WE LL TES TiNG

The MDT Tool: A Wireline Testing Breakthrough

Jeffrey Joseph
London, England

Tim Ireland
United Kingdom Nirex Ltd
Harwell, England

Formation sampling and testing on wireline dates back nearly 40 years. Recent developments, however, may thrust the
Nick Colley
British Gas Exploration &
Production Ltd
Reading, England

Simon Richardson
Marathon Oil UK Ltd.
London, England
Patrick Reignier
Total Oil Marine plc
Aberdeen, Scotland

Wireline formation testers have evolved

through a series of innovations. The first
tools to be introduced, in the 1950s, concentrated on fluid sampling. Then in 1975,
the RFT Repeat Formation Tester added the
capability to repeatedly measure formation
pressure during a single trip. Today, wireline
formation test tools are used to determine
formation permeability from pressure transients created by a known drawdown pulse.
Now comes the next evolutionary step: the
MDT Modular Formation Dynamics Tester
(next page).
The MDT tool offers multiple sampling
during a single wireline run and rapid pressure measurement using a new-generation
In this article, Acoustic TeleScanner, CQG (Combinable
Quartz Gauge), FMI (Fullbore Formation MicroImager),
Formation MicroScanner, MAXIS (Multitask Acquisition
and Imaging System), MDT (Modular Formation Dynamics Tester), MicroSFL, RFT (Repeat Formation Tester), and
ZODIAC (Zoned Dynamic Interpretation Analysis and
Computation) are marks of Schlumberger.
For their help in interpreting some of the data used in
this article, thanks to: Mike Pearson and Graeme Davidson, Schlumberger Evaluation and Production Services
(UK) Ltd, Aberdeen, Scotland; and Heather James and
Rachel Kornberg, Schlumberger Evaluation and Production Services (UK) Ltd, London, England.
1. Zimmerman T, MacInnis J, Hoppe J, Pop J and Long T:
Application of Emerging Wireline Formation Testing
Technologies, paper OSEA 90105, presented at the
8th Offshore Southeast Asia Conference, Singapore,
December 4-7, 1990.

58

quartz gauge that stabilizes quickly to accurately measure formation pressure.

Improved electrohydraulic control more
easily minimizes the drawdown pressure
drop, enhancing delicate sampling operations. A variable drawdown volume
improves permeability measurement, especially in tight formations.
Further, the tool can be configured to provide a range of options not previously available from a wireline tester. For example, by
monitoring the fluid resistivity as it is drawn
into the tool and rejecting contaminated
fluid, the operator can ensure that only
uncontaminated formation fluid samples are
collected. Or, by measuring pressure interference during drawdown, horizontal and
vertical permeabilities can be determined.
As the name suggests, the MDT system
comprises a number of modules. This article
explains the modules and how they work,
and, using field examples, shows how these
modules can be configured to collect data.1

Oilfield Review

Tom Zimmerman
Houston, Texas, USA

technique to the forefront of testing strategy.

Astley Hastings
Aberdeen, Scotland

Ian Traboulay
Montrouge, France

nThe Modular
Formation Dynamics Tester in multiprobe mode.
April 1992

59

The Basic Tool

At the center of most MDT configurations

are four modules making up the basic tool.
Electrical moduleThis module
provides the power to drive all
the downhole electronics and a
1-kilowatt supply for the electrohydraulic system.
Hydraulic power moduleThis
provides hydraulic power to the
probe modules (see below).
Single-probe moduleThis
module establishes pressure and
fluid communication between
the tool and the formation. A
hydraulically-operated retractable probe
embedded in a circular rubber packer is
forced through the mudcake to make a seal
with the formation. Two opposing backup
pistons on the other side of the tool push the
probe against the formation and help maintain a good seal. The pistons also center the
tool body in the well, reducing the risk of
differential pressure sticking. An advanced
electrohydraulic system means that the
MDT probe can be set up to three times
faster than previous testers.
After hydraulic connection is made, formation pressure can be measured by either
a strain gauge or the highly accurate CQG
Combinable Quartz Gauge. First-generation
quartz gauges employed in the earlier formation testers like the RFT tool are accurate
but respond slowly to pressure and, particularly, temperature transients. These gauges
had to stabilize for up to 30 minutes, slowing operation and providing only static pressure measurements. However, the CQG
gauge stabilizes in seconds, removing this
limitation (next page, top and see Gauges
Through the Ages, page 23).
To ensure that a good seal has been established between probe and formation, a
pretest is carried out, which yields a drawdown pressure transient. Formation fluid is
drawn into a chamber at a rate and volume
controlled from surface. Up to 20 milliliters
(mL) can be extracted against a differential
between the mud weight and the flowing
formation pressure of up to 20,000 psi. An

60

unlimited number of pretests may be carried

out using different drawdown rates and volumes to optimize the transient.
The temperature of the fluid entering the
tool may be measured and the fluids nature
assessed. Inside the MDT probe modules
flowline, electrodes measure fluid resistivity.
The first fluids to flow out of the formation
are usually mud and mud filtrate. These are
followed later by formation fluid. As long as
there is a resistivity contrast between the formation fluid and the mud, the transition
between fluids can be detected. Based on
pretest results and fluid analysis, the engineer may elect to take samples.
Sample chamber modulesAny
combination of sample chambers
with capacities of 1 and 2.75 gal
[3.8 and 10.4 liters] can be assembled. A
single flowline serves all the chambers
fluid routing is controlled from surface. A
single, 6-gal [22.7-liter] chamber can be
mounted at the bottom of the tool. Theoretically, the tool can handle 12 separate 1- or
2.75-gal chambers , but weight and length
considerations keep the practical limit to
about six chambers. The sample chambers
can be located above the probe module,
allowing sampling to take place just 0.53 m
[21 in.] from the bottom of the well.
Other modules may be added to this basic
tool to substantially increase its capabilities.
Multisample moduleEach of
these modules can collect six
450-mL [0.12-gal] samples, suitable for PVT (pressure-volume-temperature)
laboratory analysis, from one or more
downhole locations during a single trip.
Each sample is stored in an individual container that can be removed intact at surface
and safely and legally transported for analysis without fluid transfer. Up to two modules
may be included in an MDT test string. To
ensure a representative sample of formation
fluid, initial flow shown to be contaminated
by the fluid resistivity monitor is discarded.
To take a sample, an isolation valve in the
probe module is opened, allowing communication between the formation and the top
of the sample chamber. During the pretest
pressure measurement, this valve is closed
to limit flowline storage effects. Formation
fluid is drawn into each sample chamber by
a piston that strictly controls the pressure or
flow rate under real-time MAXIS Multitask
Acquisition and Imaging System control,
helping to prevent monophasic samples
from becoming multiphasic.

Pumpout moduleAs the

name suggests, this module
pumps formation fluid that has
entered the tool out into the borehole. The
module is used to dump contaminated fluid
prior to sampling. It has to pump against the
differential between formation flowing pressure and hydrostatic pressure in the wellbore. At a differential of 800 psi, the module
pumps at about 0.6 gal/min [38 mL/sec].
Flow control moduleThis
module provides 1-liter pressure
drawdown tests with accurately
controlled pressure or flow rate
(1 mL/sec to 200 mL/sec). In this way, a
larger drawdown than that offered by the
pretest can be controlled from surface, giving extended transients and therefore
improved formation pressure measurement
and permeability determination.
Multiprobe moduleAdded to
the basic probe module, this
creates a tool with three
probesa sink for drawing fluid and two
pressure-observation probes, the horizontal
probe opposite the sink, and the vertical
probe 70 cm [28 in.] above the sink.
The system is usually configured with the
flow control module, drawing 1 liter of formation fluid through the sink probe to set
up a pressure disturbance in the formation.
Analysis of transients measured at the two
observation probes yields vertical and horizontal permeability estimates and enhances
pressure gradient information.
Dual-packer moduleThis
module, still under development
and awaiting commercial introduction in late 1992, has two packers, about
86 cm [34 in.] apart. These are inflated by
the pumpout module to isolate a zone of
borehole from the column of mud. This
allows drillstem tests (DSTs) and, if the probe
module is included, interference tests to be
carried out. The packers allow zones to be
tested where the probe cannot seallike
fractured and fissured formations. The larger
area of reservoir isolated by the packers,
compared to a probe, allows a greater flow
rate to be achieved, increasing the depth of
investigation to perhaps 30 m [100 ft].

Oilfield Review

8010

Peak Error
Strain gauge
4 psi

Strain gauge
+1 psi
Pressure, psi

CQG gauge
2.5 psi

1 psi
7995

CQG gauge
Conventional
quartz gauge

Conventional
quartz gauge
15 psi

nComparing the
stabilization characteristics of CQG,
conventional quartz
and strain gauges.
This example of a
10C thermal shock
at a constant pressure of 8000 psi
shows how the CQG
gauge stabilizes
much more rapidly
and has a much
smaller peak error
than a conventional quartz gauge.

7980
24

48

Time, min
Strain gauge
17 min

Conventional quartz
gauge, 39 min
CQG gauge, 18 min

Stabilization time

The MDT Tool in Action

Pressure measurementThe basic singleprobe configuration can measure reservoir

pressure with a high degree of accuracy.
Reservoir fluid pressure measurements can
be plotted versus true vertical depth (TVD)
and used to infer the position of gas/oil and
oil/water contacts.
The speed and accuracy of measuring
pressure was recently proved in a well operated by Marathon Oil UK Ltd in the UK
North Sea. The MDT tool was deployed to
take pressures at 45 depths in the well, of
which 33 provided usable pretest data (the
friable nature of the formation adversely
affected the rejected measurements). In all
cases, the CQG gauge stabilized rapidly,
tracking the strain gauge included in the
downhole package, but producing much
more accurate measurements.
Plotting the data versus TVD shows
striking linear trends corresponding to gas,
oil and water (next page). The oil/water contact correlates precisely with that indicated
by openhole logs. The interpreted fluids
agree well with those observed during subsequent cased-hole DSTs (see Comparison

April 1992

Comparison of Pressure Gradients Derived from

MDT tests and DSTs
Zone

MDT
psi/ft

DST
Result

Surface
SG

DST
psi/ft

Upper

0.092

flowed gas

0.625

0.047

Middle

0.367

flowed oil

0.848

0.367

Lower

0.441

flowed water

1.052

0.455

of Pressure Gradients Derived from MDT

tests and DSTs, above).
The MDT pressures from this well (Well 2)
were combined with pressures gathered
using an RFT tester in Well 2 and adjacent
Well 1. Marathon, for the first time, was
able to demonstrate that the field contained
two different gas accumulationsthe two
wells had each penetrated a different accumulation. Previous data had not proved
accurate enough to make this distinction.
Detailed plots of the data clearly revealed
gas, oil and water gradients (page 63, top).
The data from the water leg of the test in
Wells 1 and 2 overlie each otherto be
expected in this normally-pressured environment. However, if Wells 1 and 2 penetrated the same gas-bearing interval, the
reservoir pressure at any given depth in that
interval would be the same in both wells.
The formation pressure data gathered by the
MDT and RFT tests showed that this was not

the case, with a 22-psi discrepancy between

the two wells. Because the data quality had
been shown to be highly accurate, separate
gas intervals were diagnosed.
Before accepting this diagnosis, one other
possibility had to be eliminated: that the
sand in Well 1 was not gas-bearing but oilbearing. This scenario was discounted on
the basis of density and neutron logs which
showed a clear gas effect.
SamplingTraditional wireline formation
test tools are limited in recovering reservoir
fluids because initial flow is usually contaminated with drilling mud filtrate. A contami-

61

nated sample can be used to prove the presence of hydrocarbons, but has limited application for PVT analysis.
If water-base mud has been used during
drilling, uncontaminated samples can be
gathered using the resistivity measurement
in the single-probe module to detect mud in
the formation fluid and the pumpout module to eject contaminated samples. If PVTquality samples are specified, the multisample module must also be added.
A spectacular example of MDT sampling
took place in two adjacent wells in Totals
Alwyn field in the UK North Sea. The data
shown here are from one of the wells. The
reservoir contains fluids that are close to the
critical point, at which they cannot be
defined as gas or liquid (near-critical fluids).
These are notoriously difficult to sample
downhole, and reconstituted surface samples may fail to yield consistent results. To
avoid the possibility of pumping gas into the

10

Bit Size
in
20

10

Caliper
in

20

Gamma Ray
API 150

borehole, the pumpout module was not

used. Instead, initial fluid intake was
dumped into a special 36-gal [136-liter]
container attached below the 1-gal sample
chambers. Because of the dump chambers
weight and the deviation of the well, the
tester was conveyed on drillpipe, rather
than on wireline.
Through careful pressure control, the samples in the first well were drawn with a
maximum pressure difference of 8 psi
between formation and sample chamber, far
beyond the most optimistic expectations of
operator or service company. Six 450-mL
samples were obtained.
Since these samples were retreived at near
virgin conditions, results from laboratory
analysis of four of the samples were
expected to be more consistent than is usual
for conventionally sampled near-critical fluids. Expectations were exceeded. Small
flash separation was carried out in the

Enhanced Vertical Resolution

Density
2.95
1.95
g/cm3
Neutron Porosity, Computed
-15
45
p.u.
0

Photoelectric Factor

10

Bulk Density Correction

0.15
g/cm3
-0.35

0.2

ILd
ohm-m

20 140

0.2

ILm
ohm-m

20

labwhere a small volume of fluid in single

phase is rapidly exposed to atmospheric
conditions and the resulting gas and liquid
collected for compositional and fingerprint
analysis. The liquid sample densities and
gas/liquid ratios showed extraordinary consistency (see Comparison of Sample PVT
Properties, next page, middle ).
A reliable way of checking whether representative samples of a near-critical fluid
have been taken is by comparing their dewpoint pressures at reservoir temperature. The
consistency in the results obtained by
observing the sample in a windowed cell,
used in the PVT laboratory to determine a
samples dewpoint, is self-evident.
Final corroboration of fluid sampling
repeatability was obtained by the gel permeation chromatography fingerprinting
technique, in which infrared and ultraviolet
detectors are used to measure the number of
carbon-hydrogen bonds versus alkane

t, FMD
sec/ft 40

Laterolog Deep
0.2

ohm-m

2000

Laterolog Shallow

t, STC
MicroSFL
140 sec/ft 40
0.2 ohm-m 20

0.2

ohm-m

2000

0.2

MicroSFL
ohm-m

2000

Depth, ft

x500

x600

x700

x800

nFormation pressures measured using a CQG gauge in an MDT tester together with openhole wireline logs. In this example from a
North Sea well, operated by Marathon Oil UK, both fluid type and contacts are clearly identifiable from the pressure profile.

62

Oilfield Review

nA plot of MDT
and RFT pressures
for Wells 1 and 2 to
demonstrate that
the field contained
two different gas
accumulations.

Gas, Well 2
0.065 psi/ft
Gas, Well 1
x600

Well 1
RFT
x800

Depth, ft

molar mass. The samples had a virtually

identical fingerprint (next page, top). To
clinch consistency, compositional analysis of
the samples revealed identical amounts of
the hydrocarbon components and of carbon
dioxide and nitrogen (next page, far right).
Permeability measurementFormation
permeability may be estimated by analyzing
the drawdown pressure response during
each pretest. However, it is important that
the rate and pressure of the drawdown be
controlled. For example, if the drawdown
flow rate is too high for the formation permeability, the flowing pressure of the fluid
might fall below its bubblepoint, ruling out
analysis of the resultant transient.
In the MDT tester, drawdown can be
accurately controlled from surface. The
engineer has the flexibility of establishing
the flow rate and either defining the volume
of fluid to be drawn off or setting a maximum pressure drop.

Well 2
MDT
RFT

Water,
Wells 1 and 2
0.449 psi/ft

x1000

Oil, Well 2
0.368 psi/ft

x1200

x550

x450

x650

x750

Pressure, psi

Comparison of Sample PVT Properties

Sample
Liquid Density,

1
g/cm3

x500

Depth, ft

Gas

Oil
x700

Water

April 1992

0.809

0.811

0.809

1030

1028

1013

1010

Dewpoint Pressure,
bar-gauge

x550

0.811

Gas/Liquid Ratio, Sm3/cm3

Pressure, psi
x450

397.0

397.5

397.5

396.5

Measuring permeability anisotropy

requires deployment of the more sophisticated multiprobe systemcomprising basic
tool, multiprobe module, flow control module and usually sample chambers. The tools
probes are first used to monitor reservoir
pressureinformation that can sometimes
be used to locate formation barriers
between the probes. Then, near-wellbore
interference tests are run. The flow control
module extracts up to 1 liter of formation
fluid through the sink probe. The isolation
valve between the sink valve and the flowline is then shut, setting up pressure disturbances in the formation. The process of creating pressure disturbances can be repeated
as many times and in as many locations in
the well as necessary.
For example, in British Gass South Morecambe field, offshore UK, multiprobe tests
were conducted at 42 locations in the well
during a single run (next page, middle). This
example shows one of the tests, from a
water-bearing zone below the gas. The tool
was set near low-permeability streaks identi-

fied as light-colored sinusoids on the Formation MicroScanner image.

The reservoir contains a lower layer with
reduced permeability which is caused by
platy illite blocking the pore throats. The gas
in this layer will be produced from the
higher permeability upper layer through
vertical movement. The MDT test program
was designed to measure a vertical permeability profile through both layers and into
the aquifer below. The test under consideration was carried out in the aquifer.
As the sink probe accepts fluid and is then
shut in, the horizontal probe shows an
immediate and quite large pressure change
(p), while the vertical probe registers a
much smaller and delayed p. That there is
a reaction at the vertical probe, however,
indicates some vertical permeability. The
question is how much?

63

nGel permeation
chromatograph
fingerprints of
near-critical fluids
showing that
repeatable samples have been
captured from
Totals North Sea
Alwyn field.

C-H bonds

Sample 1
Sample 2
Sample 3
Sample 4
IR response

UV response
10

102

103

With an interpretation package that analyzes MDT multiprobe tests, the data were
matched to a formation model comprising a
homogeneous formation with upper and
lower boundaries some distance from the
tool. The match gave horizontal and vertical
permeabilities of 5.50 and 0.22 millidarcies
respectively.2 This proves that across the
zone seen on the Formation MicroScanner
image, there is some vertical communication despite a large permeability anisotropy
in the formation being tested. More complex models are under development to allow
more sophisticated multilayer analysis.

104

Equivalent alkane molar mass, g/mol

Flow

CO2

Flow rate, cm3/sec

22.5
17.8

C1

Drawdown

13.1

C2

8.3
3.6

Buildup

C3

718.1

796.7

875.3

954.0

1032.6 1111.3

Time, sec
Pressure
384.8

Component

-1.1

i-C4

n-C4

p, psi

303.7
222.5

i-C5

Horizontal probe

141.4

n-C5

60.2

Vertical probe
20.9
718.1

Formation MicroScanner

MDT

796.7

875.3

954.0

1032.6 1111.3

C6

Time, sec

nDetermining vertical flow characteristics in shaley sand in the South Morecambe

field, operated by British Gas, to assess the likely impact of water coning. The MDT
tester in multiprobe configuration was deployed to measure drawdown and buildup
transients across shaly streaks identified on the Formation MicroScanner log. The transients are shown with the interpretation model (orange line). Flow rate, measured using
the flow control module, was incorporated into the match using continuous convolution.

C7+
0.01

0.1

10

100

Composition mole %
Sample 1
Sample 2

Sample 3
Sample 4

nCompositional analysis of Alwyn

samples corroborating that nearidentical samples were captured.

64

Oilfield Review

Mini-DSTs With the Dual Packer

ModuleThe experimental MDT packer
module may open up a radically new direction for wireline testing, in which a small
zone can be tested yielding data that can be
interpreted using traditional techniques.
With use of a transient test lasting just a few
minutes, formation information may be
determined with a depth of investigation of
tens of meters.
In a recent test for UK Nirex Ltd and
British Nuclear Fuels plc in West Cumbria,
England, an MDT tool with dual-packer
module was positioned over a naturally
occurring fracture. The fracture was
identified on both FMI Formation MicroImager and Acoustic TeleScanner images (left ).
Several fluid samples were taken from the
fracture, with a buildup pressure transient
lasting about 6 minutes recorded between
each. The first buildup illustrates the quality
of the CQG gauge pressure databoth final
interpreted log-log and generalized Hornertype plots are shown (below and see Test-

ing Design and Analysis, page 28). The

derivative data were usable without smoothing and the radial-flow regime plateau
clearly emerges at the end of the 6-minute
period.
Analysis, with Schlumbergers ZODIAC
Zoned Dynamic Interpretation Analysis and
Computation program, provided an excellent match for the test, yielding estimates for
parameters such as formation transmissivity
and reservoir pressure. The match shown
uses a new model for a situation in which
wellbore storage changes during the course
of the test3 in this case, the changing wellbore storage is associated with fluid stored
within the predominantly horizontal fracture
itself, within the packed-off wellbore and
within the tools flowline.
From this analysis, storage was found to
have stabilized at about five orders of magnitude smaller than would have been
obtained by conventional DST. It is mainly
for this reason that radial flow can develop
after just 6 minutes of shut-in.
CF, HE

Pressure and derivative

nPlots of data from

a mini-DST carried
out using the MDT
packer module.
The radial-flow
regime plateau
clearly emerges
at the end of the
6-minute test.

103

p and Derivative, psi

Pressure change
Pressure derivative

102

nLocating a suitable fracture for testing

101

Radial flow regime

using images from the Acoustic TeleScanner (left) and FMI Fullbore Formation
MicroImager (right).
100

Generalized Horner
400

300

p, psi

2. Goode PA and Thambynayagam RKM: Analytic

Models for Multiple Probe Formation Tester, paper
SPE 20737, presented at the 65th SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans,
Louisiana, USA, September 23-26, 1990.
Goode PA and Thambynayagam RKM: Influence of
an Invaded Zone on a Multiple Probe Formation
Tester, paper SPE 23030, presented at the SPE AsiaPacific Conference, Perth, Australia, 4-7 November
1991.
Goode PA, Pop JJ and Murphy WF III: Multiple-Probe
Formation Testing and Vertical Reservoir Continuity,
paper SPE 22738, presented at the 66th SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Texas,
USA, October 6-9, 1991.
3. Hegeman PS, Hallford DL and Joseph JA: Well Test
Analysis with Changing Wellbore Storage, paper SPE
21829, presented at 1991 Rocky Mountain Regional
Meeting and Low Permeability Reservoirs Symposium,
Denver, Colorado, USA, April 15-17, 1991.

200

100

0
10-4

10-3

10-2

10-1

10-0

t, hr

April 1992

65