front are strongly coupled. The
incompressible radial flow with the following
model considers an invasion consisting of three
constants.
layers, each having unique properties. The mudcake
is assumed to have zero thickness when invasion Pss = α 2 ln (rw ) + β 2 (26)
starts (i.e., rmc = rw at t=0). Assuming piston
displacement, the invasion front can be defined as the Where:
region between rw to rin. The front radius rin also
k mc
starts at the wellbore sandface rw and grows radially α2 = α1 (27)
(i.e. rmc = rw at t=0). This invaded region can have kin
different permeabilities and viscosities from the
⎛ rw ⎞
uninvaded region between rin and the reservoir radius
β 2 = phm + α1 ln⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ − α 2 ln (rw ) (28)
rr (see Fig. 9)
⎝ rmc ⎠

α1 =
(k mc / µ mc )( pr − phm )
Phm Pss Pin Pr
k mc (µ f + k mc )
(29)
⎛ kf
⎞
⎜ ⎛ rw ⎞ in ⎛ rin ⎞ µ in2
µ ⎟
1 2 3 ln⎜ ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ ⎟
rmc ⎜ ⎝ rmc ⎠ ⎝ rw ⎠ ⎟
rw rin rr
⎝ ⎠
This moving boundary model may be compared
Fig. 9— Multi fluid moving boundary model to the previous single phase compressible model (see
Fig. 10) using the variables shown in Table 2.
As shown previously, the mudcake thickness is Additionally, a similar model can be developed
governed by the general form of Eq. 8. Assuming where the mudcake is assumed to be a constant
incompressible flow, a closed form solution for this thickness but the invasion boundary continues to
three-layered moving boundary problem has been grow (see Chin, 2002). These two models are
developed in Chin, 2002. The problem is solved in combined in Fig. 10 where the transition to constant
terms of the time it takes for the invasion front rin to mudcake thickness is reflected in the curve inflection
reach a given depth. points around 30 minutes.
φ eff R22
t= [A + B + C ] (21)
( pmh − pr ) 4 Table 2—Multi Fluid Examples
Where: Sensitivity variable Units Base

[( ) (2 ln( )− 1)− 1]
Formation permeability kf (md) 1.0
µ in rin 2 Formation porosity φeff 0.25
A=
rin
(22)
kf rw rw Mud & filtrate viscosity µmf (cp) 1.0
Formation viscosity µf (cp) 1, 3, 10

B=−
µf
kf
[( rw
) (2 ln( )− 1)− (2 ln( )− 1)]
rin 2 rin
rr
rw
rr
(23)
Mudcake permeability
Mudcake compaction
kmc (md)
mc
0.0001
10
Overbalance pressure ∆Pob (psi) 1000
µin ⎡
( ( ) )(1 − ln(D ))⎤⎥
Wellbore radius Rw (cm) 10
ln (D ) − 1 −
1 rin 2
C= ⎢ (24) Reservoir radius Rr (cm) 300
⎢⎣φeff λmc
rw
kmc ⎥⎦

( ( )) rin 2
In the first case, where the filtrate and formation
D = 1 + λmcφ eff 1 − rw
(25) viscosities are the same (i.e., µmf=µmf ), the
supercharge pressure converges to the single phase
model case after several minutes of invasion. When

8

the formation viscosity is increased, the supercharge
increases. This change is similar to the single phase
case with increased viscosity. If the mud filtrate
viscosity is reduced, the supercharge pressure is
increased in a similar manner because filtrate invades
faster.
Because the multi-fluid model does not include
compressibility affects, the dynamics of the early-
time spurt loss seen in Fig. 3 are not simulated. In
most cases, this spurt occurs in the first few minutes
of invasion and tends to dissipate quickly and may
not play an important role in estimating the pressures
recorded by formation testers. Even FTWD tools
usually cannot record pressures until at least 20
minutes after a zone has been drilled.
1000
Supercharge Pressure (psi)
100
Single Phase µf = 1
10
Constant mudcake thickness µf =1
1
0.1
Fig. 10—The solid blue line is comparable to the solid
red line where both estimate a single phase invasion
using two different modeling approaches. As the
formation viscosity increases, the supercharge pressure
increases with the results being similar to increasing
viscosity in the single phase model.
FINITE DIFFERENCE MULTI PHASE
SIMULATOR
The simulators described above for simplicity assume
single-phase flow. For rough invasion estimates and
for permeability prediction from pressure transient
analysis, these simple models often suffice. However,
they do not offer detailed information about real-
world fluid displacement processes in the reservoir,
e.g., water vs. oil, fresh vs. salty water, or oil mud vs.
reservoir oil. In other words, the simpler models are
sometimes inapplicable.
For the above problems, two mechanisms are at
work. At the basic level, the Darcy flow created by
the sucking action of the formation tester piston
SPWLA 45th Annual Logging Symposium, June 6-9, 2004
convects the fluid into the probe while mud invasion
at the sandface is occurring into the rock. If the flow
is immiscible, diffusion is based on relative
permeability and capillary pressure effects “ride”
above this convection. If the flow is miscible,
diffusion based on molecular processes is important,
e.g., high diffusion smears the diffusion front so
much that the second model of the above section no
longer applies.
An invasion pumpout simulator was therefore
developed and is used here to illustrate examples of
invasion and pumpout modeling (see Proett, et al.,
2002).
Immiscible Flow Simulator. Real-world flows
are neither purely cylindrical nor purely spherical
(elliptical if anisotropic). Formation tester pumping
while invasion is in progress requires a nonlinear
µf = 10 description of superposed flows. An immiscible flow
model was designed which solves the coupled
µf = 3
pressure and saturation equations as functions of the
µf = 1
radial “r” and vertical “z” coordinates and time “t.”
The model allows fully anisotropic, heterogeneous,
multilayer media with special sandface boundary
conditions.
The equations used in reservoir engineering for
oil and water production, to include relative N
permeability and capillary pressure effects, were
1 10 100 1000 10000 solved using an “implicit pressure, explicit
Invasion Time (min)
saturation” finite difference, time-marching scheme,
in which our special boundary conditions are used to
update pressure and saturation fields at the end of
each numerical sweep of the flow field. Example
calculations are described in this paper, however, for
brevity, qualitative results are presented without
detailed numerical input summaries to provide an
idea of general capabilities.
Miscible Flow Model. The immiscible flow
model requires inputs on relative permeability and
capillary pressure. In contrast, the miscible model
assumes molecular diffusion, although the model
allows the diffusion coefficients to differ in the r and
z directions.
An example of a numerical simulation of miscible
invasion is shown in Fig. 11. This plot illustrates
miscible cylindrical radial invasion that occurs during
drilling, and this invasion ultimately slows due to
mudcake growth. The pressures are shown on the left
hand contour plot of Fig. 11; and saturations, after 1
minute of invasion, are shown with the right hand
9
SPWLA 45th Annual Logging Symposium, June 6-9, 2004
contour plots. The left side of each figure represents
the sandface while the right side represents the
reservoir far field. Fig. 11 indicates an invasion that
is uniform with the height variable z. If gravity and
layered properties such as porosity and permeability
were considered the invasion would not be as
uniform.
Fig. 11 — Miscible cylindrical radial flow invasion.
Considering this example at 1 minute, the
formation tester is allowed to withdraw fluid in a
pumping mode. After pumping for 1 minute, Fig. 12.
shows pressure and saturation distributions. The
movement of the formation fluid into the probe is
clearly seen. Still deeper invasion is shown in
Fig. 13. at 5 minutes despite the fact the tester
continues to withdraw fluid through the probe. In
both figures, note the blue low pressure zone
associated with the probe and the high pressure red
zones in the pressure plots adjacent to the probe,
indicating continuous invasion through the sandface.
Fig. 12 — Formation tester pumping at 2 min.
Fig. 13 — Formation tester pumping at 5 min.
10
Miscible Invasion Simulations. Using the
miscible flow simulator, examples of supercharging
are presented in Fig. 14. These simulations use the
same input variables shown in Table 2. The results
are similar to those shown in Fig. 10 where a closed
form analytic model was used to model supercharge.
In both cases the overall level of supercharge
increases with viscosity of the formation fluid. The
inflection points on these curves are obvious.
Interestingly, the times associated with these
inflection points are about the same as the times for
the single phase solution and the closed form multi
phase analytic models shown earlier (Figs. 3 and 10).
This inflection point is a result of limiting the
mudcake growth which means all three models
exhibit a similar mudcake dynamic growth. Early
time supercharge pressures are higher although all
three models converge to similar results. This is
probably due to the fact that the early time invasion
front is influenced by the mud viscosity in the
numerical simulatons.
1000
µf = 10
µf = 3
µf = 1
Supercharge Pressure (psi)
100
Single Phase µf = 1
10
Constant mudcake thickness µf =1
1
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Invasion Time (min)
Fig. 14 — Multi phase simulation examples are
developed using inputs from Table 2. The solid blue line
is comparable to the solid red line where both estimate a
single phase invasion using two different modeling
approaches. As the formation viscosity increases, the
supercharge pressure increases with the results being
similar to increasing viscosity in the single phase model
and the examples shown in Fig 10.
Comparison of the single phase model to the
multi- phase models shows that they have similar
behaviors. By changing the formation permeability or
mobility in proportion to the change in the formation
viscosity, the single phase model produces results
similar to the two phase models. For example, if the
formation permeability is 1 md with a viscosity of 10
 SPWLA 45th Annual Logging Symposium, June 6-9, 2004

cp for the formation fluid, mobility is decreased The primary adjustable mudcake properties are
from 1 to 0.1 md/cp. Using 0.1 md in the single phase the mudcake permeability and the compaction factor.
model produces similar supercharge pressures to the Both affect the mudcake growth rate (see Figs. 6 and
multi-phase case. Results, however, depend basically 7). While it may not be possible to determine a
on how fast the invasion front develops and mixes unique solution for both properties, the shape of the
due to diffusion of the two phases. supercharge pressure curve can be matched and an
estimate of the supercharge magnitude can be made.
LOG EXAMPLES In the case shown in Fig. 16, there is less than 1 psi
of supercharging.
When recording pressures with FTWD tools as well
as wireline test tools, pressure changes can occur
over time. These changes are indications of the
presence of supercharging. In many cases, the
changes are small. The forgoing simulations indicate
that small changes in test pressures are a good sign
that supercharging is negligible. However, if the
changes are measurable, that is, they exceed 1 psi,
then it is possible to estimate the supercharge effect
using these time lapse measurements.
In the case of FTWD operations, pressure
measurements can be made early in the drilling
program and then while tripping out of the hole days Fig. 15— Pressure test 1 taken at X,957.8 TVD with a
later. Pressure tests can be repeated at the same final buildup pressure of 3,320 psi.
depths. An example of this is shown in
Table 3 where three repeat measurements were made
several days apart. In two of these repeat tests the
Pstop or final buildup pressure changed by 4 and 5 psi, N
respectively. In the third case the Pstop pressure
repeated.
Plots of the first repeat pressure tests are shown in
Figs 15 and 16. Based on these pressure transients,
the formation mobility was determined to be 15.0 and
13.4 md cp, respectively. This information and other
data such as the hydrostatic overbalance make it
possible to construct a time lapse plot of the
supercharge pressure using the single phase model. Fig. 16— Pressure test 1 taken at X,958.0 TVD with a
Then, by adjusting the mud properties, an estimate of final buildup pressure of 3,316 psi 3.5 days later.
supercharge pressure can be made as shown in
Fig. 17.

Table 3 GeoTap Repeat Test Examples

Test TVD Repeat Pstop Pstdev Phyds1 Phyds2 Mobility
(ft) (days) (psi) (psi) (psi) (psi) (md/cp)
1 X,957.8 3,320 2.9 4,014 4,005 15.0
2 X,958.0 3.50 3,316 <1 3,991 3,983 13.4
3 X,914.8 3,298 1.54 3,992 3,985 75.1
4 X,913.9 3.47 3,293 <1 3,971 3,964 26.0
5 X,803.5 3,508 5.88 3,934 3,925 18.1
6 X,802.1 3.45 3,508 0.63 3,916 3,909 17.3

11
SPWLA 45th Annual Logging Symposium, June 6-9, 2004

10 0.6 tested, most of the pressure tests are within this

9 Dynamic Mudcake Growth Model (psi) range. It is also noted that all the GeoTap test
8
0.5
pressures were offset in the same direction indicating
Mudcake Thickness (cm)
a systematic gauge offset. The mobilities in the two
Supercharge Pressure (∆Pss)

Mudcake Thickness (cm)

7
0.4
6
zones tested are above 400 md/cp. All of these
5
Test 1
0.3
factors provide evidence of little or no supercharging
in both sets of pressure tests.
4
0.2
3
CONCLUSIONS
2
Test 2 0.1
1
1. Supercharge estimates were made using three
0 0
different modeling techniques to demonstrate the
10 100
Time (minutes)
1000 10000 dynamic pressure environment present while
drilling.
Fig. 17— Supercharge analysis of tests 1 and 2.
2. The single phase supercharge model was
Greater pressure changes are evidence of higher compared with an analytic model and a finite
levels of supercharge. More accurate estimates of difference, multi phase model.
supercharge could be made if more time lapse
measurements are made. One such possibility is to 3. All three models exhibited similar behaviors and
make measurements with the FTWD tool and then converged with similar mudcake growth times
with a wireline tool many days after the well is and supercharge pressures after the initial spurt
drilled. loss.
4. In certain circumstances, the single phase model
2650
parameters can be adjusted to match multi phase
X000
GeoTap 10 psi behavior.
MDT
2670
X020
508 md/cp
5. A log example was used to demonstrate how the
± 317 md/cp models can be used to estimate supercharge
2690
X040
pressures when time-lapse measurements are
TVD (meters)

made.
2710
X060
6. The models show that supercharge pressures can
2730
X080 affect both wireline and FTWD tools.
461 md/cp
± 243 md/cp
Nevertheless, it is possible to obtain reliable
2750
X100 10 psi measurements in both conditions.
XX3450 XX3500 XX3550 XX3600 XX3650 XX3700 3750
XX
Pressure (psi)
REFERENCES

**
Chin, W. C., 2002, Quantitative methods in reservoir
Fig. 18— Comparison of GeoTap and MDT pressure
engineering, Gulf Professional Publishing, Elsevier
tests show that recorded pressures are within ± 5 psi.
This is considered within the accepted range of error Science USA
when comparing two different tools.
Dewan, J. T., Chenevert, M. E., and Yang, X., 2000,
Many field test examples exist where FTWD A model for filtration of water-based mud during
measurements are compared to wireline drilling I. Determination of mudcake parameters,
measurements. In most cases, the pressures compare paper presented at the 41st Annual SPWLA meeting,
within ± 5 psi. Fig. 18 is an example where GeoTap Dallas, Texas, June 4-7, 2000.
pressures are compared against an MDT tool. When Jones, P. H., 1937, Field control of drilling mud, API
comparing one tool’s pressure measurements with Drill. Prod. Prac., pp. 24-29.
another, a ±5 psi deviation is expected due to gauge
accuracy and depth control errors. For the two zones Proett, M. A., and Chin, W. C., 1996, Supercharge
pressure compensation using a new wireline testing
** A mark of Schlumberger Oil Field Services

12
 SPWLA 45th Annual Logging Symposium, June 6-9, 2004

method and newly developed early time spherical ∆Pmc mudcake pressure differential (psi)
flow model, SPE Paper 36524, presented at the 71st Pmh mud hydrostatic pressure (psi)
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition Pss sandface supercharge pressure (psi)
held in Denver, Colorado, U.S.A., 6-7 Oct., 1996. ∆Psc supercharge pressure differential (psi)
Proett, M. A., Chin, W. C., and Mandal, B. (2000) qm mud filtrate flow rate (cc/sec)
Advanced dual probe formation tester with transient, rDe dimensionless radius
harmonic, and pulsed time delay testing methods re packer element radius (cm)
determines permeability, skin, and anisotropy, paper rin invaded zone radius (cm)
SPE 64650, presented at the SPE International Oil rmc mudcake radius (cm)
and Gas Conference and Exhibition in China held in rr reservoir radius (cm)
Beijing, China, 7–10 November, 2000. rw wellbore radius (cm)
lmc mudcake maximum thickness (cm)
Proett, M. A., Chin, W. C., Wu, J. and Manohar, M., t buildup time (sec)
2002, Sample quality prediction with integrated oil tD dimensionless time
and water-based mud invasion modeling, Paper SPE σ standard deviation (psi)
77964, proceedings of the SPE Asia Pacific Oil and α1 invasion constant
Gas Conference and Exhibition held in Melbourne, α2 invasion constant
Australia, 8–10 October 2002 β2 invasion constant
Sharma, M. M., and Jiao, D., 1994, Mechanism of λe packer element shape factor
cake buildup in cross flow filtration of colloidal λmc mudcake compaction factor
suspensions, Journal of Colloid and Interface Science µ viscosity (cp)
V. 162, pp. 454-462. µf formation fluid viscosity (cp)
Wu, J., Torres-Verdín, C., Sepehrnoori, K. and µmf mud filtrate fluid viscosity (cp)
Delshad, M., 2001, Numerical simulation of mud φ formation porosity
filtrate invasion in deviated wells, Paper SPE 71739, φeff effective porosity
proceedings of the SPE Annual Technical φmc mudcake porosity N
Conference and Exhibition held in New Orleans, LA, γ Euler’s constant (1.78)
Sept. 30– Oct. 3, 2001. µ viscosity (cp)
τDmc mudcake transmissibility ratio

Nomenclature
A variable, dimension varies ABOUT THE AUTHORS
B variable (cp/md)
Mark A. Proett is a Senior Scientific Advisor in
C variable (cp/md)
Services for Halliburton Energy Services in the
D variable, dimensionless
Strategic Research group. He received a BSME
G pressure time gradient (psi/sec)
degree from the University of Maryland and a MS
c compressibility (1/psi)
degree from Johns Hopkins. He has been involved
f frequency of mud pulse (Hz)
with the development of formation testing systems
fs mud solid fraction
since the early 1980’s, and has published extensively.
h reservoir unit length (ft)
Proett holds 18 patents, 16 of which deal with well
kf formation permeability(md)
testing and fluid flow analysis methods. He has
kin invaded zone permeability(md)
served on the SPWLA and SPE technical committees
kmc mudcake permeability (md)
and served as the Chairman for the SPE Pressure
Pbu buildup pressure (psi)
Transient Testing Committee.
pDsc dimensionless supercharge pressure
pDsm dimensionless measured supercharge Douglas J. Seifert is a Petrophysicist with Saudi
Pf formation pressure (psi) Aramco in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia specializing in
∆Pob overbalance pressure differential (psi) LWD log interpretation, geosteering and logging
∆Pmob measured overbalance differential (psi) operations. He received a BS in Statistics and a MS
in Geology from the University of Akron. Doug was

13
SPWLA 45th Annual Logging Symposium, June 6-9, 2004

previously Western Hemisphere Regional
Petrophysicist for Pathfinder Energy Services in
Houston and Eastern Hemisphere Regional
Petrophysicist, in Stavanger, Norway. He has worked
for Mærsk Olie og Gas in Denmark as the Head of
Petrophysics, for Halliburton Energy Services in
Operations, Research and Technical Support
functions and also for Texaco in Technical Services
and Production Operations. He has served on the
SPWLA Technology Committee (1985-1988), as an
officer in the Houston Chapter of the SPWLA (1986-
1988) and as President of the Houston Chapter of the
SPWLA (1989-1990).
Wilson C. Chin, who earned his Ph.D. at the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, is author of
the book "Quantitative Methods in Reservoir
Engineering" (Elsevier Science, 2002). He is a
consultant to Halliburton Energy Services, where he
has worked extensively in formation tester fluid flow
simulation and pressure transient permeability
prediction. He is co-inventor with Mark Proett on
three Halliburton pressure transient analysis patents
and also works actively in MWD hardware and
software design.
Solveig Lysen is a Country Technical Adviser for
Sperry-Sun, Halliburton Energy Services in
Stavanger, Norway.
Paul Sands received a B.Sc. in Mechanical
Engineering in 1977 from Brighton Polytechnic in
the UK. After a number of years of oilfield wireline
logging assignments and operations management, he
joined NUMAR in 1993. He is currently based in
Aberdeen as Sperry-Sun’s Europe and Africa
regional GeoTap & MRIL-WD product champion.

14