ADVANCED PVT AND EOS FLUID CHARACTERIZATION Curtis H. WHITSON HAND-OUTS December 9" — 13", 2002 Vienna, Austria HOT Engineering GmbH Roseggerstrasse 17 ‘A-8700 Leoben ‘AUSTRIA TEL: 43-3842-430630 FAX: 43-3842-4305353 or 1 E-Mail: [email protected] www.hoteng.comGas Condensate PVT — What’s Really Important and Why? Curtis H. Whitson*”* @ivind Fevang? Tao Yang*® (@) Norwegian U. of Science and Technology (NTNU), (b) PERA als {c) Corresponding author, [email protected] / [email protected] Paper (@ Curtis H. Whitson) presented at the IBC Conference “Optimisation of Gas Condensate Fields”, London, Jan. 28-29, 1999, Cumboriand Hotel. IBC UK Conferences Ltd, Gilmoora House, 57-61 Mortimer Street, London W1N 81X, UK httpzwwwr.ibo-uk.com ABSTRACT This paper gives a review of the key PVT data dictating recovery and well performance of gas condensate reservoirs. The importance of specific PVT data are put in the context of their importance to specific mechanisms of recovery and flow behavior. Phase behavior important to gas cycling projects is also covered. Modeling gas condensate reservoir fluid systems with an equation of state is discussed, as is EOS modeling of complex fluid systems with strongly varying compositions and PVT properties. INTRODUCTION It could be argued that the engineering of a gas condensate field is 80% traditional “gas” engineering, and 20% “extra” engineering. The numbers could be 90/10 or 70/30 — but the majority of engineering of any gas condensate field is always the same as the engineering of a gas reservoir without condensate. The main difference between a gas condensate field and a “dry” gas field is the additional income derived from surface condensate production. Condensate production evolves from produced reservoir gas (= produced "wet gas” = produced . wollstream) as the wellstream is processed at the surface. The production of reservoir gas can, for the most part, be handled with traditional gas engineering tools.Gas Condensate PVT ~ What's Really Important and Why? A GH. Whitson, @, Fovang, and T. Yang From an engineering point of view, the two “extra” issues which must be addressed in a gas condensate reservoir are: + How the condensate “yield” will vary during the life of a resorvolr, and + How two-phase gas/oil flow “near” the wellbore affects gas productivity, Both of these issues ate strongly related to the PVT properties of the fluid system (though productivity is more affected by relative permeability effects). PVT properties important to the engineering of all gas condensate reservoirs includes: + Ztactor + Gas viscosity and a few “extra” properties needed to handle the “condensate” part of a gas- condensate reservoir: + Compositional (C;,) variation with pressure + Oil viscosity and liquid dropout Dewpoint pressure is implicitly dofined by the pressure dependence of compositional variation. As discussed below, the dewpoint is less importance than is commonly thought. The PVT properties listed above are particularly important to reservoirs produced by Pressure depletion. For gas condensate reservoirs undergoing gas cycling it may also be important to quantify phase behavior (vaporization, condensation, and near- critical miscibility) which develops in gas cycling below the dewpoint. Compositional grading in gas condensate reservoirs may be important to the dosign of well placement, ostimation of in-place surface volumes, reserves, and prediction of fluid communication vertically (between geologic layers) and areally (between fault blocks). Prediction of a potential underlying oil is often required in discovery wells which are drilled upstructure and encounter only gas which is near-saturated. Here, accurate sampling and PVT modeling are paramount. A PVT model* should describe accurately the key phase, volumetric, and viscosity behavior dictating the key processes affecting rate-time performance and ultimate Tecoveries of surface gas and oil. Unfortunately, a PVT model may not be capable of accurately describing all PVT properties with equal accuracy. EOS models often have difficulty matching retrograde phenomena (compositional variation of gas, and liquid dropout), particularly when the system is near-ciitical, or only small amounts of condensation occur just below the dewpoint (‘tail-ike” retrograde behavior). Oil * Wo define a PVT (pressure-volume-tomperature) modal to include the EOS (equation of state) model describing phase and volumetric behavior, together with the visoosity model (e.g. the Lorentz- Bray-Clark' or Pedersen ef al); the viscosity model is not formally linked with the EOS model but makes use of EOS-catculated density. OGas Condensate PVT - What's Really Important and Why? 3 CH. Whitson, @. Fevang, and T. Yang viscosities are also difficult to predict for reservoir condensates, and measured oil viscosities are not usually available for tuning the viscosity model. Consequently, it is important to determine which PVT properties are most important to the accurate engineering of reservoir and well performance for a given field development. Different fields require different degrees of accuracy for different PVT properties, dependent on field development strategy (depletion vs. gas cycling), low or high permeability, saturated or highly undersaturated, geography (offshore vs. onshore), and the number of wells available for delineation and development. Consider the following examples. Example 1. A small offshore “satellite” reservoir with high permeability (kh=4,000 md-m), initially undersaturated by 400 bar, and with a test yield of 300 STB/MMscf. Example 2. A large offshore deep-water reservoir with moderate permeability (kh=1000 md-m), initially saturated or near-saturated (2), large structural relief, and a test yield of 80 STB/MMscf. A single (and very expensive) discovery well has been drilled, Example 3. An onshore “old” undeveloped gas cap with well-defined initial volume (by production oil wells and pressure history), uncertain initial composition (estimated initial yield of 120 STB/MMscf), partially depleted due to long-term production of underlying oil, and low permeability (kh=300 md-m). These three examples require significantly different emphasis in the treatment of PVT data. Why? The reason lies in a coupling of the reservoir and well performance with PVT properties. Every gas condensate reservoir provides a new example with a different set of conditions requiring different emphasis on which PVT data are important. This paper will attempt to explain when and why various PVT properties are important to the development of a particular gas condensate field. PVT EXPERIMENTS Constant Composition (Mass) Expansion Test The constant composition expansion (CCE) test, sometimes referred to as a constant-mass expansion test, is used to measure dewpoint pressure, single-phase gas Z-factors, and oil relative volume below the dewpoint (‘liquid dropout curve"). A sample of reservoir fluid is charged in a visual PVT cell and brought to reservoir temperature and a pressure sufficiently high to ensure single-phase conditions. Pressure is lowered by increasing cell volume until a liquid phase is visually detected (through a glass window). Total cell volume and liquid volume are monitored from the initial reservoir pressure down to a low pressure (dictated by cell and sample size).Gas Condensate PVT - What's Really Important and Why? 4 CH, Whitson, , Fevang, and T. Yang Constant Volume Depletion Test ‘The constant volume depletion (CVD) test is an extremely important laboratory test which monitors the phase and volumetric changes of a reservoir gas sample (at reservoir temperature) as the pressure drops below the dewpoint and equilibrium gas phase is removed. The CVD test simulates closely the actual behavior of a gas condensate reservoir undergoing pressure depletion, and results from the lab measurements can be used directly to quantify recoveries of surface gas and condensate as a function of pressure below the dewpoint. Combined with single- phase Z-factors from the CCE test, a complete prediction of depletion behavior (recoveries and liquid-yield variation) can be accurately predicted from initial pressure to abandonment. The CVD test involves stepwise lowering the pressure below the dewpoint, with an associated increase in cell volume. After equilibration at each pressure, enough equilibrium gas is removed from the top of the call to bring the cell back to the Original volume occupied at the dewpoint. The amount of gas removed, its composition and Z-factor, and the remaining oll volume in the cell are measured and reported, A “two-phase” Z-factor is also reported for use with the “gas” material balanee (see discussion below). Accurate measurement of the removed gas composition is very important to the prediction of condensate recovery and liquid-yield variation ~ much more important than accurate measurement of reirograde oil volumes. Special laboratory procedures should be followed to ensure accurate CVD compositional measurements (e.g. appropriate heating of tubing used to remove equilibrium gas from the cell) Measurement of the final low-pressure condensate composition allows an Important “backward” material balance check.® InmT1aL FLUIDS IN PLACE AND DEPLETION RECOVERIES Gas Z-factor Muz Standing would be happy to hear that the Z-factor is (still) the only PVT property which always needs accurate determination in a gas condensate reservoir (as in a “dry” gas reservoir). The reason is (1) to get an accurate and consistent estimate of the initial gas (and condensate) in place, and (2) to accurately predict the gas (and condensate) recovery as a function of pressure during depletion drive.° Single-phase gas Z-factors are measured experimentally at reservoir temperature and pressures from the initial reservoir pressure to the dewpoint. These data are * The backward matorial-balance check is made by starting with the final condensate composition and ‘amount (using the reported fina! oil relative volume and properties), adding incrementally the removed {988 from gach CVD step, and ending up with a check of the original fiuld composition. This check is insensitive to oil relative volume (except the final value), a big advantage over the traditional “forward” ‘material balance which is extremely sensitive to all relative oll volumes and, consequently, can not be used for leaner gas condensates. rat alse is important to quantity recovery by depletion for a reservoir which is to be gas cycled, because the evaluation of economics will always involve comparison of the gas cycling project with depletion drive.‘Gas Condensate PVT ~ What's Really important and Why? 5 CH. Whitson, @. Fevang, andT. Yang reported as part of the constant composition expansion test. Z-factors used in the material balance equation below the dewpoint are “back-calculated” from data in the constant volume depletion test. These so-called two-phase Z-factors are “pseudo” (not-physical) properties which should only be used in the traditional gas material balance equation. It is not commonly recognized that condensate recovery is strongly related to the recovery of gas. Gas Z-factors dictate gas and oil recoveries during depletion (together with the amount of water expansion and influx), because recoveries are proportional to (ZZ) ~ i.e. the term [1 - (Z/Z)(p/p)]. In fact, at average reservoir Pressures above the dewpoint, condensate recovery “exactly” equals the gas recovery. Consequently, condensate recoveries are strongly dependent on accurate description of gas-phase Z-factors (both above and below the dewpoint). As an example for a high-pressure reservoir, a +5% error in Z, and a -5% error in Z at the dewpoint will result in (a) a +5% error in initial gas and initial condensate in place, and (b) a +5 to +10 recovery-% ertor in recovery of gas and condensate at the dewpoint. Compositional (C7,) Variation During Depletion ‘As mentioned earlier, the distinguishing characteristic of a gas condensate field is the added value from condensate production, in addition to gas. Surface condensate is, for practical purposes, the Cz, content’ of the produced wellstream. This simplification makes the treatment of many engineering calculations easier to understand without loosing engineering accuracy. The condensate rate profile is easy to convert into an economic profile, and engineers can readily relate the two. But how can we readily forecast the condensate rate profile for a gas condensate reservoir? For a surface gas-rate production profile qa(t), the profile of oil rate versus time is given (approximately) by S Yr ow 20 = 950) Fy Now Calow where (p> /Mc) = (p7./Mz.)evp. Time dependence of CVD properties must be correlated with cumulative wet-gas volumes produced, G,, = favdt. (3) where Gw = Ig + Go Cog (4) * The simplification of surface condensate being ‘essentially’ Cy, is a subjective choice. One could easily have chosen Ce, of Cs, without any change in our comments.Gas Condensate PVT — What's Really Important and Why? 6 CH Whitson, @. Fevang, and T. Yang Given the qu(t) profile and Gpu(t), this can be translated into cumulative wellstream produced from the CVD test, (ng/na)ovo, (ning) = Gp Gw — [1 — (P/Z)a/(P/Z)] PS ps.. 6) where all CVD properties = initial gas properties for p > ps. Cog represents the surface gas equivalent of one surface oil volume. Equations for converting CVD results to approximate surface product recoveries, including the depletion recovery from initial to dewpoint pressure are: Pros Gat) brat SS) ces “ (7) J, Wty #Cu5)7 ze 1-2, Cy (8) A simple spreadsheet calculation using these equations allows quick translation of laboratory CVD data to important engineering and commercial quantification of in- place surface volumes, reserves, and production forecasts. Fig. 1 and Table 1 shows an example calculation using Eqs. 6-8 for a rich-gas condensate. Compositional Variation with Depth Numerous field case histories have shown that composition varies with depth in Petroleum reservoirs. Component “segregation” due to gravitational forces is usually given as the physical explanation for the variation in composition. A theoretical model for such variation was already defined by Gibbs in the late 1800's for an isothermal system under the influence of a constant force field such as gravity. The result of gravitational segregation is that a gas condensate gets richer at greater depths, with increasing C7, mole fraction (and dewpoint pressure)*. Not all fields show compositional gradients with depth as predicted by the isothermal model. Some fields show practically no gradient over large depths, such as the ‘Cupiagua field in Columbia" where a near-critical gas condensate with more-or-less constant composition is found over an interval of some 2000 m. Some oil fields have gradients larger than predicted by the isothermal model. Haier’ made comprehensive calculations using a number of thermal diffusion models which indicate that thermal gradients typically reduce compositional gradients in gas condensate fluids, while for oils a thermal gradient may cause either a reduction or an increase in compositional gradients, Our concern with compositional gradients in gas condensates will be limited to three topics: (1) assessing the effect of a gradient on in-place surface volumes, (2) assessing the prediction of a gas-oil contact using a theoretical gradient model, and (3) the impact of compositional gradients on depletion (and cycling) recoveries. O© Gas Condensate PVT — What's Really important and Why? 7 CH, Whitson, @. Fevang, and T. Yang Variation in C;,. composition with depth will obviously affect the calculation of initial surface condensate in place, compared with a calculation based on a constant composition. Depending on the “location” of the sample used in the constant- composition model, either smaller or larger initial condensate volumes in place can result when compared with a gradient model”. The gradient model will typically give an “optimistic” in-place sensitivity when the gas condensate reference sample is upstructure. If the reference gas sample is downstructure then the gradient model will provide a “pessimistic” in-place sensitivity. For reservoirs with limited control of fluid variation with depth, we recommend using the “in-situ representative” samples available, linear interpolation between these samples, and for sensitivities use both (a) the gradient mode! for extrapolation beyond the samples and (b) a constant-composition extrapolation, Another interesting feature of near-saturated reservoirs with compositional gradients is that the recoverable condensate volumes by depletion are insensitive to whether the model is initialized with or without a compositional gradient. This lack of sensitivity’ will not be apparent if comparisons are made using recovery factors (because initial volumes in place can be quite different for the two models of compositional initialization). A gradient model may aiso predict a transition from gas to oil which can dramatically affect the initial oil in place volumes (see discussion below). However, a predicted GOC from an upstructure gas sample is, at best, a ‘possibility’. Results of predicted “oil zones” from gas samples should only be used for sensitivity analysis of a new discovery, or in a reservoir where additional delineation wells are not planned. Dewpoint Pressure Strictly speaking the dewpoint pressure is the pressure where an incipient liquid phase condenses from a gas phase. Practically, the dewpoint marks the pressure where (1) reservoir gas phase composition changes and becomes leaner, and (2) condensate accumulation starts in the reservoir. These two changes can have a profound effect on reservoir and well performance — of, they may have little impact. The importance of the actual dewpoint pressure will vary from reservoir to reservoir, but in most situations accurate dewpoint determination is not important. Why? First, in the context of compositional variation with pressure (and associated variation of condensate yield with pressure) accurate determination of the thermodynamic dewpoint pressure is not of particular importance. In fact, we don't need to know the “specific” dewpoint at all as long as the variation of composition (Cz, content) with pressure is well defined ‘near’ the thermodynamic dewpoint. © The gradient model requires that a composition be specified at a reference depth with a reference pressure and temperature. ' This behavior is readily understood in a black-oil model using a solution oil-gas ratio r4(p) function. ‘The initial variation of r, (and dewpoint) with depth is short-lived when reservoir pressure drops below ‘the dewpoint, as r, of the equilibrium gas through the reservoir becomes (more-or-less) constant at the average reservoir pressure. Because only reservoir gas flows into wells, the producing OGR will reflect the equilibrium r, at average reservoir pressure, which becomes independent of depth when PasGas Condensate PVT ~ What's Really Important and Why? 8 CH. Whitson, &. Fevang, and T. Yang Second, when the bottomhole flowing pressure (BHFP) drops below the dewpoint and two phases start flowing near the wellbore, gas relative permeability drops and well productivity drops. However, as long as BHFP is “anywhere near’ the dewpoint the well will have excess deliverability — i.e. we simply reduce the BHFP to produce more gas (even though the well productivity is lower). Only when the BHFP reaches a minimum value (dictated by some delivery-pressure constraint) will the well no longer be able to deliver the desired rate. At this point, well productivity is important. However, this occurs at a BH flowing pressure much lower than the dewpoint. A typical minimum BHFP might be 50-150 bara, while dewpoint pressures are typically 250-400 bara. Whether the BHFP drops below the dewpoint at 400 or 350 bara has little impact on what the well will (or won't) produce when BHFP reaches a minimum constraint of 100 bara. Another (less common) need for dewpoint pressure is when an underlying saturated oil zone may exist and a PVT model is used to predict the existence and location of the gas-oil contact (GOC). In this case, the PVT model dewpoint should be tuned precisely to an accurately measured dewpoint pressure. It is not uncommon that a predicted GOC may vary 10's of meters per bar of uncertainty in the (PVT-model) dewpoint pressure. Thus an accurate description of the dewpoint pressure will have an impact on the prediction of initial oil and gas in place, placement of delineation wells, and potential field development strategy. In this situation, accurate dewpoint Measurement and equally-accurate modeling of the measured dewpoint should be given due attention, On the other hand, if accurate treatment of the dewpoint pressure is not required (for estimating a GOC), then we recommend using little if any weighting of the measured dewpoint pressure when tuning the PVT model. Instead, priority should be given to matching the variation of Cr, with pressure in the removed gas from a constant volume depletion test. CONDENSATE BLOCKAGE When BHFP drops below the dewpoint and two-phase gas/oil flow stabilizes in the hear-wellbore region, relative permeability to gas (the primary flowing phase) may drop dramatically and the well deliverability is lowered accordingly. Saturations in the near-wellbore region can reach 40-60%, with gas permeability reductions of 0.05- 0.2. Flow in the near-wellbore region reaches a steady-state condition in a relatively short time after the BHFP drops below the dewpoint. Flow theory shows that the produced wellstream mixture is constant throughout the “steady-state” region, meaning that if we “captured” the flowing mixture at any point within this region, its composition would be the same as the producing wellstream mixture. ® The flowing mixture composition at some point within the steady-state region will not equal to the ‘overall composition occupying the pore volume (‘in-situ composition) at that point, as the in-situ ‘composition will vary throughout the steady-state region.Gas Condensate PVT ~ What's Really Important and Why? 9 C.H..Whitson, O. Fevang, and T. Yang Permeability reduction in the near-wellbore (steady-state) region is particularly important because most of the pressure drop will be greatest in this region. A relative permeability reduction of 0.1 in the first 10 meters from the wellbore will have significantly greater impact than a kg reduction of 0.1 at a 10-m radial interval some 100 m away from the wellbore. The relative permeability ratio ki/ke in the steady-state (SS) region is given by Ke/kio= (Veo 1) Holt)» ..(9) where Vio = VeVi is the CCE oll relative volume of the produced welistream at any pressure within the SS region. The pressure in the SS region ranges from the BHFP to the dewpoint pressure of the produced wellstream, and most deliverability loss occurs nearest the wellbore where pressures are closer to the BHFP. Given the Kg/kr ratio throughout the SS region from Eq. 9, the relative permeability to gas keg can be found directly from the relative permeability relationship. ‘That is, keg(S) = Kig(Ke/Ko(S)). Fevang and Whitson’ have shown that the Kig/ko ratio in the SS region does not vary more than about one order of magnitude throughout the life of a reservoir. With regard to uncertainties in PVT properties, and the need to measure (or predict) their values for accurate description of condensate blockage, we can conclude that oil viscosity should be given highest priority because it has the largest uncertainty both experimentally and in predictions. Fig. 2 shows the effect on kig Caused by a 420% error in Vjo for values of Vip ranging from 0.5 for a near-critical condensate to 0.005 for a very lean condensate (using Hy/jip=0.02/0.2=0.1 and a typical Corey relative permeability relation). Oil Viscosity As discussed above, oil viscosity is important in the proper modeling of “condensate blockage” — i.e. the two-phase gas/oil flow effect on gas relative permeability in the region around the wellbore. Oil viscosity is usually low for reservoir condensates, ranging from 0.1 to 1 cp in the near-wellbore region.” Measurement of condensate viscosities is not made in routine laboratory tests, and it may be difficult to obtain measurements for lean condensates (where volumes of condensate are small). Viscosity correlations are typically unreliable for predicting low oil viscosities, and some approach is needed to ensure accurate and consistent modeling of this important property. We recommend that the oil viscosity model be tuned to measured viscosities of a separator condensate sample! at reservoir temperature and pressures in the range of 100-400 bara. More ‘appropriate’ condensate viscosity measurements can be designed (at greater expense), but having oil viscosity data from a separator oil " The viscosity of condensate flowing in the near-wellbore region throughout depletion, and particularly when a well goes on deciine, will remain fairly constant at a value close to the condensate viscosity of the original reservoir fluid in the pressure range 100-200 bara. This viscosity is typically lower than the viscosity of condensate from a CVD test in the same pressure range, whore the difference may be as much as a factor of 2-3 ‘This idea was suggested by Dr. Jeff Creek, Chevron Oil Company, ca. 1997.Gas Condensate PVT ~ What's Really Important and Why? 10 CH. Whitson, ©. Fevang, and. Yang sample to tune the viscosity correlation should ensure reasonably accurate oil viscosity predictions of the condensate actually flowing in the near-wellbore region when bottomhole flowing pressures drop below the dewpoint, Gas Viscosity Gas viscosity for most systems will vary from 0.02 to 0.03 op for all pressure Conditions. For near-critical gas condensates and high-pressure gases the viscosity May initially be 0.05 cp, but in most of the near-wellbore region experiencing significant pressure losses the viscosity will be in the lower range of 0.02-0.03 cp. Consequently, the absolute value of viscosity does not vary greatly for a given gas, or from gas to gas system. Viscosity correlations are fairly reliable at predicting accurate gas viscosities, within 5-10% in most cases. What is important with respect to gas viscosities is that consistent viscosities be used in all engineering applications — e.g. well test interpretation, well performance design, reservoir simulation, tubing calculations, pipeline calculations, ete, It is not uncommon that a 15-25% difference in gas viscosities may result using different correlations (by different engineering disciplines). This may result in similar inaccuracies in well performance calculations, even where all flow is single-phase gas! Oil Relative Volume (Liquid Dropout Curve) The oil relative volume or “liquid dropout curve" is perhaps the most familiar property to engineers working with gas condensate fields. The maximum liquid dropout is often used as a subjective measure to characterize the richness or leanness of a gas condensate fluid system (perhaps even more common than the liquid yield itself!). ‘Two definitions of oil relative volume V,. are used, Vio = Vo! Ve (10) Vio = Vo / Ve = Vo / (Vo+Va) one (11) {tis important to differentiate between the two definitions. The first and most common definition is oil volume relative to the dewpoint volume, where this gives a direct measure of the actual volume of oil condensed. The second and more important definition (for engineering purposes) is oil volume relative to total gas+oll volume, where the change in this Vio depends on two effects — the change in oil volume itself and the change in total volume, Vro(p) = Vo(p/Vi(p). This latter definition is more important because it enters directly in the condensate blockage problem, and at lower pressures (<250 bara) where condensate blockage is particularly important, the change in total volume Vi(p) due to gas expansion becomes even more important than the change in oil volume. Ironically, the liquid dropout curve has tle direct impact on reservoir and well performance. Only the CCE liquid dropout Vis=-VoV; of a reservoir gas at “lower” Pressures has a (second-order) effect on the modeling of condensate blockage. The ‘The maximum liquid dropout often occurs at a pressure near 150-250 bara (though higher for near- critical systems), and is approximately correlated to the minimum in equilibrium K-values (Kj=y/xi) of heavier components (Ce,)- OGas Condensate PVT - What's Really Important and Why? " CH, Whitson, @. Fevang, and T. Yang “average” oil saturation in a gas condensate reservoir during depletion, given approximately by the CVD experiment, is seldom important. Interestingly, the magnitude of maximum liquid dropout does not determine whether condensate blockage will or will not be a problem for a given reservoir. It only has a second-order effect on the relative degree of severity. For example, one reservoir with 35% maximum liquid dropout may have a condensate blockage effect which has no importance to well deliverability, while another reservoir with 2% maximum liquid dropout may have condensate blockage causing a dramatic well deliverability loss. The importance of condensate blockage on well performance is dictated by the relative importance of “reservoir” pressure losses compared to “pipe” (tubing+flowline) pressure losses. For a high-kh (kh=10 000 md-m) rich condensate well the blockage skin may be +30 with a resulting additional pressure loss of only 3 bar, where tubing pressure losses are 300 bar due to high deliverable rates. A lower- kh (kh=500 md-m) lean condensate well may have a blockage skin of +15 with a resulting additional pressure loss of 150 bar, where tubing-flowline pressure losses are 150 bar. Clearly the lean condensate well has a more severe condensate blockage problem than the rich high-kh well. Gas CYCLING Traditional gas cycling with full pressure maintenance is almost completely unaffected by PVT properties. The gas-gas displacement process is fully miscible, independent of the injection gas, so only the viscosity ratio of the two gases enters into the displacement performance. For practical purposes, reservoir heterogeneities {and mainly layering) dominate recovery performance of a gas cycling project — almost totally for full-pressure maintenance cyoling, but also if the reservoir is cycled below the dewpoint. As indicated by Coats® and others, gas cycling projects below the dewpoint are also affected by the vaporization characteristics of displacement gas on the retrograde condensate. For most gas cycling projects the injection gas is fairly lean and recovery efficiency of the reservoir retrograde condensate depends mostly on vaporization. If injection gas is rich in intermediate components Cz-Cs and gas cycling occurs below the (original) dewpoint, an efficient condensing/vaporizing mechanism can develop and, in some cases, develop full miscibility with the gas+condensate reservoir system, This mechanism is described by Hoier and Whitson®. Gas Cycling Recovery Efficiency in Swept Zone Let us look at the recovery mechanisms in a gas cycling project in the volume of the reservoir swept by injection gas — the “microscopic” or “pore-level” recovery. At a given time and position in the swept zone, the pressure is either above or below its original dewpoint when the injection gas front arrives. If above the dewpoint, a gas-gas miscible displacement will yield 100% recovery of the current condensate in place. A miscible displacement is guaranteed,Gas Condensate PVT - What's Really Important and Why? 12 CH, Whitson, @. Fevang, and T. Yang independent of the injection gas used, even though the injected gas may be first- Contact “immiscible” with the original reservoir gas. Miscibility develops by a simple vaporizing mechanism. If reservoir pressure is below the dewpoint when the displacement front arrives, ultimate recovery of condensate is dictated by two processes: (1) gas-gas miscible displacement of the reservoir gas, and (2) partial vaporization of the retrograde condensate. The condensate recovery by gas-gas miscible displacement is 100% of the condensate in solution in the reservoir gas at the time the front arrives. The recovery efficiency of retrograde condensate by vaporization (E;,) increases gradually as increasing volumes of injection gas sweep this point in the reservoir. We will try to discuss the two mechanisms of condensate recovery for a reservoir undergoing cycling below the dewpoint. Before the gas front arrives, (1) the amount of “condensate in place” in the gas-filled pores continuously decreases below the dewpoint; and (2) the “cumulative retrograde condensate” in the oil-filled pores continuously increases at decreasing pressures, After the gas front arrives, (1) the gas-gas miscible displacement has a 100% efficiency of the condensate remaining in solution in the reservoir gas; and (2) the recovery efficiency of retrograde condensate by vaporization (E,) rises quickly but then flattens quickly after the front passes. This behavior of E, is due to the preferential vaporization of “light” Cr. first, leaving behind a heavier condensate which is less efficiently (more slowly) vaporized. The more volumes of injection gas Passing over the condensate, the less efficient vaporization becomes. Even if Pressure continues to decline, new condensation will not occur because the gas behind the front is lean and has little dissolved condensate. Accurate prediction of the changing vaporization efficiency requires (1) an accurate description of the C7, molar distribution of the condensate, and (2) the K-values of Cz, components as a function of pressure and overall composition, Because total condensate recovery efficiency in the swept region may be dependent on an accurate description of the component-by-component vaporization process, effort should be made to obtain compositional data which describes the vaporization process. Extra effort should also be given towards fitting these compositional data with the EOS model. However, it is worthwhile to first evaluate the potential for recovery by vaporization of retrograde condensate below the dewpoint prior to obtaining extensive (and expensive) laboratory data of the type described above, Evaluating Gas Cycling Potential Defining the “target” of condensate recovery by gas cycling is important to economic evaluation and field development strategy. The following definitions are useful for defining the target of gas cycling: 1. Foo is, as previously discussed (Eq. 7), the condensate recovery by pressure depletion to some reservoir pressure ~ e.g. the end of production Peni, or at the pressure of gas cycling Peycio. 2. RFou is the recovery of condensate which would be expected at the end of cycling due to gas-gas miscible displacement with 100% sweep efficiency O OOo Gas Condensate PVT —What’s Really Important and Why? 13 CH. Whitson, @. Fevang, and T. Yang (E,=100%); it is assumed the gas cycling occurs at a constant pressure Poyelng above or below the original dewpoint. 3. RFoy (=100 — RFou) is the recovery of condensate which would be expected at the end of cycling due to vaporization of retrograde condensate with 100% sweep efficiency (Es=100%); it is assumed the gas cycling occurs at a constant pressure Peyeing below the initial dewpoint, Note, RFav = 100% for gas cycling above the initial dewpoint. 4, RFoox is the extra condensate recovery from pressure depletion of the reservoir volume not swept by injection gas during cycling, (depletion from Peycing tO Pena). Note, RFopx = RFon(Peycing) — RFon(Pena). 5. RFeut is the ultimate condensate recovery due to (a) depletion prior to cycling, (b) cycling, and (c) depletion after cycling. For Peyaing > Po, RF = RF +E “RF, + (1—-E5)-RF io, . (12) While f0F Peyeing < Pur (13) PF, = RFy + Eg «(RF yy +Ey : Ry )+(1-Eg)- RF ip, « where Es defines the final areal-times-vertical sweep efficiency at the end of cycling, and Ey defines the final efficiency of vaporized retrograde condensate (for Peycing below the dewpoint). What components of the ultimate recovery are strongly dependent on PVT properties? We already have defined the dependence of RFeo on PVT properties (Eq. 7), where Z-factors and variation of C;, in the CVD produced gas phase determine RFoo. It is also easy to show that RFow is given exclusively by data in the CCE and CVD tests, as is RF,y (= 100 — RFom). The only other PVT-dependent parameter is Ey, which (as mentioned earlier) Is determined by (1) the C7, molar distribution of retrograde condensate, and (2) the K- values of C7, components as a function of pressure and overall composition. However, Ev is only important for cycling below the dewpoint, and often the contribution of vaporization to overall condensate recovery is relatively small. Fig. 3 shows recovery of condensate versus pressure for a high-pressure offshore gas condensate field. Initial pressure is 900 bara, and dewpoint is 400 bara. The calculations are based only on CCE and CVD data, as shown in Table 2. The lower curve gives RF,o(p), the recovery due to pressure depletion. The upper curve gives. RFou(p), the recovery due to gas-gas miscible displacement with 100% sweep efficiency but with no vaporization of retrograde condensate. In this high-pressure reservoir, the additional recovery due to gas cycling will not be realized until late into the life of the field, as pressure approaches the dewpoint andGas Condensate PVT ~ What's Really Important and Why? 4 CH. Whitson, @. Fevang, and T. Yang fecovery is about 30%. In terms of net present value, and depending on when the investment for compressors etc. are required, cycling does not appear attractive. For the same reservoir but initially saturated at the dewpoint of 400 bara, additional Condensate recovery by gas cycling is more attractive, as shown in Fig. 4. Here the rapid decline in producing liquid yields will have a pronounced affect on project economy, while successful cycling (high sweep efficiency Es) can provide prolonged initial liquid yields and higher ultimate recovery. For this case, net present value is more positive to a cycling project. In summary, most of the primary evaluation for potential of gas cycling can be Quantified by CVD and CCE data. Vaporization effects are often less significant than commonly thought, an observation which follows from the calculation of recovery factors RFep and RFow based on CVD and CCE data, When vaporization recovery (RFoy) is important, special multi-contact vaporization tests should be conducted and fit with the PVT model, where variation of Cr, in the equilibrium gas is the most important data Combined Condensing/Vaporizing Mechanism Historically it has been assumed that any gas cycling project in a gas condensate reservoir was miscible only by the vaporizing gas drive mechanism. Consequently, the MMP has always been assumed equal to the dewpoint pressure. Cycling Projects where reservoir pressure drops below the dewpoint were considered “inferior” because only partial vaporization of the retrograde condensate could be expected. For most separator injection gases these traditional assumptions are valid. However, Hoier and Whitson® show that miscible displacement of gas condensates (by the condensing/vaporizing mechanism) can be obtained at pressures far below the dewpoint for continuous or slug injection of gas enriched with components Co-Cs, Whether a below-dewpoint miscible displacement can develop in a gas condensate depends on (1) pressure, (2) composition of the injection gas, (3) composition of the retrograde condensate ahead of the front, and (4) physical dispersion or fingering (for slug injection). Although the same conditions also apply for enriched-gas miscible displacement of an oil reservoir, conditions (3) and (4) are particularly important for gas condensates. The most likely candidate for enriched-gas miscible gas cycling below the dewpoint would be rich or near-critical condensates where injection gas is not available in sufficient quantities to maintain reservoir pressure. “REPRESENTATIVE” SAMPLES Before a field development starts, the primary goal of sampling is to obtain “representative” samples of the fluids found in the reservoir at initial conditions. It may be difficult to obtain a representative sample because of two-phase flow effects near the wellbore. This occurs when a well is produced with a flowing bottomhole Pressures below the saturation pressure of the reservoir fluids. It is also commonly thought that “bad” fluid samples result if gas coning or oil coning ocours during sampling, O OGas Condensate PVT — What's Really Important and Why? 15 C.H. Whitson, 0. Fevang, and T. Yang The most representative insitu samples are usually obtained when the reservoir fluid is single phase at the point of sampling, be it bottomhole or at the surface. Even this Condition, however, may not ensure representative sampling. And, as shown by Fevang and Whitson®, samples obtained during gas coning in an oil well can provide accurate insitu representative samples if a proper laboratory procedure is followed. Because reservoir fluid composition can vary areally, between fault blocks, and as a function of depth, we are actually interested in obtaining a sample of reservoir fluid that is representative of the volume being drained by the well during the test. Unfortunately, the concept of a “representative’ sample is usually a sample that correctly reflects the composition of reservoir fluid at the depth or depths being tested. If we suspect or know that a sample is not ‘representative’ (according to this definition), then we tend to do nothing with the sample. Or we question the validity of the PVT analysis done on the “unrepresentalive" sample, and consequently don't include the measured data when developing the PVT model. We strongly recommend against using this definition of “representivity.” First of all, it is a definition that costs our industry in terms of wasted money and time, and lost ‘opportunity. An important point to keep in mind is that: Any fluid sample that produces from a reservoir is automatically representative of that reservoir. After all, the sample is produced from the reservoir! The final EOS fluid characterization of a field should match all (accurate) PVT measurements of all (uncontaminated) samples produced from the reservoir, independent of whether the samples ae representative of insitu compositions. Accuracy of PVT Data # Insitu Representivity of Sample Accurate PVT measurements can be made on both representative and unrepresentative samples. Inaccurate PVT measurements can also be made on both types of samples; bad PVT data should be ignored. Furthermore, an EOS fluid characterization is used to predict compositional changes during depletion which represent a much greater variation than the compositional differences shown by "representative" and “unrepresentative" samples. Another misconception in “representative” fluid sampling of gas condensates is that it is difficult to obtain insitu-representative samples in saturated gas condensate reservoirs (with underlying oil). The exact opposite is true! Fevang and Whitson? have shown that if a gas condensate is initially saturated and in contact with an underlying oil zone, then a near-perfect insitu-representative sample can be obtained (at the gas-oil contact) — independent of whether the reservoir gas and reservoir oil samples collected are insitu-representative.Gas Condensate PVT ~ What's Really Important and Why? 16 C.H, Whitson, 8. Fevang, and T. Yang In summary, all “uncontaminated” samples collected from a reservoir are reservoir representative and, accordingly, should be described accurately by the PVT model, Insitu-representative samples may be difficult to obtain. But even when collected, they may not represent more than a “local” volume of the reservoir, where significant variations in fluid composition exist vertically and areally away from the point of sampling. EOS MobELIna To make EOS calculations, the minimum required input are (1) molar composition, and (2) molecular weight and specific gravity of the heaviest fraction (usually C;, or Cio,). With this minimum information, an EOS can caiculato practically any phase and volumetric property of the mixture - e.g., Bubblepoint or dewpoint pressure at a specified temperature - Pressure-temperature phase envelope - Densities and compressibilities of oil and gas phases. + Separator gas-oil ratio and surface gravities - Depletion PVT experiments + Multicontact gas injection experiments Splitting the Plus Fraction Usually, three to five C;, fractions (or 2 to 3 Cro, fractions) should be used. The Whitson et al.'° splitting/characterization procedure is recommended for the Peng- Robinson EOS. The Pedersen et al." method is recommended for the Soave-Redlich- Kwong EOS, where each plus fraction has equal mass fraction, When true boiling point distillation data are available, these data should be used directly, or to define parameters in the splitting model, TBP data can be used, for example, to define the molar distribution parameters a and n in the gamma distribution model, and constants in the specific gravity correlation, Tuning the EOS Model If measured PVT data are available, and they have been checked for accuracy’, the EOS characterization can be modified to improve the predictions of measured data. Manual adjustments of EOS parameters such as binary interaction parameters (BIPs) and heavy component critical properties can be used, though this approach is time consuming (and often frustrating). Nonlinear regression can be used to mathematically minimize the difference between EOS predictions and measured PVT data. A critical aspect of the “tuning” procedure is to properly weigh individual data (and data types) based on the importance of individual data to reservoir and well performance. * Material balance methods are often useful for checking consistency of depletion experiments (CVD ‘and DLE). The material balance starts at the final stage of the experiment, with known amounts and compositions. Removed gas is then acided back from each depletion stage, arriving at the initial fluid. ‘Comparison with the initial composition gives a direct measure of consistency. Another approach is to start the material balance with the initial fluid, back-calculating the oll phase properties and compositions as depletion progresses; this approach is only useful for medium-rich to rich condensates because small errors in V, have a dramatic effect on the back-calculated oil properties. QO VUOo Gas Condensate PVT — What's Really Important and Why? 7 CH. Whitson, &. Fevang, and T. Yang Developing a “Common” EOS Model for Multiple Reservoir Fluids An important requirement in the development of an EOS model is the need to have one set of components to describe all reservoir samples in a given field. This is particularly important if the reservoir fluids from different parts of the reservoir (layers or fault blocks) mix in the reservoir. It also may be important if mixing only occurs at the ‘surface. Our experience has shown that a single set of components and a single set of EOS component properties can be used to describe a wide range of reservoir fluids, ranging from leaner gas condensates to low-GOR oils ~ fluids which may or may not be in fiuid communication initially. Whitson et al.’° propose one method for developing a “common” EOS model for multiple reservoir fluids. Another approach is to develop the EOS model based on a single sample, and then “generate” the other reservoir fluids by flash calculations (saturation pressure, two-phase split, or isothermal gradient). Generating Black-Oil PVT Tables Once the EOS characterization has been developed, a primary application of the EOS is to generate black-oil PVT tables for reservoir simulation, material balance and fiow calculations (also pipeflow calculations). The most common application of black-oil PVT is black-oil simulation. The procedure proposed by Whitson and Torp"? is recommended for generating black- oil PVT tables. They suggest using a reference fluid to conduct a depletion test (e.g. CVD), sending the equilibrium reservoir phases separately through a surface separation to obtain (Rs, Bo, Ho) for the oil phase and (fs, Bgs, and Ug) for the gas phase. Surface densities are taken from the surface separation of the reference fluid. The definition of black-oil PVT properties are: Mo Veo. il formation volume factor = solution gas-ollratio Bu= i = dry gas formation volume factor co r= 2% = solution ol- gas ratio Vow where subscripts are defined as: ©: reservoir oil phase at p and T g : reservoir gas phase at p and T 00: surface oil from reservior oil (“solution oil) go: surface gas from reservoir oil ("solution” gas) 0g: stock-tank oil (condensate) from reservoir gas ag : surface gas from reservoir gasGas Condensate PVT ~ What's Really Important and Why? 18 CH. Whitson, 8. Fevang, and T. Yang The important biackol PVT properties for IFIP calculations in gas condensate Feservoirs are f¢/Bga = the surface oil in place per reservoir gas volume’, and 1/B,3 = the surface gas in place per reservoir gas Volume. The term r/Bys is the quantity required by “geologists” to convert reservoir gas pore volumes to surface oil — a kind of “oil FVF (8,)" for the reservoir gas phase. In fact, for compositionally-grading reservoirs with a transition from gas to oil through an undersaturated (critical) state, the term te/By should equal B ~ exactly ~ at the undersaturated gas-oil contact, thereby ensuring continuity and consistency. ‘Some special problems related to generating black-oil PVT tables with an EOS include: 1. How to extrapolate saturated PVT properties to pressures higher than the original saturation pressure of the reference fluid. 2. Non-monotonie saturated oil properties By and R, for gas condensate systems. 3. Consistency requirements for comparison of black-oil and EOS simulations. 4, Handling saturated reservoirs with a gas overlying an oil, where black-oil PVT properties from the two fluid systems can be significantly different. 5. Modeling reservoirs with compositional gradients, and how to initialize these reservoirs in black-oil simulators. Extrapolating Saturated Tables Extrapolating saturated black-oil PVT tables can be done in a number of ways, depending on the reservoir process and why the extrapolation is needed. Extrapolation is usually required for (a) gas injection studies, (b) reservoirs with compositional gradients where the reference sample is undersaturated, or (c) ensuring numerical stability for near-critical fluid systems where pressures may exceed the original saturation pressure during iteration. Methods for extrapolating black-oil PVT tables include: (a) mixing the incipient phase from a saturation pressure of the reference fluid to increase the saturation pressure, usually in a number of steps (‘reverse DLE”), (b) using a compositional gradient algorithm, or (c) adding an injection gas in increments and determining the PVT properties of each incremental mixture, or (d) adding injection gas to a “maximum” saturation pressure and then conducting a depletion test — either stopping at the original saturation pressure or continuing all the way to a low (minimum) pressure. The most appropriate method for extrapolating saturated properties may not be ‘obvious. It will often depend on the reservoir process. Several extrapolation methods may be tested in a realistic reservoir simulation model, where results are compared with a fully-compositional EOS model, The extrapolation method which consistently gives results most similar to the EOS model can be said to ‘best represent” the reservoir process. Comparisons should include initial fluids in place, recoveries, and GOR profiles of individual wells. Non-monotonic Saturated Oil Properties For medium to lean gas condensates we have often found that the saturated oil black- oil PVT properties B, and R, are not monotonic ~ first increasing just below the ' ryBye is equivalent to the compositional “equivalent” C;, content in the reservoir gas, yr.Gas Condensate PVT — What's Really important and Why? 19 CH, Whitson, @, Fevang, and. Yang dewpoint pressure, reaching a maximum, and then decreasing with pressure in a “normal” fashion. The physical explanation for this behavior is that the first condensate which appears is (for lean and medium-lean condensates) quite heavy, with a high surface-oil density (e.g. low API gravity < 40). The “low-gravity” or heavy condensate has, as expected”, a relatively low B, and Rs. ‘As more condensate evolves from the reservoir gas, the total reservoir condensate becomes lighter with higher (API) gravity. The change in the gravity has a stronger influence than the decreasing pressure, so the net change in By and Rs is to increase with decreasing pressure. As pressure continues to decrease, the condensate gravity stabilizes and “normal” pressure dependence of saturated oil properties results, with B, and Re both decreasing at decreasing pressures. One solution we have found useful in this situation is to generate a separate set of black-oil PVT tables, starting with the incipient oll phase of the original reservoir gas at dewpoint, and using a depletion (DLE or CVD) test with this oil. The ‘oil phase” PVT table (Bs, Re, and ie) ftom depletion of the incipient oil can then be used together with the “gas phase” PVT table (Bya, ro, {4g) from depletion of the original reservoir gas. Consistency Between Black-Oil and EOS Models Coats® addresses the need for compositional EOS models for gas condensate reservoirs. He shows that gas cycling below the dewpoint is the only situation when black-oil modeling may be inadequate, He suggests that an EOS model with at least 3 >, fractions should be used to properly model vaporization recovery of retrograde condensate. His results indicate that depletion, single-well modeling, and gas cycling above the dewpoint are properly modeled with a black-oil model. Fevang and Whitson’ show that some modification of black-oil saturated oil viscosities may be needed to ensure accurate single-well modeling of condensate blockage. They show that the oil viscosity in the near-wellbore blockage region is the liquid which condenses from the flowing wellstream, and not a cumulative CVD-type liquid. The flowing blockage-area liquid can be significantly lighter than the CVD-type condensate, and with correspondingly lower viscosity (1.5 to 5 times lower). Handling Saturated Gas/Oil Systems Black-oil PVT properties for a saturated reservoir gas/oil system (gas cap overlying oil) may be difficult to generate using a consistent approach. Traditionally we generate a complete set of PVT tables separately for the reservoir oil and reservoir gas, using a depletion test for the reservoir oil (e.g. DLE) and a depletion test for the reservoir gas (e.g. CVD). From the depletion test of each reservoir phase, the complete set of black- oil PVT tables are consistent only at the initial saturation pressure. That is, the incipient oil from the dewpoint of the reservoir gas is identical to the reservoir oil; and the incipient gas from the bubblepoint of the reservoir oil is identical to the reservoir gas, The saturated oil and gas phases which form from the two depletion tests are different below the original saturation pressure. This leads to differences in PVT properties " Expected, for example, based on a Standing-type saturated correlations for B, and R..Gas Condensate PVT ~ What's Really Important and Why? 20 CH, Whitson, @. Fevang, and T. Yang which are not handled consistently in a black-oil simulator. One solution is to use two PVT regions, one for the cells originally in the gas cap, and another region for cells originally in the oil. This solution is incorrect for cells which originally are defined as one “phase” but become the other “phase” due to movement of the gas-oil contact. Still, this may be the best solution in some reservoirs. Initializing Reservoirs with Compositional Gradients Two problems arise when trying to use black-oil simulators for reservoirs. with compositional gradients. The one problem is obtaining correct initial surface fluids in place (compared with initialization using an EOS model). The second problem is analogous to that discussed above for saturated gas/oil systems, where PVT properties of the different reservoir fluids are not the same. The best way to ensure accurate initialization of surface gas and surface oil in place is to initialize using Ry and r, versus depth, instead of using saturation pressure versus depth. The more-common practice of initializing with saturation pressure versus depth leads to problems of initial fluid in place because of the second problem mentioned above ~ i.e. though only one PVT table is used, the black-oil PVT properties of the different reservoir fluids are not the same. Our recommended method of using Rs an r. versus depth for initialization may lead to a small error in recoveries near the initial saturation pressures. However, this error is usually insignificant and always less than errors introduced by wrong initial fluids in place caused by initialization with saturation pressure versus depth. Pseudoization (Grouping Components) Some reservoir processes can not be adequately modeled with a black-oil PVT formulation. Gas injection, near critical oll and gas condensate systems, and laboratory simulations may require fully compositional EOS simulation. ‘The mathematical complexity of integrating an EOS in a reservoir simulator is many times that of using a simple black-oil PVT formulation. The result is a simulator that runs much slower than a black-oil simulator. It may be necessary to economize the number of components used in compositional simulation by ‘pseudoization’ (i.e. reducing the number of components in an EOS characterization). The number of components used in an EOS characterization depends both on computational restraints, and on the desired level of accuracy from the EOS. Some balance between these two requirements is needed to determine the final number of components for solving a given problem. An initial fluid characterization will typically contain from 13 to 20 components, and sometimes more. For best results, a stepwise pseudoization procedure is fecommended, whereby several pseudoized characterizations are developed sequentially (e.g. 15, 12, 10, 7, and 5 pseudocomponents). The goal with each Pseudoization is to maintain PVT predictions as close to the original full characterization as possible. With this stepwise approach, it is readily determined how few pseudocomponents are necessary to maintain a required similarity to the original O© Gas Condensate PVT - What's Really Important and Why? a CH. Whitson, ©. Fevang, and T. Yang full characterization." Reducing the number of components in a stepwise fashion has three main advantages: 1. itis possible to establish when a further reduction in number of components results in predicted properties that deviate unacceptably from the original N-component characterization. 2. The procedure usually results in several alternative characterizations with a common basis. One simulation might require more components than another (e.g. radial single-well study versus full-field simulation). Because several characterizations are available, and they are “related" through the original N- component characterization, more consistency can be expected. 3. Experience has shown that better results are obtained in going from the N- component characterization to (for example) a 7-component characterization in several steps, than going from an N-component to a 7-component characterization ina single pseudoization, The recommended stepwise pseudoization procedure is given below: 1, Use regression to develop an EOS characterization so that all relevant and accurate PVT data are adequately matched, (This is probably the most difficult part of any fluid characterization). 2. Using this tuned EOS, simulate several PVT experiments. Save the results of these calculations as “data’. The experiments should cover as large as possible the pressure-, temperature-, and composition-space expected in the reservoir during its development. If gas injection is being considered, multicontact gas injection experiments should be included, perhaps several with different injection gas compositions. 3, Reduce the number of components by 2 or 3 by grouping components, e.g., group iso- and normal-alkanes of butanes and pentanes. 4, Fine tune (by regression) the newly-created pseudo-component EOS parameters. Recommended parameters include multipliers to EOS constants A and B and volume shift parameter s for each newly-created pseudocomponent separately; and BIPs between methane and the Cr, fractions (collectively). 5. Ina subsequent step, regress viscosities for the EOS model with the newly-created pseudocomponents. 6. Retum to step 3, selecting 2 or 3 new components to group. Fig. 5 summarizes an example pseudoization procedure. ° The number of pseudocomponents will vary according to the application. Simulation of depletion processes and water flooding will generally require only 4 of 5 pseudocomponents; immiscible gas injection ay require additional pseudocomponents, and developed miscible gas injection will probably require at least 6 to 8 pseudocomponents.Gas Condensate PVT ~ What's Really Important and Why? 22 C.H. Whitson, 0. Fevang, and T. Yang CONCLUDING REMARKS We have tried to summarize and detail the importance of various PVT properties on the reservoir and well performance of gas condensate fields. 1. For calculation of initial gas and condensate in place the key PVT data are (a) initial Z-factor and (b) initial Cr. molar content. In terms of black-oil PVT Properties, the two “equivalent” PVT quantities are (a) Byg and (b) ro/Bye. 2, The constant composition and constant volume depletion tests provide the key data for quantifying recovery of produced gas and condensate during depletion. Above the dewpoint depletion recoveries of gas and condensate are equal and are given by the variation of Z-factor with pressure. 3. For calculation of condensate recovery and varying yield (producing oil-gas ratio) during depletion it is critical to obtain accurate measurement of Cr, (fe) variation in the produced gas from a constant volume depletion test. 4. For near-saturated gas condensate reservoirs producing by pressure depletion, cumulative condensate produced is insensitive to whether the reservoir is initialized with or without a compositional gradient (even though initial condensate in place can be significantly different for the two initialization). 5. Oil viscosity should be measured and modeled accurately to properly model condensate blockage and the resulting reduction in gas deliverability. 6. For richer gas condensates, the oil relative volume (from a constant composition expansion test) has only a “secondary” effect on the modeling of condensate blockage; for lean condensates, V.. has a small effect on blockage. 7. For gas cycling projects above the dewpoint, PVT properties have essentially no effect on condensate recovery because the displacement will always be miscible, Only the definition of initial condensate in place is important. Gas viscosity has only a minor effect on gas cycling 8, For gas cycling below the dewpoint, the key PVT properties are Z-factor variation during depletion, C7, content in the reservoir gas during depletion, and Cz. vaporized from the reservoir condensate into the injection (displacement) gas. Nomenclature 8, = formation voiume factor (FVF) of reservoir oil phase By = dry gas FVF of reservoir gas phase Cog = conversion factor for gas-equivatent of surface oil Cs, = Pentanes-plus Ce, = Hexanes-plus O OGas Condensate PVT ~ What's Really Important and Why? 23 C.H. Whitson, 9. Fevang, and T. Yang Cr. Heptanes-plus Cros Decanes-plus Es sweep (vertical and areal) efficiency Ey vaporization efficiency of condensate recovery below the dewpoint Keg gas relative permeability ko oil relative permeability K equilibrium ratio (K-value) of component i M, surface oil molecular weight My, C;, molecular weight N total number ng moles of gas at initial (dewpoint) pressure ANpe incremental CVD moles of gas produced in stage k Pp pressure Po bubblepoint pressure Pa dewpoint pressure Bi initial pressure Ps saturation pressure S| Pee standard pressure O « surface oil production rate an Heptanes-plus production rate R universal gas constant ft solution oil-gas ratio of reservoir gas phase ty solution oil-gas ratio at initial pressure R, solution gas-oil ratio of reservoir oil phase RF 0 depletion recovery factor of gas RF oo depletion recovery factor of condensate RFope extra depletion recovery factor of condensate (after gas cycling) RF ou gas-gas miscible recovery factor of condensate Rout ultimate recovery factor of condensate Tae standard temperature Va oil volume at dewpoint pressure Vo gas volume Vo oil volume Veo oil volume divided by oil volume at saturation pressure v total (gas+oil) volume x il composition ©» gas composition Yoo C;, composition in the produced gas an mole fraction of C7, of produced wellstream a produced wellstream or total mole fraction z Z-factor Z Initial Z tactor Po surface oil density at standard conditions Pr surface density of C;, at standard conditions: Hy gas viscosity Bo oil viscosity REFERENCES 1. Lohrenz, J., Bray, B. G., and Clark, C. R. : "Calculating Viscosities of Reservoir Fluids oO From Their Compositions,” J. Pet. Tech. (Oct. 1984) 1171-1176; Trans., AIME, 231Gas Condensate PVT - What's Really Important and Why? 24 CH. Whitson, 8. Fovang, and. Yang 2. Pedersen, K. S., and Fredensiund, Aa., : "An Improved Corresponding States Model for the Prediction of Oil and Gas Viscosities and Thermal Conductivities,” Chem. Eng. Sci, 42, (1987), 182. 3. Whitson, C. H. and Belery, P. : "Compositional Gradients in Petroleum Reservoirs,” paper SPE 28000 presented at the University of Tulsa/SPE Centennial Petroleum Engineering Symposium held in Tulsa, OK August 29-31, 1994. 4. Lee, S. T., and Chaverra, M. :* Modeling and Interpretation of Condensate Banking for the Near Critical Cupiagua Field,” paper SPE 49265 presented for SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in New Orleans, Louisiana, 27-30 September, 1998. 5. Hoier, Lars: * Miscibilty Variation in Compositional Grading Petroleum Reservoirs," Thesis for dr.ing., Norwegian University of Science and Technology, NTNU, Nov.,1997. 6. Holer, Lars and Whitson, C. H. : “Miscibilty Variation in Compositional Grading Reservoirs,” paper SPE 49269 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in New Orleans, Sep 27-30, 1998. 7. Fevang, @ivind and Whitson, C. H. : "Modeling Gas Condensate Well Deliverability,” SPE Reservoir Engineering, (Nov. 1996) 221 8. Coats, K. H. : "Simulation of Gas Condensate Reservoir Performance," JPT (Oct. 1985) 1870 9. Fevang, @ivind and Whitson, C. H. : "Accurate Insity Compositions in Petroleum Reservoirs," paper SPE 28829 presented at the EUROPEC Petroleum Conference held in London, Oct. 25-27, 1994. 10. Whitson, C. H., Anderson, T. F., and Soreide, |. : "07+ Chracterization of Related Equilibrium Fluids Using the Gamma Distribution," C7+ Fraction Characterization, L. G. Chor and G. A. Mansoori (ed.), Advances in Thermodynamics, Taylor & Francis, New York (1989) 1. 11. Pedersen, K. S., Thomassen, P. , and Fredenslund, A. : “Characterization of Gas Condensate Mixtures," C7+ Fraction Characterization, L. G. Chorn and G. A. Mansoori (ed.), Advances in Thermodynamics, Taylor & Francis, New York (1989) 1 12. Whitson, C. H. and Torp, S. B. : "Evaluating Constant Volume Depletion Data,” JPT (March, 1983) 610; Trans AIME, 275.Oo Gas Condensate PVT — What's Really Important and Why? CH. Whitson, @. Fevang, and T. Yang Table 1 — Approximate Depletion Material Balance Calculations Based on CVD and CCE Test Results. CVD Data Conversion to Surface Oil and Gas Recoveries ‘Based on Simpiied Surtace Flash (Surface Gas |@ PERA als, programmed by Curtis H. Whitson (19981126) Jeremmwoom 181 kokmet 7-Denciy 850 komo Cop 122 Sma (assumed consan) wane 09120 ‘Approx. | Soliton Jin (e8) oa Pay dmpind a Reg Reo bara % % —mol% Salmo ae Pi 632 1.2172 0.000 3936 3407E-04 000 000 Ps 4901074 ~—«0.000 a0 3.906 aMO7E-O8 800 300 408 2710 2710 S339 26276-08 1129 1087| sre 7oro 4360 3368 2851604 15291427 220 14720 7850-2875 BaDEOH «= 22.95.02 ze 2420 9700 2245 L8B0EOF = 1.08. 221 33060 11680 1742 <14S1E-OH = «42.22 170 39.190 39070 1302 toeve-o1 saa 92.72 21 62690 19800 1055 a7e7e0s «= 6717 85.87 2 7816016590 0675 5562605 827638. 36- and Surlace Oll= C7) Table 2 - Approximate Depletion and Gas Cycling Calculations Based on CVD and CCE Tests. EEEEEEE 53 [3s seg Gor Zn, a wy covet ane corpse arg Ae iT om B Lelaal bidet eT ah tage tepraeSO bar eS seg 2a ten BS [Sern sireratoonorvsnsiaea- THES alaabiet nce gents [LL [ceroie stoosioewisriuosusizyi00.— |Gas Condensate PVT — What's Really important and Why? 26 CH. Whitson, @, Fevang, and T. Yang 600 CVD (Reservoir) Pressure, bara Poe ee 8 -0- Surface Gas | ~e- Surface Oil o 10 20 30 40 80 7100 Surface Gas and Surface Oil Recovery Factors Fig. 1— Approximate Material Balance Calculations Based on CVD Test Results. os} Fos La) EOS V,,18 20% to 02 on 20 + on 1 10 100 Vio=Vo/ Vy of Flowing tix roduced Wellstream), % ‘(re Not equal to Normalized Cll Saturation !) Fig. 2 - Effect of error in Vro on gas relative permeability in near-wellbore condensate blockage zone.Gas Condensate PVT - What's Really Important and Why? ©.H, Whitson, ©. Fevang, and. Yang 27 : : : scree Q x s = 60 & go ; i a Pressure: : Prosswo, bara Fig. 3 - Condensate recoveries for pressure depletion and 1000 gas cycling below the dewpoint in a high-pressure undersaturated reservoir. 100 a al f Pore-Level Condensate Recovery tag ‘Wi Ne Vapoiaton 8 “Target For z Vaporization § 8 3 40 e Pressure Davtton Pore-Level Condensate Recovery o ° 50 100 «180-00 250 300, 850400 Pressure, bara Fig. 4 - Condensate recoveries for pressure depletion and gas cycling below the dewpoint in a saturated reservoir.Gas Condensate PVT ~What's Really Important and Why? CH. Whitson, 0. Fevang, and T. Yang 28 1 Component | cosz2 | eosta| cos | costo | cos | cose ES e080 ma fe —gjome fone Jena Jone owe coe fooz / |oor foor — jooe ot fot lcoace —_fonaca ce foo foo oe hee Jomzcoace.cs ewacozc. cx for feo ea fos los ea fe fcarce ficawce jcwnce — ficance nos uct levee cs les cones fiosncs fosncs —_ ficsnes ce fos fos fos bow ios a |e a cx ce oo os loo lcrcecorsr2 crcacaesea|crcacariralonoecarif2 once exer Portes forcacors.s8 ra f Ihe rs es rors ese fears feoe re |e > ler Pyrare ro ew ee ro le 2 ks Fig. 5 - Example pseudoization procedure reducing an original EOS characterization with 22 components to multiple pseudoized characterizations. OFLUID SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS OF LABORATORY DATA Curtis H. WhitsonChapter 3 Fluid Sampling & Laboratory Data Rev. 0.6 Page 1 Curtis H. Whitson (PERA a/s) November 1998 3. FLUID SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS OF LABORATORY DATA 3.1 Introduction 3.1.1 Important PVT Data Oil and gas samples are taken to evaluate the properties of produced fluids at reservoir conditions, in the production tubing, and in pipeline transportation. The key PVT (pressure-volume-temperature) properties to be determined for a reservoir fluid include: Original reservoir composition(s) ‘Saturation pressure at reservoir temperature Oil and gas densities Oil and gas viscosities Gas solubility in reservoir oil Liquid (NGL/condensate) content of reservoir gas, Shrinkage (volume) factors of oil and gas from reservoir to surface conditions + Equilibrium phase compositions Standard experimental procedures are used for measuring these properties, including expansion and depletion studies, and multistage separator tests. Reservoir fluid samples can also be used in gas injection studies, where oil recovery by vaporization, condensation, and developed miscibility are quantified. Slimtube tests and multicontact gas injection PVT studies are typically used for this purpose. Less traditional PVT analyses include: ‘+ Analysis of produced water, including salinity and brine composition ‘+ Wax and asphaltene analysis + Hydrates and emulsions ‘This chapter summarizes the sampling procedures used to collect fluids, and the experimental methods used to measure fluid properties. A summary of PVT data is given in Table 3-1. 3.2 Sampling Methods 3.2 Type of Sampling The API! gives recommended practices for sampling oil and gas wells.Chapter 3 Fluid Sampling & Laboratory Data Rev. 0.6 Page 2 Curtis H. Whitson (PERA a/s) November 1998 O Furthermore, Norsk Hydro has a chapter on Sampling Procedures in their Well Testing Manual’. Several sampling methods can be used to collect reservoir fluids, including + RET Sampling + Bottomhole sampling + Separator sampling + Wellhead sampling ‘The choice of method depends primarily on (1) whether the reservoir fluid is an oil or gas, and (2) whether the reservoir fluid is saturated (or nearly saturated) at reservoir conditions. The second condition is determined by whether the well produces single phase fluid into the wellbore at the flowing bottomhole pressure. Table 3-2 gives a Schlumberger-produced look-up table for determining sample requirements for various situations in the testing of oil and gas condensate reservoirs, 3.2.2 Representative Samples Before field development starts, the primary goal of sampling is to obtain “representative” samples of the fluid or fluids found in the reservoir at initial conditions. It may be difficult to obtain a representative sample because of two- phase flow effects near the wellbore. This occurs when a well is produced with a flowing bottomhole pressures below the saturation pressure of the reservoir fluid(s)* Misleading fluid samples may also be obtained if gas coning or oil coning occurs. ‘The best (most representative) samples are usually obtained when the reservoir fluid is single phase at the point of sampling, be it bottomhole or at the surface. Even this condition, however, may not ensure representative sampling (ee section 3.2.5) Because reservoir fluid composition can vary areally, between fault blocks, and as a function of depth, we are actually interested in obtaining a sample of reservoir fluid that is representative of the volume being drained by the well during the test. Unfortunately, the concept of a "representative" sample is usually " Ifa significant positive skin effect exists then the region near the wellbore that actually is bbelow the saturation pressure may be insignificant (i. consisting of a volume that wil! practically not effect produced fluid sampling). The well testing engincer should quantify the pressure drop ‘due to damage skin (i i exists) at the rate when the well experiences the lowest wellbore flowing pressure. {n fact, they should provide an adjusted flowing wellbore pressure plot versus time uring sampling that shows the effect of positive skin, The adjusted flowing pressure is probably better to use in evaluating if wellbore conditions were in fact condusive to sampling, OChapter 3 Fluid Sampling & Laboratory Data Rev. 0.6 Page3 Curtis H. Whitson (PERA a/s) November 1998 A sample that correctly reflects the composition of reservoir fluid at the depth or depths being tested, If we suspect or know that a sample is not "representative" (according to this definition), then we tend to do nothing with the sample. Or we question the validity of the PVT analysis done on the "unrepresentative” sample, and consequently don't include the measured data when developing our EOS fluid characterization, In general, we should not use this definition of *representivity.” First of all, it is a definition that costs our industry in terms of wasted money and time, and Jost opportunity. Some points to keep in mind are: Any fluid sample that produces from a reservoir is automatically tepresentative of that reservoir. After all, the sample is produced from the reservoir! ‘The final EOS fluid characterization of the reservoir fluid(s) should be required to match all (accurate) PVT measurements of all samples produced from the reservoir, independent of whether the samples are representative of insitu compositions. Accuracy of PVT Data #Representivity of Sample Accurate PVT measurements can be made on both representative and unrepresentative samples, Inaccurate PVT measurements can also be made on both types of samples; bad PVT data should be ignored. Furthermore, an EOS fluid characterization is used to predict compositional changes during depletion which represent a much greater variation than the compositional differences shown by “representative” and "unrepresentative” samples. Another misconception in "representative" fluid sampling of gas condensates is that it is difficult to obtain insitu-representative samples in saturated gas condensate reservoirs (with underlying oil). The exact opposite is true? We can readily show that if a gas condensate is initially saturated and in contact with an underlying oil zone, then a near-perfect insitu-representative sample can be obtained (at the gas-oil contact). Independent of whether the reservoir gas and reservoir oil samples collected are insitu-representative. 3.2.3 Define the Fluid Type For a new discovery it is important that the fluid type and saturation conditions can be estimated based on somewhat limited production data. Such data might include producing gas-oil ratio, stock-tank oil and separator gas gravity, reservoir temperature, and initial reservoir pressure. Produced wellstream composition may also be available,Chapter 3 Fluid Sampling & Laboratory Data Rev. 0.6 Page 4 Curtis H. Whitson (PERA a/s) November 1998 Correlations such as presented by Standing and Glass (section 4.4) can be uused {0 estimate bubblepoint pressure with an accuracy of 5 to 10%. When composition is available, an equation of state can be used to predict the saturation pressure (bubblepoint or dewpoint) with about the same accuracy, Better predictions can usually be expected for oils, but with accurate composition and Cr. properties, dewpoint predictions of gas condensates also can be expected Figure 3-1 shows a typical pressure-temperature diagram for a reservoir uid. “The phase envelope defines the locus of bubblepoints and dewpoints Joined at the critical point. A reservoir with temperature less than the critical Point is defined as an oil reservoir. A reservoir with temperature between the Critical temperature and the cricondentherm is defined as a gas condensate reservoir. If reservoir temperature is higher than the cricondentherm then the reservoir is defined as a gas reservoir. Further qualtitative fluid definitions are sometimes used. For example, oil Teservoirs are classified in two categories: black-oil resevoirs and volatile oil reservoirs (determined according to their initial solution GOR and STO gravity; approximately, black-oil: R:<150 Sm'/Sm’ and volatile oil: Re>150 Sm/Sm’), Gas reservoirs are sometimes classified as wer gas reservoirs (producing some liquid at surface conditions) or dry gas reservoirs (neglible surface liquid Production). Furthermore, gas condensate reservoirs are sometimes grouped into the categories lean gas condensate reservoirs (GOR>2000 Sm'/Sm’) and rich as condensate reservoirs (GOR<1000 Sm‘/Sm’). Retuming to Figure 3-1, a resevoir fluid is a single phase at conditions outside the phase envelope, Within the phase envelope, two phases (gas and oil) exist, Any time two phases coexist locally (e.g. gas and oil within a pore), each Phase separately is in a saturated state; the oil is at its bubblepoint and the gas is at its dewpoint. This fundamental concept is instrumental in understanding reservoir phase behavior.” Initially a reservoir will always be at a pressure and temperature that is one or outside the phase envelope, “During production and subsequent pressure reduction in the reservoir, the system may enter the two-phase region. * Likewise, the concept of saturated phases applies to water and hydrocarbon phases in focal equilibrium. For example, in an ol-water system system, both phases are saturated - with respect tocach other. Even though te ol is highly undersaturated with respect to a gas phase, the oil is still saturated - with respect to water likewise, water is saturated with components inthe oil phase. * Aer the reservoir enters the two-phase rion iferatal amounts of reservoir gas and oil ate produced, according to relative permeability and viscosity ratios ofthe two phases, Subsequently, the remaining reservoir fluid does not have the samme composition, and its phase eavelope will therefore change from the original phase envelope. Itis therefore of limited use design reservoir behavior during depletion based on the original p-T diagram7 Chapter3 Fluid Sampling & Laboratory Data Rev. 0.6 G } Page 5 Curtis H. Whitson (PERA a/s) November 1998 In practice there are three types of fluid systems in a given geological formation with vertical hydrodynamic communication, As shown in Figure 3-1, these are: + Undersaturated System with Uniform Composition + Saturated System with Uniform Composition + Saturated and/or Undersaturated System with Compositional Gradient A primary objective of fluid analyses in new discoveries is to establish the type C of fluid system. However, without production from several intervals and/or several wells, it will be difficult to establish the classification with any great certainty. Ula is an example of an undersaturated oil reservoir with relatively uniform composition. Sleipner is an example of an undersaturated gas condensate reservoir with relatively uniform composition. ‘Troll is a saturated reservoir with fairly uniform composition in the gas cap and in the oil. Oseberg is an example of a saturated/undersaturated reservoir with significant compositional variation with depth (particularly in the oil). Another exmaple is the Statfjord formation in the Statfjord field. Blefisk and Ekofisk fields are examples of undersaturated oil reservoirs with some compositional variation with depth.’ Interestingly, the variation of composition (bubblepoint) with depth is not the same in the two main geological formations (Ekofisk and Tor). The Statfjord formation in the Brent field is pethaps the most unusual fluid type. ‘The reservoir is undersaturated throughout, but the composition varies from a somewhat volatile oil at the bottom to a gas condensate at the top. At some depth a transition from bubblepoint to dewpoint occurs - but without a gas~ oil contact! ‘The point of transition is marked by a mixture with critical temperature equal to reservoir temperature (at that depth); at the transition, reservoir pressure is higher than the saturation (critical) pressure of the mixture (ee Figure 3-1). 3.2.4 Conditioning a Well Before Sampling ‘A well should normally be "conditioned! before sampling, particularly for gas condensate and saturated oil wells. First the well is produced long enough to clean up all chemicals that were used during the well completion. Next, the rate is stepwise decreased until the flowing bottomhole pressure is larger than the estimated saturation pressure (if possible). “The final flow rate must be large enough to maintain a stable producing GOR and wellhead pressure, even if the flowing bottomhole pressure is less thanChapter 3 Fluid Sampling & Laboratory Data Rev. 0.6 Page 6 Curtis H. Whitson (PERA a/s) November 1998 the saturation pressure. Also, the final flow rate should be maintained long enough to ensure that the producing GOR is more-or-less constant, A constant producing GOR does not necessarily indicate that the produced wellstream is “representative” of the original reservoir fluid. In fact, it may not be possible to obtain a truly representative sample for reservoir oil and gas condensate systems initially in a saturated state. Sample containers are usually shipped by boat to land, and thereafter by air OF ground transport to the PVT laboratory. As requested by the field operator, compositional analysis and standard PVT experiments are performed on the samples at a PVT laboratory. 3.2.5 RFT Sampling Repeat Formation Tester (RFT) sampling (open wellbore sampling) is probably the least accurate of all methods of sampling, mostly because of the limited volume of sampling. However, RFT samples should be valid under the following conditions: + Undersaturated oil + High Permeability + Water-based mud used when drilling If oil-based mud is used during drilling then the samples can only be used for approximate compositional analysis. ‘The hydrocarbon components found in the cil-based mud must be backed out of (subtracted from) the overall composition. The greatest advantage of RFT sampling is that the fluid is defined for a Precise depth, Many reservoirs exhibit compositional variation with depth Accurate RFT samples can help establish this variation, typically a task that is very difficult. 3.2.6 Bottomhole Sampling Undersaturated oils are usually sampled with bottomhole containers lowered into the wellbore on a wireline (Figure 3-3, Figure 3-1). ‘The bottomhole sample is taken while the well is flowing at a relatively low rate. ‘The flowing bottomhole pressure should always be higher than the estimated bubblepoint pressure of the reservoir oil Bottomhole oil samples can also be taken when a well is shutin. ‘The flowing bottomhole pressure prior to shutin should be higher than the bubblepoint pressure. ‘The typical procedure for bottomhole sampling includes: + Install sample container in the production tubing + Make pressure gradient measurements going into the hole * Position sampler at the specified depth * Produce the well at a low, stable rate (following conditioning)Chapter 3 Fluid Sampling & Laboratory Data Rev. 0.6 Page 7 Curtis H. Whitson (PERA a/s) November 1998 + Sample during the flow test (dynamic sample) or after shuting in the well (static sample) ‘Traditional bottombole samplers are often transferred to a sample container while still on the drilling rig. (Norsk Hydro tries to practice transfer on land ‘when possible.) The procedure for this transfer includes: Measure the opening pressure of the BH sampler Heat the BH sampler to about 80°C Mix the sample by agitation/rotation Transfer to sample container ‘The saturation pressure of the sample is measured in the sample container at the oO prevailing temperature. To ensure that representative samples have been obiained, at least two (and preferably three) BH samples should have the same bubblepoint pressure at ambient temperature, within 3 to 4%, 3.2.7 Wellhead Sampling If a produced oil is single phase at the wellhead then a sample can be taken upstream to the choke, Several wellhead sampling methods can be used: + Fill a membrane sampler by displacing the backpressure fluid (ethylene glycol) + Filla piston cylinder sampler + Fill an open cylinder containing mercury (sometimes not allowed offshore, e.g. in Norway) Successful wellhead samples should be very accurate if the temperature is above the wax appearance point (WAP), Usually wellhead samples can only be taken from high-pressure, deep wells that are highly undersaturated (e.g. Embla). In | general, wellhead (or bottomhole) samples are proferred for asphaltene studies. 3.2.8 Separator Sampling Separator sampling is used for gas condensates and saturated oils. Separator samples are also taken for gas injection studies requiring large sample volumes, ‘and for special studies involving analysis of asphaltene precipitation, wax (paraffin) point, emulsions, hydrates, and corrosion. ‘The method relies on sampling separately the gas and oil leaving the primary separator (Figure 3-1). ‘The samples should be taken simultaneously, filling the sample containers at a constant rate of about I liter/minute. The 20 liter gas bottles are initially evacuated. The separator oil (about 600 cm’) can be ~ 9) or a mercuty-filled container (not allowed offshore Norway). A good rule-of- ©) J thumb is that it takes about one-half hour to collect a set of separator samples. s ey 7) Criteria for valid separator sampling include:Chapter 3 Fluid Sampling & Laboratory Data Rev. 0.6 Page 8 Curtis H. Whitson (Pera a/s) November 1998 | * Stable separator pressure and temperature, liquid level, and flow rates Excessive carryover (due to high rates) should be avoided, * Critical flow through the choke, requiring that separator pressure is less than 1/2 of the wellhead flowing pressure. Sometimes this criterion cannot be achieved, and strictly speaking itis not necessary if separator conditions are stable. Separator gas and separator oil rates are measured during the sampling to etermine the ratio with which to recombine the separator samples. ‘The recombined mixture should yield an overall fluid representing the wellstream that entered the separator. This wellstream hopefully represents the reservoir fluid. Measured separator gas rates are corrected inthe laboratory using standard otifice equations, Separator gas rate is about 3 to 10% accurate (Daniel mixer), and the liquid rate should be 2 to 5% accurate using a rotameter, Carryover of separator oil in the gas stream may be a problem for high-rate gas condensate wells (particularly tean condensate wells). As much as 30-40% of the separator oil (condensate) may be carried over in the gas stream of a lean condensate producing into a Standard 20-foot separator. The separator gas sampler may or may not capture the catried-over liquid. Imegardless, the potential error in calculated wellstream composition may be significant for large carryover (low separator efficiency). Three types of separator sampling can then be requested: + Standard sampling + Isokinetic sampling : laboratory (Thorton) sampling Standard separator sampling should almost always be collected for gas condensate and saturated oils. If carryover is suspected, isokinetic samples can be taken to quantify the Separator efficiency, and thereby establish the neccesary corrections to make a valid recombination. A. more expensive alternative is the Thorton sampling technique for gas condensates, 3.2.9 Isokinetie Sampling Isokinetic sampling may be recommended for lean gas condensates with documented low separator efficiency, characterized by significant carryover of Separator oil into the separator gas stream, The method is based on sampling the separator gas twice: * First, a sample of the oil-free gas is taken by sampling in the same direction as gas flows. Cee OChapter 3 Fluid Sampling & Laboratory Data Rev. 0.6 Page 9 Curtis H. Whitson (PERA a/s) November 1998 + Second, a sample of the separator gas containing the entrained (carryover) separator oil is taken by sampling against the direction of gas, flow at a properly controlled sampling rate (isokinetically). Comparing the two sample compositions, carryover or separator efficiency can bbe quantified. 1 shows the isokinetic sampling equipment 3.2.10 Mini-Laboratory (Thorton) Sampling ‘A mixing block is placed in a vertical 2.3" flowline, upstream from a 5/64" sample line lodged perpendicular to flow. The sampling assembly is located downstream to the choke and upstream to the separator (Figure 3-1). A mini laboratory separator is used to analyze the wellstream sample by conducting a controlled multistage separation, with compositions and separator GORs ‘measured directly, and wellstream recombination calculated onsite. The mini-laboratory sampling approach is expensive and therefore not usually recommended. Careful separator sampling, eventually with isokinetic sample control of liquid carryover, should usually be sufficient for most gas condensate reservoirs. 3.2.11 Sample Treatment at the PVT Laboratory ‘When the samples arrive at the PVT laboratory the samples must be checked for quality and possible leakage. Several methods can be used to check sample consistency. It is important to establish which samples should be used for the PVT study, mainly based on these consistency checks. Bottomhole and wellhead oil samples are brought to the same temperature that was used to determine the bubblepoint on the wellsite. The bubblepoint is determined for each sample, and if the bubblepoints from the laboratory and the wellsite check within 1% for a given sample then itis considered valid. Several problems may cause lab and wellsite bubblepoints to deviate. If the oil is somewhat volatile (GOR>150 Sm°/Sm') then it may be difficult to ‘measure the bubblepoint graphically using a pressure-volume plot. This is a typical problem for high bubblepoint oils (py>250 bar). Another problem is that ‘equilibrium may not have been reached at each pressure when measurements, were conducted on the wellsite, Finally, the pressure gauges may have been improperly calibrated. Separator samples also can be checked for leakage (look in the sample box!). The oil sample is checked by measuring the bubblepoint at separator temperature. If the measured bubblepoint is within about 1-2% of the separator pressure then the oil sample is considered valid. The pressure in the gas sample boitle is checked against the separator pressure. Note that the opening pressure at room temperature may be larger than separator pressure because the sample container may have been colder than room tempearature when filled at the separator. The basic control relation forChapter 3 Fluid Sampling & Laboratory Data Rev. 0.6 Page 10 Curtis H. Whitson (PeRA a/s) November 1998 checking opening pressure of gas samples is Gl) where pressures and temperatures are given in absolute units. It may be difficult to establish the proper "Tsp" in this equation, as the actual temperature may be affected by the atmospheric conditions, as well as temperature reduction during the "flashing" of gas into the sample bottle. 3.3. Compositional Analysis and Quality Control PVT studies are usually based on one or more samples taken during a production fest. Bottomhole samples can be obtained by wireline using a high-pressure container, either during the production test or during a shutin period. Separator samples may also be taken during a production test. ‘This section discusses how wellstream compositions are determined. ‘The standard approach consists of first separating the high-pressure sample into low- pressure gas and oil samples which are each analyzed using gas chromatography (GC). The overall mixture composition is obtained by mathematically recombining the separated gas and oil compositions. The standard components quantified in petroleum reservoir fluids include + Non-Hydrocarbons Nz C02 HS * Hydrocarbons C1. C2 C3 iCa WC ICs Cs Cos Cre (or Cr Cs Co Cros) Table 3-2 lists example compositions of the main fluid types, together with relevant reservoir and surface properties. Figure 3-1 illustrates the classification of fluid types based on composition in the form of a simple ternary diagram. Also shown is the classification based on producing (initial) gas-oil ratio and oil- a8 ratio, 3.3.1 Gas Chromatography Compositional measurements are made using gas chromatography and sometimes true boiling point (TBP) distillation, Gas chromatography measures the weight (mass) fraction of individual components in a mixture, TBP analysis, gives additional information about the amount and properties of heavier ‘components (heptanes and heavier, Cr). Gas chromatography is based on selective separation of components as temperature is increased in a capillary tube (Figure 3-1)°, The sample is injected to the GC, followed by a carrier gas such as helium or nitrogen. As temperature increases, the lighter components separate and move together with the carrier gas, toa flaming ion detector (FID). OChapter 3 Fluid Sampling & Laboratory Data Rev. 0.6 Page 11 Curtis H, Whitson (PERA a/s) November 1998 Instead of a carrier gas, a carrier liquid or supercritical fluid can be used to transport separated components. ‘These methods are referred to as liquid chromatography and supercritical fluid chromatography, respectively. ‘The FID signal for a component is shown as a peak on the chromatographic line (Figure 3-1). The relative mass of a component is given by the area under the peak, divided by the total area created by all components in the mixture, Note that FID only responds to organic compounds. A particular component can be identified by the time (temperature) when its peak appears. For example, the methane peak appears before the ethane peak, which occurs before the propane peak, and so on, A thermal capacity detector (TCD) may be used in some chromatographs, ‘This dector measures the difference in thermal capacity between the pure carrier ‘gas and the carrier gas mixed with the component being detected. The difference in thermal capacity is a function of the number of molecules of the component. In contrast to the FID, which measures relative mass of each component, the TCD measures relative moles of each component, Also, the TCD can be used for both hydrocarbon and nonhydrocarbon compounds. ‘Norsk Hydro uses TCD for non-hydrocarbons, and FID for hydrocarbons. Accurate quantitative GC analysis depends on reproducible retention times, and known dector response for the range of components being analyzed. Several sources of error in GC analysis are given below: Improper handling of the sample before injection Method used for injection Decomposition of sample during analysis Bad chromatographic system; tailing or overuse of the system Variation in detector response Calibration errors Error in response area measurements (integration) 3.3.2 Natural Gas Analysis A packed column with TCD is used to separate nonhydrocarbon (inorganic) components such as nitrogen, carbon dioxide, and hydrogen sulphide, as well as methane and ethane, Chromatographic separation using FID in a capillary column is used for components methane through decane ‘An extemal standard and response factor are used to quantify the analysis ‘more precisely, The response factor for FID includes (implicitly) the molecular weight to convert from mass to mole fraction. Finally, the FID and TCD analyses are combined using ethane analyses to "bridge" the combination of the two analyses, where normalization with a volume correction is used. 3.3.3 Oil/Condensate GC AnalysisChapter 3 Fluid Sampling & Laboratory Data Rev. 0.6 Page 12 O Curtis H. Whitson (Pera a/s) November 1998, A capillary column with FID is used to analyse atmospheric oil and condensate samples. The analysis can be carried out to carbon numbers 30 or greater, but an internal standard such as squaline is usually needed to ensure accurate 4uantitative conversion of response areas to mass fractions. Figure 3-1 shows a typical oil chromatogram (of a stock-tank condensate), ‘Simulated distillation (SIMDIS) by GC analysis may also be used, SIMDIS is usually conducted with a 30-50 m capillary column using Helium as the carrying gas with a diluted sample (1:100), temperatures from 50°-280°C at 4°Cimin, | Conversion from mass fraction to mole fraction requires molecular weights of all components. Because molecular weights are not measured, and for a given carbon number the molecular weight may vary by 5 or 10 molecular weight units (depending on the type of hydrocarbons found in the particular carbon number), conversion to mole fractions is only approximate, Many laboratories use paraffin molecular weights (given by the relation ! Me=I4i+2) to convert GC mass fractions to mole fractions. The molecular weights given by Katz and Firoozabadi® for carbon numbers up to Cas are probably more accurate for stock tank oils and condensates (Charts 3 and 4 in the Fluid Properties Data Book, 3.3.4 True Boiling Point (TBP) Analysis ‘True boiling point distillation may supplement traditional GC analysis of oil and condensate samples. TBP distillation separates an oil into cuts or fractions | according to the range of boiling points used for separation. Figure 3-1 defines typical refined petroleum products in terms of carbon number fractions. Figure 3-1 illustrates the range of carbon number fractions containing various hydrocarbon compounds (e.g, n-alkanes). The recommended standard® uses normal boiling points of paraffins to separate individual carbon number fractions. To avoid decomposition ("cracking") of the oil during distillation, vacuum is applied in four stages to reduce the distillation temperatures for heavier components: + Atmospheric (1013.0 mbar) + 100 torr (133.0 mbar) + 10 tor (13.0 mbar) + 2tor (2.6 mbar) ‘The distillation usually proceeds from Cy (or Co) to about Cas, plus a residue (-Crs,). Figure 3-1 shows a TBP distillation apparatus recommended in ASTM D-2892! ‘The mass, volume, molecular weight, and density (specific gravity) of each distilled fraction is measured directly. Table 3-4 gives results of TBP distillation of stock-tank oil. Reported densities are at a temperature of 15°C (60°F) and_ Chapter 3. Fluid Sampling & Laboratory Data Rev. 0.6 O Page 13 = Curtis H. Whitson (PERA a/s) November 1998 atmospheric pressure. Some of the heavier fractions may have a higher pour point than 15°C (ce the fraction is not fluid at 15°C), and the measured density is ‘made at a higher temperature (Table 3-5). This density is then corrected to the reported value using standard thermal correction tables. Because the separation of components in a given distillation cut is only approximate, some overlap is observed. For example, the C12 cut may contain 10% C1: compounds, 85% Ci2 compounds, and 5% Cis compounds. The overlap worsens at lower distillation pressures because the difference in distillation temperatures is reduced between cuts. Table 3-6 and Figure 3-1 show the overlap for an example TBP distillation, ‘The overlap can be corrected to yield an “ideal” distillation curve (Table 3- 7). ‘The resulting ideal distillation curve should be quite similar to the simulated distillation curve, as shown in Figure 3-1. One advantage with TBP analysis is that measured molecular weights are available for converting from mass to mole fraction. Molecular weights are measured using a cryoscopic method (freezing point depression), a method that is sensitive to error and probably reliable at best to about +? to 5%, Measured molecular weights are compared with GC-based calculated molecular weights in Table 3-5. Table 3-8 summaries the GC/TBP analysis of the example stock-tank oil, where results are provided through Cio. Average boiling points are taken from the tables of Katz and Firoozabadi.° With these boiling points and with measured specific gravities the critical properties and acentric factors of the fractions can be estimated from correlations. Critical properties are needed in PVT calculations with an equation of state (EOS). Reservoir, pipeflow, and process simulations may also require EOS calculations. It is recommended that at least one TBP analysis be measured for each reservoir fluid in a given field, As an extreme example, a field such as Visund might require up (o four TBP studies: + (1) gas cap and (2) equilibrium oil samples in the Brent formation + (3) gas condensate in the Statfjord formation + (4) near-critical oil in the Lunde formation Note that it may be difficult to use several TBP analyses to come up with a single EOS characterization for reservoirs with multiple fluids (eg. compositional variation or gas cap/oil). ‘The examples in sections 5.5.2 and 5.6.2 discuss the use of TBP data in EOS fluid characterization. O Mass fractions measured from TBP analysis should be reasonably close to mass fractions determined from simulated distillation. However, SIMDIS doesChapter 3 Fluid Sampling & Laboratory Data Rev. 0.6 Page 14 Curtis H. Whitson (PERA a/s) November 1998 not provide properties of the individual fractions (molecular weight and density).Chapter 3 Fluid Sampling & Laboratory Data Rev. 0.6 | Page 15 Curtis H. Whitson (PERA a/s) November 1998 3.35 Bottomhole Sample Composition. Table 3-8 shows the reported wellstream composition of a reservoir oil, where Co, Cr, Cx, Co, and Cros specific gravities and molecular weights are also reported. In the example report, composition is given both as mole and weight percent, though many laboratories only report molar composition. | Experimentally, the composition of a bottomhole sample is determined by | (Figure 3-3, Figure 3-1) | ‘+ Flashing the sample to atmospheric conditions. + Measuring the quantities of surface gas and oil. + Determining the normalized weight fractions of surface samples by gas chromatography, + Measuring molecular weight and specific gravity of the surface oil. + Converting weight fractions to normalized mole fractions. + Recombining mathematically to the wellstream composition. The most probable source of error in wellsiream composition of a bottomhole sample is the surface oil molecular weight which usually is accurate within 5 to 10%. TBP data, if available, can be used to check surface oil molecular weight. 33.6 Recombined Sample Composition Table 3-10 presents the separator oil and gas compositional analyses of a gas condensate fluid, together with recombined wellstream composition. The separator oil composition is obtained using the same procedure as for bottomhole oil samples. This involves bringing the separator oil to standard conditions, measuring properties and compositions of the resulting surface oil and gas, and recombining these compositions to give the separator oil ‘composition which is reported as shown in Table 3-10. “The separator gas sample is introduced directly into a gas chromatograph. Weight fractions are converted to mole fractions using appropriate molecular weights. Crs molecular weight is back-calculated using measured separator gas specific gravity. ‘The separator oil and gas compositions can be checked for consistency using the Hoffman et al? K-value method and Standing's'” low-pressure K-value equations (section 3.4.10). oil ratio for use in recombination. 3.4 PVT Experiments © a4 multistage Separator Test “The multistage separator test is conducted on oil samples primarily to provide a | Table 3-12 gives a summary of equations used to correct test separator gas- basis for converting differential liberation data from a residual oil to a stock-tankChapter 3 Fluid Sampling & Laboratory Data Rev. 0.6 Page 16 November 1998 Curtis H. Whitson (PERA a/s) oil basis (see section 3.4.4), Occasionally, several separator tests are conducted to detetmine the separator Conditions that maximize stock-tank oil production, Usually two or three stages of separation are used, with the last stage being at atmospheric pressure and near-ambient temperature (15 to 25°C). The multistage separator test can also be conducted for rich gas condensate fluids. Figure 3-1 illustrates schematically how the separator test is performed, Initially the reservoir sample is brought to saturation conditions and the volume is measured. The sample is then brought to the pressure and temperature of the first-stage separator. All of the gas is removed and the oil volume at the separator stage is noted, together with the volume, number of moles, and specific gravity of the removed gas. If requested, the composition of gas samples can be measured, The oil remaining after gas removal is brought to the conditions of the next Separator stage, ‘The gas is again removed and quantified by moles and specific gravity. Oil volume is noted, and the process is repeated until stock-tank Conditions are reached. The final oil volume and specific gravity are measured at 15.5°C and one atmosphere. Table 3-13 gives results from a three-stage separator test, Gas removed at cach stage is quantified as standard gas volume per volume of stock-tank oil. Sometimes an additional column of data is reported, giving standard gas volume er volume of separator oil; note, you can not add GORs reported relative to separator oil volumes. 3.4.2 Constant Composition Expansion - Oils For an oil sample the constant composition expansion (CCE) experiment is used {0 determine the bubblepoint pressure, the undersaturated oil density and isothermal oil compressibility, and the two-phase volumetric behavior at pressures below the bubblepoint. Table 3-14 presents data from an example CCE experiment for a reservoir oil. ‘The procedure for the CCE experiment is shown in Figure 3-1, A PVT cell is filled with a known mass of reservoir fluid and brought to reservoir temperature, Temperature is held constant during the experiment. ‘The sample is initially brought to a condition somewhat above the initial reservoir pressure, ensuring that the fluid is single phase. As the pressure is lowered, oil volume expands and is recorded. The fluid is agitated at each pressure by rotating the cell. ‘This avoids the Phenomenon of supersaturation or metastable equilibrium where a mixture remains as a single phase, even though it should split into two phases Sometimes supersaturation occurs 3 to 7 bar below the actual bubbiepoint pressure. By agitating the mixture at each new pressure, the condition of supersaturation is avoided and the bubblepoint can be determined more OChapter3 Fluid Sampling & Laboratory Data Rev. 0.6 Page 17 Curtis H. Whitson (PERA a/s) November 1998 accurately. Just below the bubblepoint the total volume will increase more rapidly because gas evolves from the oil. This yields a higher system compressibility. Visually, gas can be seen at the top of the cell (if a visual cell is used). ‘The total volume is recorded after the two-phase mixture is brought to equilibrium. Pressure is lowered in steps of 1 to 15 bar, where equilibrium is obtained at each pressure. When the lowest pressure is reached, total volume is 3 to 5 times larger than the original bubblepoint volume. ‘The recorded cell volumes are plotted versus pressure, and the resulting curve should be similar to one of the curves shown in Figure 3-1. For a "black oil” the discontinuity in volume at the bubblepoint is sharp. The bubblepoint pressure and bubblepoint volume are easily read from the intersection of the pressure-volume trends from the single-phase and the two-phase regions. Volatile oils do not exhibit the same clear discontinuity in volumetric behavior at the bubblepoint pressure (Figure 3-1). Instead, the p-V curve is practically continuous in the region of the bubblepoint because undersaturated oil compressibility is similar to the effective two-phase compressibility just below the bubblepoint. This makes it difficult to determine the bubblepoint of volatile oils using a pressure-volume plot." Instead, a windowed cell is used for visual observation of the first bubble of gas at the bubbleopint. Liquid shrinkage below the bubblepoint can also be measured in a visual cell during the constant composition expansion. Reported data from commercial laboratories usually include bubblepoint pressure, bubblepoint density or specific volume, and isothermal compressibility of the undersaturated oil at pressures above the bubblepoint. The oil's thermal expansion may also be reported, indicated by the ratio of undersaturated oil volume at a specifie pressure and reservoir temperature to the oil volume at the same pressure and a lower temperature, Total volume below the bubblepoint can be correlated by the Y function, defined as ya (PofP)-L_ (yp) 62) Val (VdVy)-1 where p and py are given in absolute pressure units. Plotting Y versus pressure should yield a straight line, as shown in Figure 3-1. The linear trend can be used to smooth total volume data at pressures below the bubblepoint. * Reported bubblepoint pressures measured atthe wellsite on bottombole samples of volatile oils are obviously subject to large inaccuracy because a pressure-volume plot is used. This should be kept in mind when comparing laboretory-measured bubblepoint with wellste-determined bubblepoint in the selection (rejection) of valid samples.Chapter 3 Fluid Sampling & Laboratory Data Rev. 0.6 . Page 18 Curtis H. Whitson (PERA a/s) November 1998 3.4.3 Constant Composition Expansion - Gas Condensates The CCE experiment for a gas condensate reports the total relative volume, defined as the volume of the gas or gas-plus-oil mixture divided by the dewpoint yolume. Z-factors are also reported, at the dewpoint pressure and above,” Table 3-15 and Figure 3-1 gives example CCE data for a gas condensate. reservoir pressure, These values represent the gas equivalent or wet-gas volume at standard conditions produced from one volume of reservoir gas, Most CCE experiments are conducted in a visual cell for £as condensates. Relative oil (condensate) volumes are reported at pressures below the dewpoint, O where relative oil volume is usually defined as the oil volume divided by the total volume of gas-plus-oil; in some reports, however, relative oil volume is defined as the oil volume divided by the dewpoint volume (Norsk Hydro practice). Wet-gas FVF (or its inverse) is reported at the dewpoint and/or initial | | 3.4.4 Differential Liberation Expansion ‘The differential liberation expansion (DLE) experiment is designed to approximate the depletion process of an oil reservoir, and thereby provide suitable PVT data for calculating reservoir performance. Figure 3-1 illustrates the laboratory procedure of a DLE experiment, Figure 3-1 through Figure 3-1 and Table 3-16 through Table 3-19 give DLE data for an oil sample, A blind cell is filled with an oil sample which is brought to a single phase at reservoir temperature. Pressure is decreased until the fluid reaches its bubbiepoint, where the oil volume is recorded; knowing the initial mass of the sample, the bubblepoint density can be calculated, The pressure is decreased below the bubblepoint and the cell is agitated until equilibrium is reached. All gas is removed at constant pressure, and the volume, moles, and specific gravity of the removed gas are measured. Sometimes gas compositions are also measured. The remaining oil volume is also recorded, This procedure is repeated 10 to 15 times at decreasing pressures, and finally at atmospheric pressure. ‘The final oil is cooled, where the resulting "residual" oil volume and specific gravity are measured (or calculated) at 15.5°C. Residual oil composition may also be reported.” IfZ-factors are also reported below the dewpoint then they represent ficticious, non-physical quantities that should not be used. © None of the data reported for the residual oil should be used as data in doing an EOS fluid huacterization, The eon spl tht the proces sed inthe lb fom he nesta stage to O ttmospheri pressure (and esevol temperate) nota single Masha silted by ta EOS. The laste depletion process my be conducted difereayby various lebron: aully tis a bleeding proces, o Hedin esting processChapter 3 Fluid Sampling & Laboratory Data Rev. 0.6 Page 19 Curtis H. Whitson (PERA a/s) November 1998 Based on measured data, other properties are calculated, including differential solution gas-oil ratio (Ra), differential oil FVF (Boa), oil density, and gas Z-factor. 3.4.5 Converting from Differential to Stock-Tank Basis Traditionally the most important step in the application of oil PVT data for reservoir calculations is the conversion of differential solution gas-oi! ratio (Rea) and differential oil FVF (Boa) to a stock-tank oil basis. For engineering calculations, volume factors R; and Bp are used to relate reservoir oil volumes to produced surface volumes. Differential properties Rig and Bos reported in the DLE report are relative to residual oil volume, ie., the oil volume at the end of the DLE experiment, corrected from reservoir to standard temperature. The equations traditionally used to convert differential volume factors to a stock-tank basis are: R= Ran (Row RKE®) G3) Bos 2 = Bos (2 3-4) B.= Bu (Oe G4) where Bop and Rap are the bubblepoint oil FVF and solution GOR, respectively, from a multistage separator flash. Reap and Boap are differential volume factors at the bubblepoint pressure. ‘The term (Bay/Busn) is used to eliminate the residual oil volume from the Ryg and Bos data. Note that the conversion from differential to “flash” data depends on the separator conditions because Bop and Rey depend ‘on separator conditions. ‘The conversions given by Eqs. (3-3) and (3-4) are only approximate. Figure 3-1 shows the conversion of differential Bus to flash Bo for the example oil with differential data reported in Table 3-16 through Table 3-19. ‘A more accurate method was suggested by Dodson et al.' Their method requites that some of the equilibrium oil be taken at cach stage of a depletion experiment (DLE, CCE, or CVD (see section 3.4.6)) and flashed through a multistage separator. The multistage separation gives Rs and Bo directly. ‘This laboratory procedure is costly and time-consuming, and therefore never used. However, the method is readily simulated with an equation of state model (Whitson and Torp'”; Coats"). Figure 3-1 shows oil volume factors and solution GORs calculated using the standard conversion given by Eqs. (3-3) and (3-4), compared with the Dodson method (Whitson and Torp procedure) using an EOS. ‘The oil is slightly volatile, and it is seen that the approximate conversion gives approximately the same results as using the more rigorous Dodson method. Figure 3-1 shows a similar comparison for a highly (near-critical) volatileChapter 3 Fluid Sampling & Laboratory Data Rev. 0.6 | Page 20 Cpe Curtis H. Whitson (PERA a/s) November 1998 oil. The difference in both oil volume factor and solution GOR is significant, and clearly the traditional conversion of DLE data can not be used for this type of fluid. It should be realized that even when dealing with a slightly volatile oil (GOR>125 Sm’/Sm’), a modified black-oil (MBO) PVT formulation should be used in reservoir calculations (material balance and simulation). ‘The MBO formulation is compared with the traditional black-oil formulation in Figure 3-1. ‘The main difference is that the MBO treatment accounts for the ability of reservoir gas (o volatilize intermediate and heavier components that produce a | suface condensate when produced. The ratio of surface condensate produced from reservoir gas to surface gas O produced from reservoir gas is the solution oil-gas ratio Rv (sometimes written \ 15). The gas FVF also must be adjusted from the traditional definition to account for the reservoir gas that becomes condensate at the surface (ie. that the moles of reservoir gas does not equal the moles of surface gas, as is assumed in the traditional definition of gas FVF). ‘The resulting gas FVF is called "dry" gas FYB, with symbol Bys 3.4.6 Constant Volume Depletion The constant volume depletion (CVD) experiment is designed to provide volumetric and compositional data for gas condensate (and volatile oil) reservoirs producing by pressure depletion, ‘The stepwise procedure of a CVD experiment is shown schematically in Figure 3-1. Table 3-19 and Table 3-21 give CVD data for an example gas condensate fluid. ‘The CVD experiment provides data that can be used directly in reservoir engineer calculations, including: | + Reservoir material balance giving recovery of total wellstream (wet gas recovery) versus average reservoir pressure. + Produced wellstream composition and surface products (sales gas, condensate, and NGLs) versus reservoir pressure, + Average oil saturation in the reservoir (liquid dropout and revaporization) that occurs during pressure depletion, | For most gas condensate reservoirs producing by depletion, the recoveries and oil saturations versus pressure from the CVD analysis closely approximate actual field performance. If other recovery mechanisms such as water drive and gas (on the whale (.e. ant stnounts to O ich smaller than the "The basie assumption is that hydrocarbons condensed in the resen neglecting local saturation effects near the wellbore), do not flow in si production wells. The reason is simply that the relative mobility of oil is reservoir gas mobility,Chapter 3 Fluid Sampling & Laboratory Data Rev. 0.6 O Page 21 Curtis H. Whitson (Pera a/s) November 1998 cycling are considered, the basic data required for reservoir engineering are stil taken mainly from a CVD report. 3.4.7 PVT Data Accuracy The accuracy of PVT measurements is difficult to quantify. Norsk Hydro has, however, studied the problem and Table 3-22 gives guidelines for measurement accuracies of most PVT data. 3.48 PVT Consistency Checks The quality of PVT data may vary from poor to excellent. It may not be obvious, however, when inaccurate data are reported. Several methods can be used to determine the quality of reported PVT data. The recommended © __sarsisteney checks given below should be used for PVT data that will be used in / reservoir studies, or in the development of an equation of state characterization. 3.49 Watson Characterization Factor The Cr molecular weight is highly susceptible to error, with an accuracy ranging from 2 to 10%. Specific gravity of Cre, on the other hand, should be accurate within a fraction of a percent. ‘The characterization factor Ky was introduced by Watson to qualitatively describe the relative paraffinicity of a petroleum product. Kw is defined as | Kwu=Ti2/y, where Ty is the normal boiling point in °R and y is the specific gravity relative to water. Stock-tank oils and condensates contain many hundreds of hydrocarbon compounds. Because STO consists mainly of the Cr, material, the characterization or “paraffinicity" of a reservoir fluid can be described by the ‘Watson characterization factor of the Cr+ fraction. ‘The following table gives the range of the Watson characterization factor for pure compounds in the three main hydrocarbon families, and for stock-tank oils/condensates. Hydrocarbon Pure Stook-Tank Oil/ Type Compound | Condensate (Cr) Paraffin 12-14 12-12.5 Napthene 10-12 Aromatic 810 L-ILS Whitson’ gives an approximate relation for Kw that can be used for heptanes-plus, Kore = 4.5579 M3 yo? . ‘Austad et al. show that for a given formation in a reservoir, Kw should be veryChapter 3 Fluid Sampling & Laboratory Data Rev. 0.6 Page 22 O Curtis H. Whitson (PEA a/s) November 1998 constant, even during depletion and even if the STO gravity varies initially Figure 3-1). Based on this observation, it is recommended that Kurs be calculated for each new PVT sample in a fielWreservoir. A plot of Mr versus yr can be updated with each new sample, where a line of constant Ky. is drawn for the field average. Deviation of £0.03 in Ky7. is acceptable. Larger deviations in | Kurs from the ficld/reservoir average may (probably) indicate an error in the | measured Mr. If larger errors in Mr, are found, then potential errors in reported molar composition should be checked. ( 3.4.10 Hoffman et al. Kp-F Plot O | ‘The consistency of separator gas and oil compositions can, be checked using a | diagnostic plot proposed by Hoffman, Crump, and Hocott.” They show that K- ' Values (on a log scale) plotted versus a component factor F; (on a linear scale) should result in a straight-line relationship. To apply this method to separator samples, the K-values are calculated first from separator gas and oil compositions, Ki=yi/xi where yi=separator gas molar composition and xi=separator oil molar composition. ‘The Hoffman characterization factor Fis given by bi/ Ty -1/ Tp) (3-6) where Thi is the normal boiling point in °R, Trp is the separator temperature in °R, and bi is a component constant given formally by 1oB(Pa! Pre) UTy - Ta G7) where pai is critical pressure in psi Pec is standard pressure in psia, and Tei is critical temperature in °R. Standing"? gives modified values of b; and Ty; to be used with the Hoffman et al. method, as shown in Table 3-23. Standing also gives the expected slope and intercept of the line as a function of pressure and temperature for typical separator conditions, log Ki Py=ate Fi G8) where =1.2044.5x10" p,, +15.0x10° p> a 10 Pop 10° Pip 69) 5 €=0.89-17%10" p,-3.5x10" pi, X with pw given in psia,Chapter3 Fluid Sampling & Laboratory Data Rev. 0.6 oO Page 23 4 Curtis H. Whitson (PERA a/s) November 1998 According to Standing, the correlations for a and c are valid up to pressures of 70 bar and temperatures from 5 to 95°C. A plot of measured separator K-values using this method should not deviate significantly from the Standing straight line. Heptanes plus, nonhydrocarbons, and components with small amounts (<0.5 mol-%) in either the separator oil or gas sample may deviate from the straight tine without causing concem. However, if the key hydrocarbons methane through hexane show significant deviation from the straight line, the compositional analysis should be used with scrutiny. Figure 3-1 shows a Kp-F plot for the separator sample given earlier (Table3- 10). 3.4.11 Correcting GOR for Liquid Carryover ‘The reported separator GOR (Rs) may be in error for several reasons: + Incorrect separator oil rate + Incorrect separator gas rate * Carryover of separator oil in separator gas stream + Gas in the oil line * Incorrect measurement of the "meter factor" + Combination of the above Itis probably reasonable to say that reported GOR has an accuracy of 5 t0 15%, with even greater errors possible for lean gas condensates producing at high rates. Oo ‘The recombined wellstream 2; composition is calculated from i= Pap Yet (1- Foo) x (3-10) where Fy is the total mole fraction of total wellstream that leaves the separator in the gas stream,* Fe=[142368, 2 ] GD where pom is the separator oil density in kg/m’, Maw is the separator oil molecular weight (kg/kmol), and Rep is separator gas-oil ratio in Sm'/sep. m’. If the GC analyses are done properly, both separator oi! composition xi and separator gas composition y; should be correct, even if carryover is a problem. 9 when carryover occuts, Fyn calculated using test GOR will also include the entrained liquid that is cattied over in the gas stream leaving the separator. This is because the measured gas rate includes the amount (moles) of earryover.Chapter 3 Fluid Sampling & Laboratory Data Rev, 0.6 Page 24 Curtis H. Whitson (PERA a/s) November 1998 The traditional method of sampling gas (downstream) will minimize the amount of carryover that enters the gas sample container. Also, if the gas sample is brought to separator conditions before charging the chromatograph, only equilibrium gas will be removed for analysis, and the carryover separator oil will remain in the sample container, We can usually assume with reasonable accuracy that the separator gas and Oil compositions, as reported, can be used for recombination if the Hoffman et al. plot is acceptable. To obtain a valid wellstream composition from Eq, (3-10), however, the recombination GOR may need to be corrected (for one of several reasons), If carryover exists then the separator gas rate reflects both the amount (moles) of separator gas ng plus the moles of carryover separator oil Ang, the total being expressed as a standard gas volume (Figure 3-1). The separator oil Tate reflects the total separator oil rate no less the moles of separator oil carryover (ie. n =n, —An,). In terms of an overall molar balance, D=ngtne =ngt(no+An,) see and in terms of a component molar balance, ZiN= Ying + Xino = Ying + x Ano + xing, (3-13) = yi (net Ang) + xing where yi und x; are standard separator samples (j.e. true equilibrium phase) compositions (assuming downstream sampling of the separator gas collects little if any of the carryover separator oil). An isokinetic gas sample, on the other hand, represents the separator gas plus carryover separator oil y° Defining the separator oil carryover Soxp as @-14) the effect of carryover on wellstream composition is calculated by first Correcting the test gas mole fraction (Fsp)ex calculated from the test GOR. The corrected gas mole fraction reflects the true fraction of the total wellstrcam that is separator gas (ny/n), (B15) Furthermore, the measured test separator GOR (Rip)ex can be corrected for carryover to yield the true separator GOR,Chapter 3 Fluid Sampling & Laboratory Data Rev. 0.6 Page 25 Curtis H. Whitson (PERA a/S) November 1998 GF pp dou = (Rap aoe = Rap eve = Rap es Few ex (3-16) Pap eae = E Table 3-12 and section 4.3.2 discuss the comections to reported wellsite separator test GOR, The corrections result in a test GOR (Rees that is then used in Bq, (3-11) to determine (Fysp)ex (referred to in the equations above).Chapter 3 Fluid Sampling & Laboratory Data Rev. 0.6 Page 26 CO Curtis H. Whitson (Pena als) November 1998 | 3.5 References + API Recommended Practice for Sampling Petroleum Reservoir Fluids, American Petroleum Institute (1966) 44. 2. "Well Testing Manual," Norsk Hydro, | 3. Belery, P. and da Silva, FV: "Gravity and ‘Thermal. Diffusion in Hydrocarbon Reservoirs," paper presented at the Third Chalk Research | Program, Copenhagen (1990). 4. Bath, P.G.H., van der Burgh, J., and Ypma, J.GJ.: "Enhanced Oil Recovery in the North Sea,” 1 1th World Petroleum Congress (1983), 5. Freyss, H., et al: "PVT Analysis for the Oil Reservoirs," The Technical O | Review (Schlumberger) (1989) 37, No, 1, 4-15, 6. Katez, D.L., and Firoozabadi, A: “Predicting Phase Behavior of Condensate/Crude-Oil Systems Using Methane Interaction Coefficients," IPT (Nov. 1978) 1649-1655; Trans., AIME, 268, 7. Whitson, CH.: Petroleum Engineering Fluid Properties Data Book, ‘Trondheim, Norway (1994), : 8. "Distillation of Crude Petroleum (15-Theoritical Plate Column): Designation 2892-84, "Annual Book of ASTM Standards, (1984) 821-860, 9. Hoffmann, A.B., Crump, J.S., and Hocott, C.R.: "Equilibrium Constants for ‘a Gas-Condensate System,” Trans., AIME (1953) 198, 1-10. 10. Standing, M.B.: "A Set of Equations for Computing Equilibrium Ratios of a Crude Oi/Natural Gas System at Pressures Below 1,000 psia," JPT (Sept. 1979) 1193-1195, 11, Dodson, C:R., Goodwill, D., and Mayer, E.H.: “Application of Laboratory PVT Data to Reservoir Engineering Problems," Trans., AIME (1953) 198, 287-298, 12. Whitson, C.H. and Torp, $.B.: "Evaluating Constant Volume Depletion Data," JPT (March 1983) 610-620; Trans., AIME, 275. 13. Coats, K.H.: "Simulation of Gas Condensate Reservoir Performance," JPT (Oct. 1985) 1870-1886. 14, Watson, K.M., Nelson, E.F, and Murphy, G.B.: "Characterization of Petroleum Fractions," Ind. Eng. Chem. (1935) 27, 1460-1464, 15. Whitson, C.H.: "Characterizing Hydrocarbon Plus Fractions," SPEY (Aug. 1983) 683-694; Trans., AIME, 275.Chapter 3 Fluid Sampling & Laboratory Data Curtis H. Whitson (PERA a/s) Rev. 0.6 Page 27 November 1998 Table 3-1 Gas Laboratory Analysis Oils Condensates Standard Bottomhole Sample Composition ° ° Recombined Separataor Composition ° Cry TBP Distillation ° ° Cy Simnulated Distillation (SIMDIS) ° ° Constant Composition Expansion . ° Multistage Surface Separation ° ° Differential Liberation e N Constant Volume Depletion ° ° Special Multicontact Gas Injection ° ° ‘Wax Point Determination ° ° Asphaltene Preci ° ° Slimtube Analysis (MMP/MME) ° ° Water Analysis ° ° Salinity, salt composition, solution gas rato Ry and solution {28 composition, water FVE B., density © Standard © Can Be Performed N Not PerformedChapter 3 Fluid Sampling & Laboratory Data Rev. 0.6 Page 28 O | Curtis H. Whitson (PERA a/s) November 1998 Table 3-2 fe) =~ | ee ee HE teen oe) eee See ee Hh emgam ‘ae | Se Hoe Bat ae eee | ze i 3 2 Ser torreeeteenh oO Hi SS en | ata The evra voluman at aumplag necwonary for A Boom site Sa D rearetestaton yore of £ 600 cx each bt Sutin Semon Ee JSST 0}oO Chapter 3 Fluid Sampling & Laboratory Data Curtis H. Whitson (PERA a/s) ‘Table 3-3 Rev. 0.6 Page 29 November 1998 Gas Condensate COr 0.10 14 237 1.30 093 | 002 N 2.07 0.25 031 0.56 021 | 034 c 86.12 | 92.46 B19 eas | 98.77 | 34.62 GQ 591 3.18 7.80 788 1s | 4.11 G 358 101 355 426 4.09 101 iC 172 0.28 om 0.89 os | 076 aC 024 145 214 209 | 049 iCs 0.50 0.13 0.64 0.90 om | 043 aCs 0.08 0.68 113 115 | 021 om 0.14 109 146 1.75 Lot Cre 082 821 1004 | 21.76 | 5640 Ma 130 184 219 28 274 Yo 0.763 osis| 0839] 0858] 0.920 Kew 12.00 1.95] 11.98 1183} 1147 GOR, Sm/Sm* ° 18,700 970 650 265 33 OGR, Sm'/Sm* 0 | 0.000053 0.00103 | 0.00154 Ye 0.751 0.734) 0802) 0835] 0.910 yan, 37 49 45 8 4 : 061 0.70 O71 0.70 063 Paw bara 236 452 484 374 194 Bag, m/Smn* 0.0051 0.0039 2.78 1.73 1.16 Pass kg/m? 154 428 492 612 823Chapter3 Fluid Sampling & Laboratory Data Rev. 0.6 Page 30 Curtis H. Whitson (PERA a/s) November 1998 Table 3-4 CUT “AET(C) PRESSURE CORR. MOLE. DENSITY GUMUL. CUNUL. ~~ CUMUL No. (mbar) WEIGHT WEIGHT VOLUME% WEIGHT MOLE% 6 69.2 1013.0 2.0678 74.0 637.3 2.82 2.10 6.80 7 98.9 1013.0 2.8579 91.9 7377 649 5.00 14.40 8 126.1 1013.0 4.1783 105.0 761.4 10968 924 24.10 9 151.3 1013.0 3.1564 1196 767.0 14.54 12.45 30.60 10° 1746 1013.0 3.3304 135.5 781.2 18.24 15.83 36.60 W 196.4 1013.0 3.2152 152.1 788.8 21.79 19.09 41.80 12 217.3 133.0 2.6398 1668 814.6 24.60 21.77 45.60 13° 236.1 133.0 3.2922 1776 821.6 28.09 25.11 50.20 14 253.9 133.0 3.2779 192.0 831.5 31.51 28.44 54.30 13 271.4 133.0 3.4858 205.4 839.0 35.13 31.98 58.50 16 287.3 133.0 3.1219 2189 845.0 38.34 35.15 62.00 17 303.0 183.0 3.3203 238.1 8419 41.77 38.52 «65.40 18 3170 18.3 2.0351 2498 857.2 43.83 4058 67.40 19 331.0 13.0 2.4673 2607 856.8 §= 46.83 «43.09 «69.70 20° 844.0 13.03.1851 267.7 854.9 49.57 46.32 72.60 4) 357.0 13.0 2.9337 281.8 868.5 52.51 49.30 75.20 22 369.0 130 1.8715 2984 869.4 54.38 51.20 76.70 23° (381.0 13.0 2.2685 311.4 870.5 56.65 53.50 78.5 24 392.0 13.0 2.6268 826.2 873.6 59.26 5617 80.40 25 402.0 13.0 2.2631 347.5 876.7 61.51 58.46 82.00 26 413.0 26 = 2.8756 362.8 © 887.6 64.32 «61.38 84.00 27 = 423.0 26 2.7514 368.5 891.1 67.01 64.18 85.00 28 = 432.0 2.60 1.6452 383.1 896.2 68.60 65.85 86.00 RESIDUE 33.6463 630.0 931.6 100.00 100.00 99.00 SUM 98.5136 241.0 856.4 * DENSITY MOLE WEIGHT% MOLE% VOLUME FRACTION WEIGHT C7+ 853.50 252.30 97.90 9316 97.18 C10+ 868.00 303.10 87.55 69.35 85.46 C15+ 885.30 377.00 71.56 45.58 68.49 C20+ 898.50 452.20 56.91 30.22 53.67 C25+ 911.60 540.40 43.83 1948 40.74 C29+ 921.60 627.60 34.15 13.07 31.40 OChapter 3 Fluid Sampling & Laboratory Data Rev. 0.6 Page 31 ‘ Curtis H. Whitson (PERA a/s) November 1998 Table 3-5 Cut Dens. Dens. Dens. Dens. MW MW Carb. 15.0C 30.0C 35.0C 50.0C cryo. ge nr. \C7- *637.3 i i \C7 °737.7 ‘ ‘ C8 *761.4 ia - Ico “767.0 i : |C10 781.2 135.5 1410 9.9 C11 788.8 152.1 155.5 11.0 lc12 814.6 166.8 1708 120 C13 821.6 1776 182.9 12.9 C14 831.5 192.0 196.5 13.9 IC15 839.0 205.4 210.3 14.9 Ic16 845.0 218.9 2246 15.9 C17 841.9 238.1 239.0 16.9 Ic18 857.2 249.8 2525 17.9 Ic19 856.8 260.7 2615 18.5 \c20 854.9 267.7 274.7 = 19.5 C21 868.5, 281.8 290.2 20.6 Ic22 859.2 298.4 304.0 21.6 C23 860.5 311.4 9 315.5 22.4 O ic24 863.4 326.2 329.9 23.4 \C25 866.5 347.5 345.8 24.6 \C26 873.8 362.8 363.0 25.8 \C27 877.4 368.5 378.1 26.9 C28 872.4 383.1 393.2 27.9 C28+ 909.1 630.0Chapter 3 Curtis H. Whitson (PERA a/s) Fluid Sampling & Laboratory Data Rev. 0.6 Page 32 November 1998 Table 3-6 CUTNO, CORR. MOLE. DENS _N@ Na Ww Ne we WEIGHT WEIGHT 6 2.0678 74.0 6373 00 00 1000 00 0.0 7 28579 91.9 7377 0.0 00 1000 00 0.0 8 4.1783 105.0 7614 0.0 0.0 100.0 00 0.0 9 3.1564 1196 767.0 00 00 1000 00 0.0 10 3.3304 135.5 781.2 01 143 75.5 10.1 0.0 113.2152 1521 7888 02 113 784 102 00 12 2.6398 1668 8146 0.1 76 770 153 0.0 13 3.2922 1776 8216 0.2 177 697 124 00 14 3.2779 192.0 831.5 02 19.3 69.2 11.3 0.0 15 3.4858 205.4 839.0 0.3 202 688 108 0.0 16 3.1219 2189 8450 02 18.8 69.7 11.3 0.0 17 3.3203 2381 8419 02 159 721 118 00 18 2.03851 249.8 8572 03 174 727 96 0.0 19 2.4673 260.7 856.8 19 41.2 566 04 0.0 20 3.1851 267.7 8549 52 43.3 47.3 42 0.0 21 2.9337 2818 8685 48 352 539 61 0.0 22 1.8715 2984 8694 37 35.7 58.1 25 0.0 23 2.2685 3114 8705 62 47.0 483 06 0.0 24 2.6268 326.2 8736 59 445 49.7 0.0 0.0 25 2.2631 3475 876.7 26 378 596 00 0.0 26 2.8756 3628 8876 15 314 520 150 00 27 2.7514 3685 891.1 33 233 570 142 22 28 1.6452 383.1 896.2 34 193 55.5 22.4 0.0 IRESIDU 33.6463 630.0 931.6 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 IE [SUM 98.5136 241.0 856.4 O OoO Chapter 3 —_ Fluid Sampling & Laboratory Data Curtis H. Whitson (PERA a/s) Table 3-7 FRACTION WEIGHT% VOLUME% _ CUMUL. VOLUME% C7- 210 282 2.82 C7 2.90 3.37 6.19 C8 4.25 4.77 10.96 Ico 3.69 4.12 15.08 C10 292 320 18.28 C11 3.11 3.38 21.66 ic12 2.99 3.15 24.81 Ic13 3.39 353 28.34 Ic14 3.44 3.84 31.88 C16 3.41 3.48 35.36 C16 3.13 3.17 38.53 C17 319 3.25 41.78 Ici 3.10 3.10 44.87 C19 316 3.15 48.03 }C20 2.66 2.66 50.69 C21 256 252 53.22 C22 252 2.49 55.70 jc23 2.36 232 58.02 c24 2.25 221 60.23 C25 2.38 2.32 62.55, C26 2.22 2.14 64.69 C27 2.35 2.26 66.95, C28 1.32 1.27 68.22 RESIDUE 34.58 31.78 __ 100.00 [SUM 100.00 __ 100.00 Rev. 0.6 Page 33 November 1998Chapter 3 Fluid Sampling & Laboratory Data Rev. 0.6 Page 34 Curtis H. Whitson (PERA a/s) November 1998 WELL DATE WEIGHT OF OIL (g) DENSITY (kg/m3) MOLEWEIGHT (STO) LOSS (%) COMPOSITION OF LIGHT END. 34/8-1 01-AUG-86 98.5136 847.24 240.12 0.553 GROUP WEIGHT. DENSITY MOLE WEIGHT MOLE% IN2 0.000 260.0000 28.0000 0.000 coz 0,000 420.0000 44.0000 0.000 {Cl 0.002 260.0000 16.0000 0.030 Ic2 0.009 358.0000 30,0700 0.072 Ics 0.087 507.6000 44.0970 0.365 liso-C5, 0.050 563.3000 58.1240 0.206 In-C4 0.209 584.7000 58.1240 0.863 neo-CS 0.005 596.7000 72.1510 0.017 jiso-C5, 0.222 624.6000 72.1510 0.738 In-C5 0.406 630.9000 72.1510 1.350 C6 1.129 665.9611 85.4676 3.169 \C7 2.901 737.7272 91.8668 7.576 C8. 4.245 761.3593 104.9967 9.700 Ico 3.687 767.0172 119.5922 7.397 (C10+ 87.067 867.1056 304.8689 68.518 ISUM 99.999 847.24 240.12 100Chapter 3. Fluid Sampling & Laboratory Data Rev. 0.6 Page 35 Curtis H. Whitson (PERA a/s) November 1998 Table 3.9 Component | Wt% — mol% mol wt. Nitrogen 010 0.29 Carbon dioxide | 0.59 1.05 Methane 12.58 61.07 Ethane 177458 Propane 179 3.16 iso-Butane 041 0.55 n-Butane 1071.48 O iso-Pentane 082 0.57 sof n-Pentane 072 0.78 Hexanes 1.16 1.07 84.50 P] 1.08 0.98 i N} 040 © 0.14 | Al 0.00 0.00 Heptanes 200 1,72 90.70 P| 0.00 © 0.67 Nl 090 © 0.81 Al 024 0.24 Octanes 289 214 105.00 P| 1.17 0.80 N 119 0.90 oO Al 053 0.44 ' Nonanes 221 145 118.50 P| 1.08 = 0.65 Ni 042 © 0.28 Al 071 0.62 Decanes plus 72.19 20.14 279 SUM 100.00 100.00 Average molecular weight: 77.90 Z-mol% M Pu Zz ZM/o 7 172 «907 0.74 156.0210. ce 214 1050 0.76 2247 296.0 ce 145 1185 0.78 1718 2209 | Clos 20.14 279.0 0.88 «5619.1 6407.1 Sum / Aver. 25.45 2425 087 61716 7134.0 | Kw7+= 11.85O Chapter 3 Fluid Sampling & Laboratory Data Rev, 0.6 Page 36 Curtis H. Whitson (PERA as) November 1998 Table 3-10 RECOMBINED COMPOSITION are sys1-98 WELL 346-3 ‘Pp = 2638 / 1.157 = 2280 Sai? / Sm? BOTTLE Ho. ‘086 TYPE OF osta * Prout? SAMPLE TEMP. (C) 6 PRESSURE soa teu aa: Son ensisna) 2005___ psec) 209? / Si? ‘OL 7 Fett DENSITY (ko): 764.1 (psewte)Xsep of 180 MOLEWEIGHT 11550 envoscory CAS PHASE TOUS PHASE TECOWONED COMPOSITION FRACTION | WEIGHT MOLEX | WEIGHT: MOLES DENSMY [MOLEWG WEIGHT® MOL we a a 3910 —— dno oa 2008 1282 ass ower «200 eat a Teese 80406 2259 18203 500 55370908 ce 72534506 ope 9285 as 5400428 os 492 2078 tan 36 sors sees a7 Iso-ca 1017026 ous 1.008 ss9.8 oss ora noe 26 074 1047273847 2059 ose NEOs 2013 0031s nae sn 0013 ons 180-05 ov —ate2 4.168087 gnu 0888 opa5 Nes 0907 02s nat? 200 gna 11700398 os 079 arr 32828 cath a888 700 at cr eer as atsh tom rma e081 783 ca 0287 0059 10280 nz? 7s34 10529 aso co 0041 a0 ete 27a ta4 asd. cao. ecco 0000 59381 aesst__ ars ziti aztsh tt GAS PHASE] LIOUID PHASE] RECOM CONPOSTTION WaGHTR Oe 177 we Ban NOLES O8s oars 6720 4050 MOLEWEIGHT 22.9000 sse90 wser37 NOLEWEIGHT C10% sssc000 re rasose MEAN NOLEWEIGHT aes 11650 246160 MOLE-OISTRIBUTION eaeseo exe 100.0000 WEIGHT-DISTRIBUTION nares 2080 100.0000 GAS GRAVITY O58 camicat 2052575 TeMP(R) CRITICAL PRESSibara 48.4000 fare 09 ZFACTOR 09170 bz 200] DENSITY koma} sr0s6 ausasas VISCOSITY (nas) anit FRACTION [GAS PHASE TOUT PASE RECOM COMPOTION ? w a PN x = N x w a0 B80 Tea 10 sem 206 o sro azo 1540 | asso 4oao too | aero ato cs seo «sro aa70 | 420 3500 © s00 | 47208201890 co seo tao 210 | 5070 2090 ean | 5x00 = managChapter 3 Fluid Sampling & Laboratory Data Rev. 0.6 Page 37 Curtis H. Whitson (PERA a/s) November 1998 Table 3-11 pate swig weu owes BOTTLE NO. 2 ‘TYPE OF SAMPLE KONO. psT2 TEMP. (c) 59.90 PRESSURE (bra): 50.90 GOR (Smistsma} 4440 oF DENSITY (gts: 7038 10. NOLEWEIGHT 48 cavoscory GAS PHATE TIOUID PHASE ECOMEINED COMPOSTTION FRACTION WEIGHT MOLE% WEIGHT MOLE% DENSITY MOLEWG WEIGHT MOLE @ 02856389 0000 0000 28000 ‘0% — 005 coe 250 ©1588 ©0000 0000 420.0 016s 0408 a srm2 sass © 0.003 0027 280.00 2259 16268 cz 43257 12004 0.040.198 95000 oe 9200 3 yrs 10824 = 056.472 507.00 10s 3.676 soc 4502 21520286718 —889.0 05a 1.000 nos tose 4981076 2.608 584.70 16K a274 NEo-cs 0053 02s 0012002889670 oor 0.024 180-05 3207 4.285 1022-2088 e260 see 1.867 nos sore 14801682 3.408 650.80 ssi 2910 ce 3068 ose. «= ame 708 essa wD 3.288.282 or 250s 0707519508 79800 ©2219 10203 ce 0938 025010863 15.008 75940 «10531 10.200 11.200 ce 0081 0020 «wav «10785 ©7460 «= twOd e202 C04 0.000 0.000 aaa aaa79 627.00 220 SOSO_—_ae.azt GAS PHASE, TIGUID PHASE [RECON COMPOSTON WEIGHT GB co 55 ISI O MOLE% 08+ 2.0149 89.69 67.1680 “— MOLEWEIGHT c6+ 89.4029 155.50 154.9925, MOLEWEIGHT Cr+ 186.0000 212.20 2123037 MEAN MOLEWEIGHT 27.2058 14800 115.5350 MOLE:DISTRIBUTION 25.0508 7494 00,0000 \WEIGHT-DISTRIBUTION 60820 3.4 100.0000 Gas GRAVITY ooaie CRITICAL TEMP(K) 250.3840 CRITICAL PRESS{bara) 45.4209 Z-FACTOR 0.9005 DENSITY ikon) 1.6908 794.2919 VISCOSITY (mpa's) 01s FRACTION GiS PHASE TiGUID PHASE RECOM, COMPOSTION ar P N a of N A P N a 08 70 20 ms 15 ms 18 o 582K? OT ws 5B 108 cs uy 2st 8ST? 180 © wes marke mSChapter3 Fluid Sampling & Laboratory Data Rev. 0.6 Curtis H, Whitson (PERA a/s) Page 38 November 1998 Table 3-12 ‘TEST SEPARATOR GOR CORRECTION FOR WELLSTREAM RECOMBINATION CALCULATIONS {Dass an (Repay = (Rep pats eet oe Balan TENG aha 1 1423.68 — Mow (Rep iy i= Fe Yi+(1-Fyp) xi Rens = separator gas-oil ratio based on rates calculated in the field, ‘Sm’/sep.m' Reus = corrected separator GOR at laboratory conditions, used to determine the physical and mathematical recombination molar ratio Fesp (Zy)ie = separator gas Z-factor used in field calculation of gas rate Zao = laboratory (truc) separator gas Z-factor determined in the laboratory at conditions during gas metering (Yese = separator gas gravity used in field calculations of gas rate (edub = separator gas gravity based on measured composition or direct Measurement (Pos) = ‘separator oil density at separator conditions during sampling, kg/m? (Mos) = separator oil molecular weight Fe = mole fraction of total wellstream leaving the separator in the gas stream Yi = _ laboratory measured separator gas molar composition X= _Tlaboratory measured separator oil molar composition % " wellstream molar compositionO Chapter 3 Fluid Sampling & Laboratory Data Rev. 0.6 Page 39 Curtis H. Whitson (PERA a/s) November 1998, ‘Fable 3-13 THREE STAGE SEPARATOR TEST OF RESERVOIR FLUID TO STOCK TANK CONDITIONS Stage Pressure Temp.o¢ Evolvedgas A Density of st, Gas gravity bar 3) Smim’ 3) Smim? 4) mim? —tankoll kg/m? Air=t 424.5 1) 114.0 2) 2218 1.640 0.659 1 70.0 50.0 1836 382 1.140 0.628 2 30.0 50.0 204 18.1 1.404 0.662 3 atm 15.0 18.4 0.0 1,000 851.8 = 0.974 34.4 APL 1 Bubble point pressure at reservoir temperature 2 Reservoir temperature 3. Standard m’ gas per m’ stock tank oil 4 in’ liquid at indicated pressure and temperature per m’ stock tank oilChapter3 Fluid Sampling & Laboratory Data Curtis H. Whitson (Pera a/s) Table 3-14 Rev. 0.6 Page 40 November 1998 PRESSURE-VOLUME RELATION OF RESERVOIR FLUID Pressure 548.7 525.9 501.7 478.3 452.6 430.5 424.5 412.8 391.4 368.3 338.6 306.4 276.1 239.3 202.7 155.9 116.4 85.9 Relative volume V/Vpp compressibility bar? peer eee eer ee ee ee Dan eee eee ee ee 0.9737 0.9781 0.9824 0.9874 0.9934 0.9985, 1.0000 1.0063 1.0197, 1.0363 1.0622 1.0977 1.1416 1.2149 1.3219 1.5512 1.9184 2.4620 lsothermal 1.78E-04 1.91E-04 2.05E-04 2.19E-04 2.34E-04 2.46E-04 2.50E-04 Best fit V equation above boiling point Veai= 1.1617 - 5.120 X 10% p + 3.091 X 107 p* Best fit Y equation Y = 2.286 + 0.532 X 10° p 4.520 4.294 4.200 4.078 3.944 3.796 3.602 3.399 3.126 2.882 2.696 OChapter 3 Fluid Sampling & Laboratory Data Rev. 0.6 Page 41 Curtis H. Whitson (PERA a/s) November 1998 Table 3-15 T=112°C Pressure bara Relative Rel. (1) Volumetric (2) Compositional volume liquid %. Ztactor __(3) Z-factor 532.42 0.909 1.2172 1.2171 511.54 0.924 1.1887 1.1927, 491.25 0.940 4.1612 1.1693 470.57 0.958 1.1334 1.1459 iH 451.48 0.976 1.1080 1.1247 Oo 435.89 0.992 1.0873 1.1076 432.39 0.998 1.0834 1.1038 430.39 0.999 4.0801 1.1017 Pd- 430.00 1.000 Trace 1.0788 1.1007 422.99 1.007 0.045, 1.0707 416.50 1.015 0.218 1.0633 401.50 1.035, 0.787 1.0448 381.61 1.065, 1,606 1.0215 361.71 1.099 2.550 0.9994 341.51 1.139 3.460 0.9778 321.41 1.185, 4.354 0.9574 301.51 1.239 5.507 0.9391 281.41 1.304 6.714 0.9225 261.50 1.380 7.528 0.9074 241.79 1.473 8.179 0.8951 221.79 1.587 8.848 0.8850 201.47 4.729 9.230 0.8761 181.46 1.909 9.701 0.8711 161.54 2.139 9.912 0.8688 141.43 2.443, 10.076 0.8688 121.31 2.857 10.097 0.8715 101.69 3.433, 9.972 0.8777 81.16 4.343 9.726 0.8863 63.14 5.656 9.395 0.8980, (1). Retrograde liquid deposit in volume % of sample volume at dewpoint (2).2=pVnRT. Not corrected for liquid deposit oO below the dewpoint. (3). Z-factor from the recombined composition in table 4 by the Dranchuc correlationChapter 3 Fluid Sampling & Laboratory Data Rev. 0.6 Page 42 oO Curtis H. Whitson (PERA a/s) November 1998 Table 3-16 DIFFERENTIAL LIBERATION OF RESERVOIR FLUID AT 114. °c Proseuro (bar) [3) Oil Formation]4) Solution Gas-| 5) Gas Density of 2), (msm) | Votume Factor | Oil Ratio, | Formation | — saturated oil B, (SmiSm') | Volume Factor B (mim) 5487 1.697 643.40 525.9 1.698 640.50 501.7 1.714 634.40 452.6 1.725 630.60 t 430.5 1,734 627.40 UO 424.5 1.736 250.50 626.40 1) 1.736 391.3 1.650 217.10 3.76E-03 643.20 1.775 345.3 1.557 180.90 4.00E-03 662.50 1.835 300.7 1.484 151.20 4.43E-03 679.00 1,924 252.5 1.415 123.60 6.17E-03 696.40 2.071 203.1 1.354 98.30 628E-03 712.80 2.309 153.1 1.297 74.60 8.24E-03 729.50 2,747 101.8 1.242 51.50 1.256E-02 746.50 3.741 49.7 1.187 29.10 2.649E-02 764.80 7.050 14.2 1.440 12.60 9.664E-02 781.60 24.129 1.0 1.091 787.40 Density of residual oll at 15 °C: 859.0 kg/m* 1) Density at bubble point from single flash: 634.5 kg/m? B,, see fig. 8 O 2) Volume of cil and liberated gas at p and tivolume of residual cil R,, see fig. 9 3) m’ liquid at indicated pressure per m’ residual oil B,, see fig. 10 4) Standard m* gas per m’ residual oil Density of saturated oil, see fig. 14 5) m’ gas at indicated pressure per m’ gas at standard condition NORSK HYDRO A/S Well: 34/8-3A DST1AChapter 3 Fluid Sampling & Laboratory Data Rev. 0.6 Page 43 Curtis H. Whitson (PERA a/s) November 1998. Table 3-17 DIFFERENTIAL LIBERATION OF RESERVOIR FLUID AT 114 °C. (Gas properties calculated from molecular composition) Pressure (bar)| 1)Gas | Gas gravily | Compressibiity | Molecular viscosity (Air = 1) factor, Z wieght (mPa/s) oO 391.3 0.0256 0.654 1.0697 18.94 345.3 0.0242 0.662 41,0238 19.18 300.7 0.0226 0.661 0.9844 19.16 252.5 0.0208 0.657 0.9488 19.02 208.1 0.0190 0.656 0.9234 19.00 153.1 0.0174 0.654 0.9135 18.94 101.9 0.0159 0.665 0.9196 19.27 49.7 0.0146 0.702 0.9463 20.33 14.2 0.0135 0.835 0.9763 24.18 1.0 : 2.069 : 59.98 1) For the calculation ref. page 46 Gas viscosity, see fig. 11 oO Gas gravity, see fig. 12 Compressibility factor, see fig. 13Chapter 3 Fluid Sampling & Laboratory Data Rev. 0.6 Page 44 O Curtis H. Whitson (PRA a/s) November 1998 Table 3-18 DIFFERENTIAL LIBERATION OF RESERVOIR FLUID AT 114.0 °C MOLECULAR COMPOSITION OF LIBERATED GASES weight % (wt.%) and mol% Pressure/bar 391.3 345.3 300.7 Wi% mol% Mol. W1% mol% Mol. Wi% mol Mol. | weight weight %__weight INitrogen 081 061 099 0.68 0.89 0.61 [Carbon dioxide 2.91 1.25 287 1.25 287 1.25 O {Methane 75.19 88.79 73.92 88.40 74.19 88.61 | Ethane 7.45 4.69 7.26 4.64 7.28 4.64 |Propane 5.67 2.44 5.84 2.54 5.57 2.42 iso-Butane 1.17 0.38 1.13 0.37 1.10 0.36 in-Butane 260 0.85 2.57 0.85 2.50 0.82 i so-Pentane 0.99 0.26 1.01 0.27 0.98 0.26 In-Pentane 1.18 0.31 1.28 0.34 1.22 0.32 |Hexanes: 1.07 0.24 84.2 142 032 843 135 031 843 |Heptanes 0.71 0.15 90.3 130 027 908 1.34 0.28 91.1 |Octanes 0.15 0.03 105.1 0.41 0.07 105.1 0.61 0.11 105.1 Nonanes 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.01 118.2 Decanes-plus 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.002 186 sum 100.00 100.00 100.0 100.00 100.0 100.0 0 Oo 02 Average molwt. 18.94 19.18 19.16O O Chapter 3 Fluid Sampling & Laboratory Data Rev. 0.6 Curtis H. Whitson (PERA a/s) Page 45 November 1998 Table 3-19 VISCOSITY OF RESERVOIR FLUID AT 114°C Pressure bar Pb Viscosity mPasChapter 3 Fluid Sampling & Laboratory Data Curtis H, Whitson (PERA a/s) Table 3-20 Depletion study of reservoir fluid at 112 °C Rev. 0.6 Page 46 November 1998 Pressure | Retrograde | Cumulative Z-factor, Z-factor bara | liquid deposit produced fluid] volumetric | compositional vol % of mole % of | Z=pV/nRT (DPR) dewpoint vol. | initial fluid Pd} 430.0 0.00 0.00 1.080 1.102 407.7 0.67 27 1.103 1.074 372.2 2.43 7.07 1.033 1.083 321.6 4.86 14.72 0.979 0.982 2717 6.75 24.42 0.943 0.942 i 220.8 7.82 36.06 0.912 0.913 | 170.3 8.22 49.13 0.908 0,903 : 121.2 8.04 62.63 0.917 0.907 62.3 7.40 79.16 0.953 0.943 [Mass balance Initial fluid amount, moles = 45138" | 0.835 ** roduced fluid amount, moles 678} Recovered fluid amount, moles: ase] [Recovery % 3.572 [3.678 * 100% : 97.12% * Initial amount of fluid in the condensate cell at 112 °C and 430 bar. ** Residual fluid amount in the condensate cell at 112 °C and 62.3 bar. *** Total recovery of gas and condensate at standard conditions.oO Chapter 3 Fluid Sampling & Laboratory Data Rev. 0.6 Page 47 Curtis H. Whitson (Pera a/s) November 1998 Table 3-21 Composition (mole %) of produced gas from depletion study at 112 °C Pressure [407.7 372.2 321.6 271.7 2208 170.3 121.2 623 bara IN2 0.819 0.817 0.845 0.799 0.867 0.867 0.811 0.836 \co2 1.212 1.210 1.260 1.250 1.242 1.250 1.198 1.262 ct }85.484 85.435 85.920 86.687 87.166 87.816 88.067 88,640| Ic2 4.499 4.494 4.483 4.491 4.490 4.494 4.357 4.603 Ics 2214 2.214 2196 2183 2.172 2.135 2,061 2.099 liso-C4 0.381 0.382 0.378 0.373 0.370 0,355 0.361 0.325 In-C4 0.887 0.892 0.879 0.863 0.854 0.810 0.859 0.729 Ineo-C5. 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004 0,004 0.003 liso-C5 0.298 0.301 0.295 0.286 0.282 0,258 0.308 0.235 In-C5 0.396 0.402 0.393 0.379 0.375 0.337 0.427 0.298 re 0.468 0.482 0.470 0.439 0.495 0.373 0.493 0.292 \c7 0.670 0.703 0.678 0.604 0.552 0.494 0.472 0.280 C8 0.606 0.654 0.620 0.526 0.423 0.365 0.289 0.176 \Co 0.371 0.410 0.379 0.306 0.204 0.161 0.108 0.075 |C10+ 1.692 1.599 1.198 0.809 0.563 0.282 0.186 0.144 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 (Moleweight 22.80 22.80 22.10 21.30 20.70 20.10 19.90 19.30 |Gravity (air=1) |0.7857 0.7855 0.7629 0.7348 0.7143 0.6920 0.6866 0.6663) Viscosity (cP) |0.0317 0.0299 0.0265 0.0234 0.0206 0.0183 0.0165 0.0150) C7+ 3.339 3.366 2.875 2.245 1.742 1.302 1.055 0.675Chapter 3 Fluid Sampling & Laboratory Data Rev. 0.6 Page 48 O Curtis H. Whitson (PeRA a/s) November 1998 Table 3-22; Chapter 3 Fluid Sampling & Laboratory Data Rev. 0.6 oO Page 49 Curtis H. Whitson (PERA a/s) November 1998 Table 3-23 Ki Pp=a+e F , (UT Ty) TCR) Carbon Dioxide Hydrogen Sulfide Methane Ethane Propane i-Butane nButane i-Pentane iCs n-Pentane nCs Hexanes (lumped’) Ce n-Hexane ne n-Heptane nC; n-Ociane nC n-Nonane ny oO n-Decane nC ‘Heptanes-plus: yy = 7.3 + 0.0075 Tso("F) + 0.0016 pao(psia) by, = 1013 +324 ny -4.256{m,)° Tire = 301 + 59.85 nny - 0.971(0)" Lumped hexanes include 25% 2-methyl pentane, 25% 3-methy pentane, and 50% nonmal hexane.Chapter 3 Fluid Sampling & Laboratory Data Rev. 0.6 Page 50 O Curtis H. Whitson (PRA a/s) November 1998, Table 3-24 OChapter 3 Fluid Sampling & Laboratory Data Rev. 0.6 oO Page 51 Curtis H. Whitson (PERA a/s) November 1998 O ‘voir pressure, psia Reser’ 0 80 100 wo 8 200 250 300 350 Reservoir temperature, ie Oo Figure $1Chapter 3 Fluid Sampling & Laboratory Data Rev. 0.6 H Page 52 O Curtis H. Whitson (PERA a/s) November 1998, Gas Condensate oi | ‘Undersaturated 1 Systems (Uniform composition) cP, To TR TR Te ‘Traditional Saturated System (Wniform composition) (Compositional gradient) D.P. = Dewpoint Degree of B.P.= Bubblepoint undersaturation C.P Critical point | Figure 3-2 - OChapter 3 Fluid Sampling & Laboratory Data Rev. 0.6 Page 53 Curtis H. Whitson (PERA a/s) November 1998 Battery Pack lock or sioxine version oniy) ‘Air Chamber Hydrate O11 tango = Peon? | 1— Pon Fates ‘Sample Fluid Seal Pasion Figure 3-3Chapter 3 Fluid Sampling & Laboratory Data Rev. 0.6 Page 54 oO Curtis H. Whitson (PRA a/s) November 1998 7 Stock-tank oil Oil Sample Figure 3-4 iChapter 3 Fluid Sampling & Laboratory Data Rev. 0.6 Page 55 gas line Curtis H. Whitson (PERA a/s) November 1998 sample bottleChapter 3 Fluid Sampling & Laboratory Data Rev. 0.6 Page 56 . Curtis H. Whitson (PERA a/s) November 1998 O “THORNTON” SAMPLING MANIFOLD O | 1D = 2.3inch > | O Wallstream, | Separator | Gas Gas rd Condensate outlet Gas meterit Condensate outlet Condensate “onl S28. sample Separation cample™ ‘Condensate \ sample | ~ Figure 3-6oO Chapter 3 Fluid Sampling & Laboratory Data Rev. 0.6 Page 57 Curtis H. Whitson (PeRA a/s) November 1998 Cy+N Gos condensate oe Pot PF 3 e Mole fraction C,-C, + CO, Gos a ICOR (sth WMsct) 10 100 100,000 10,000 1,000 1,000 eo £00) 10,000 100,000 100 10 GOR (ect/stt) Figure 3-7Chapter 3 Fluid Sampling & Laboratory Data Rev. 0.6 Page 59 Curtis H. Whitson (PERA a/s) November 1998 Detector Response ———> Methane (CH,) | Carbon Dioxide —~ (CO,) Ethane (aH) p | “ees waa ENS (n-{ Isobutane ‘38! 3 a ato) ° Isopentane (-SgHy2) —~ (C52) Normal Hexane (CGH) Isoheptane_ Hie) Normal Heptane eel oC He (Cg, 9) Norma! Octane Normal Nonane eee | (Cag) \ (CH, 9) Figure 3-9oO Rev. 0.6 Page 60 November 1998 Chapter 3 Fluid Sampling & Laboratory Data Curtis H. Whitson (PERA a/s) : coed gscscg 2 eee? 3 i Sie f 3 2 2 g | 2 2 3 i ; i 2 3 5 < | a8 i og 3 ee ; f Js < Sa, cw 3 2 (CHROMATOGRAPHIC BASE LINE ELECTRONIC BASE LINE Figure 3-10Chapter 3 Fluid Sampling & Laboratory Data Rev. 0.6 Page 61 Curtis H. Whitson (PERA a/s) November 1998 O Normal boiling point of 1 alkanes Figure 3-11Chapter 3 Fluid Sampling & Laboratory Data Rev. 0.6 Page 62 Curtis H. Whitson (PERA a/s) November 1998 ) 9 oe Normal boiling point of n—ckanes wee eeee Figure 3-12 : aChapter 3 Fluid Sampling & Laboratory Data Rev, 0.6 Page 63 Curtis H. Whitson (PERA a/s) November 1998 CONDENSOR ORY ICE TRAPS. \\ [> 4 senson (WHEN USED) &P SENSOR TEMPERATURE STIRRING MOTOR Figure 3-13 O© Chapter 3 Fluid Sampling & Laboratory Data Curtis H. Whitson (PERA a/s) Rev. 0.6 Page 64 November 1998, Analysis Name + (PVT) 3 DESTS00618, 15,1. Teonoteic plot by sasple from 1.1 to 16.1. DESTKUTT C9 C28 Inaerument + P5880 Channel Tie te + HPSB80 6 Line 10 . Required on 2-0CT-1990 at 10442 Reported on 3-0CT-1999 at 18453 Tine tainted Mothod + DesTeUTt Calibration + Run Sequence + URX Mute chro, Figure 3-14Chapter 3 Fluid Sampling & Laboratory Data Rev. 0.6 Page 65 Curtis H. Whitson (PERA a/s) November 1998 WX Ideal distillation and WX Simulated distillation vs Temperature (AET) [Jp =} - O WX ideal distillation WX sim.distillation » mowan ae 10. 30 100 180 200 250 300 380 400 430 Figure 3-15Chapter 3 Fluid Sampling & Laboratory Data Rev. 0.6 Page 66 Curtis H. Whitson (PERA a/s) November 1998 BOTTOMHOLE WELLSTREAM COMPOSITION oO oO Figure 3-16Chapter 3 Fluid Sampling & Laboratory Data Rev. 0.6 } Page 67 O Curtis H. Whitson (PERA a/s) November 1998 westReau Oo MULTISTAGE SEPARATOR TEST Figure 3-17O Chapter 3 Fluid Sampling & Laboratory Data Rev. 0.6 Page 68 Curtis H. Whitson (PERA a/s) November 1998 CONSTANT COMPOSITION EXPERIMENT VOLATILE/BLACK Ol, as 8 Figure 3-18Chapter 3 Fluid Sampling & Laboratory Data Rev. 0.6 Page 69 Curtis H. Whitson (PERA a/s) November 1998 O VOLUME = ce PRESSURE —PSIA Figure 3-19Chapter 3 Fiuid Sampling & Laboratory Data Rev. 0.6 Page 70 Curtis H. Whitson (PERA a/s) November 1998 PRESSURE - VOLUME RELATION OF RESERVOIR FLUID AT 114.0°C AND CONSTANT MASS bar oboe Relative volume Vret NORSK HYDRO 34/8-3A DST le Figure 3-20Chapter 3 Fluid Sampling & Laboratory Data Rev. 0.6 Page 71 oO Curtis H. Whitson (PERA a/s) November 1998 Y = function Figure 3-21Chapter 3 Fluid Sampling & Laboratory Data Rev. 0.6 Page 72 Curtis H. Whitson (PERA a/s) November 1998 CONSTANT MASS EXPANSION AT 112 © WELL 34/0-3 , OBT 2 CONTA VOLUME OEPLETION AT 132 6 eu Sarena fe ttt TEE EEE EE PRESSURE (ARA) Figure 3-22Page 73 O Curtis H. Whitson (PERA a/s) November 1998 Chapter 3 Fluid Sampling & Laboratory Data Rev. 0.6 \ DIFFERENTIAL LIBERATION EXPERIMENT | a | oe ie Figure 3-23Chapter 3 Fluid Sampling & Laboratory Data Rev. 0.6 Page 74 Curtis H. Whitson (PERA a/s) November 1998 il formation volume factor Bo (m?/Sm?) DIFFERENTIAL LIBERATION AT 114°C OIL FORMATION VOLUME FACTOR Figure 3-24Chapter 3 Fluid Sampling & Laboratory Data Curtis H. Whitson (PERA a/s) Rev. 0.6 Page 75 November 1998 Solution gas-oil ratio Rs (Sm?/Sm*) DIFFERENTIAL LIBERATION AT 114°C SOLUTION GAS-OIL RATIO ph O OChapter 3 Fluid Sampling & Laboratory Data Rev. 0.6 Page 76 Curtis H. Whitson (PERA a/s) November 1998 DIFFERENTIAL LIBERATION AT 114°C GAS FORMATION VOLUME FACTOR F Gas formation volume factor Bg (m?/Sm3) Oo © Figure 3-26Chapter 3 Fluid Sampling & Laboratory Data Rev. 0.6 Page 77 O Curtis H. Whitson (PERA a/s) November 1998 DIFFERENTIAL LIBERATION AT 114°C GAS VISCOSITY Figure 3-27Chapter 3 Fluid Sampling & Laboratory Data Curtis H. Whitson (PERA a/s) Rev. 0.6 Page 78 November 1998 Gas gravity (air = 1) DIFFERENTIAL LIBERATION AT 114°C LUBERATED GAS GRAVITY Figure 3-28Chapter 3 Fluid Sampling & Laboratory Data Rev. 0.6 Page 79 O Curtis H. Whitson (PERA a/s) November 1998 DIFFERENTIAL LIBERATION AT 114°C COMPRESSIBILITY FACTOR j Figure 3-27e) Chapter 3 Fluid Sampling & Laboratory Data Curtis H. Whitson (PERA a/s) Rev. 0.6 Page 80 November 1998 Density (kg/m?) DIFFERENTIAL LIBERATION AT 114°C DENSITY OF SésRAe7ES OIL Figure 3-30Chapter 3 Fluid Sampling & Laboratory Data Rev. 0.6 Curtis H. Whitson (PERA a/s) Page 81 November 1998 Viscosity (mPa-s) ‘VISCOSITY OF RESERVOIR LIQUID AT 114.0°C Pressure (bar) Figure 3-31 CChapter 3 Fluid Sampling & Laboratory Data Rev. 0.6 ce Page 82 Curtis H. Whitson (PERA a/s) November 1998 RELATIVE OIL VOLUME TO STOCK TANK CONDITION BASIS: THREE STAGE SEPARATOR TEST 1) Oil formation volume factor from differential Liberation data at given pressure. : 2) Relative oil volune based on three stage flash at given pressure. relative oil volume Figure 3-32Chapter3 Fluid Sampling & Laboratory Data Rev. 0.6 Page 83 Curtis H. Whitson (PERA a/s)_ November 1998 Slightly Volatile Ol cae : ight J + DLEISEP -o- COESEP 1500 7 Solon GOR, sett 3 00 i 4 “Tactonal LaF Diferonatto-Flash qi rt °0 S09 1000500 ——~a060 28008000500 i Pressuo, pla i Sight Volate Ot 22 \ pa |_TE LEBEP_~er coBEP i 20 | 7 16 18 ‘Oi Volume Factor, Bo 14 13 42 ut oe ‘500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3600 Figure 3-33Chapter 3 Fluid Sampling & Laboratory Data Rev. 0.6 oO Page 84 Curtis H. Whitson (PERA a/s) November 1998 Hoty Volale OF po T T T + oeser -o-coESEP -o-cvniser ] : i fag at ts el el tn ; cna ter oe Ee se UL TL a ee ¢_———__ SS eae ; : / © ab a aa 1s ee = (OftVolume Factors, Bo ‘000 2000 3000" 4000 5000 ‘6000 7000 Pressure, psia Oo | Figure 3-34Chapter 3 Fluid Sampling & Laboratory Data Rev. 0.6 Page 85 oO Curtis H. Whitson (PERA a/s) November 1998 TRADITIONAL BLACK~OL FORMULATION FROU RESERVOR GAS: LIA PREIS BESsnvert a, FROU RESERVOIR O8: SURFACE OAS Le a A RESERVOIR OL MODIFIED BLACK—Ol, FORMULATION =a Figure 3-27O Chapter 3 Fluid Sampling & Laboratory Data Curtis H. Whitson (PERA a/s) Rev. 0.6 Page 86 November 1998 CONSTANT VOLUME DEPLETION Figure 3-36Chapter 3 Fluid Sampling & Laboratory Data Rev. 0.6 Page 87 Oo Curtis H. Whitson (PERA a/s) November 1998, NORTH SEA GAS CONDENSATE / FIELD 2 (NSGC/2) SPECIFIC GRAVITY 0.778 0.780 0.788 0.780 0.70 Figure 3-37Oo Chapter 3 Fluid Sampling & Laboratory Data Rev. 0.6 Page 88 Curtis H. Whitson (PERA a/s) November 1998 Visund 34/8-3 DST 2 104 103 a a Z 102 101 mm a 400 0 1 2 3 4 Fi = bi(1/Toi - 1/Tsp) Figure 3-38Chapter 3 Fluid Sampling & Laboratory Data Rev. 0.6 Page 89 Curtis H. Whitson (PERA a/s) November 1998 we ae SampingBotes —> (MgtANo) = gsp y]<—— Traditional (downstream) qn gas sample: yt T— Mo" No) & dose %, 12mg Yi+ My % (Pg yi +A.ng X) + (Ng -ANg) X) Separator Gas ) ( Separator Oil 7 ra Carryover Ivokinetio Gas ‘Sample Carryover Figure 3-39 OGAs CONDENSATE PVT WHAT’S REALLY IMPORTANT AND WHY Curtis H. Whitson Oivind Fevang Tao Yanguopuo) B66 | ‘6z-8z Arenuep ‘e0Ua18}U0D Og! (ABojouyse, )|, puke BOUaIDS jo ‘fp Ue!|GaMJON) NNLN 8 s/e Vdd Bue, oe) ‘buenos, pulnig ‘uosyUAA ‘H SIND éAyM pure jueyoduy Ajjeay s,yeuM — LAd a}esuapuog) ses VoadO O “dolneyeq Moy puke A1aA0das Jo suisjueyoaut oy!9eds 0} soueLoduy! 4J84) Jo 1x8}U09 aU} U! eJep LAd 94!9eds Jo soueyodu ay} Buipueisiapun *SHOAOSAI syesuspuod seb Jo adueULopied jjam pue AlaAooes Buneyip eyep 1 Ad Aay au} Jo mainal & SAIK) sjeoy vad lesyse} Burseulbug éAym pue “* yuRpoduy! ase saiiedoid [Ad YSIUM ,olbew,, e4yxo + Hulwaoulbue ses = Hulssoulbue ayesuapuod sey uol}onpo.j}U] O O Wad [OQ O O syieway Buipnjouo5 Burepom Soa SElJBA090Y B}esSUapUOD HuljoAD sey abeyoojg ayesuepuog SeHeA090Y UONejdeq pue soej}q U! SpIn|y [eNiuy s}uewiedxy LAd uolssnosiq jo soido] Vvuad*(w-plu QOE=U4) Ay|Iqeawued mo] pue ‘10 BulAuepun Jo uononpoid wi9}-Buo] 0} anp pajajdep Ajpemed ‘(josWwW/ELS OZ} JO pjalA yeu! peyewse) UoHsodwoo yeni! UreLoOUN ‘(AJo}siYy einsseid pue sijaM [lO UuoNONposd Aq) awWNjOA jentul peuyap -l2M YM deo se6 padojarspun ,pjo, aioysuo uy ‘¢ ejdwexy “pallup useq sey jam AueAoosip (anisuadxe (ua pue) aj6uls V ‘PSWIW/ELS 08 40 pIalA jse} B pure ‘joljo1 jeanjonys eByE] ‘(Z) peyeinyes-seau JO payeinyes Ajjenlul ‘(w-pu 000 L=4) Ajiqeewued SYEBPOWW YIM JIOAIESAJ Jayem-deap asoysyo ebue] y ‘z ajdwexy ‘JOSWIN/ELS OOE JO PIAA yS9} © YM pue ‘seq OOr Aq peyeunyesuepun Ajpeniut “(w-pw OOO‘P=4X) Aiqeeuued y6lu UM JloMesel ,ojjeres, euoysyo jews y “L ejdwexy sojdwexy asaly]5 D juewdojaaep pue uoheeuljap 10} s]qejleAe sjjam jo saquinu — (e40ysuo “sa aloysyo) KydeiBboab — peyeinyesiapun AjyBiy 10 payeanyes — O Ayiqeawied yB6iy 10 moj (6ujjoAo se6 ‘sa uonejdap) ABaje.s JUaWIdoJaAap play — :uo Bulpuedep -- saluedoid [Ad Juasayjip 10) Aoesnooe JO seesBap juaJeyip esinbeu SP[Oy JUDIONIG MOAJaSaYy YoeZ J0y Kuen $}SI7 AyOlid LAd VadoO PVT Experiments Constant Composition (Mass) Expansion Test i m: SSTPVT Experiments a % = “s aa fA . in ~~ oO _ 2 o| Ss SN YS gat = SN ~ ao o ke < 2 = 2 Q ® Oo E. 3: IN = iE $s pian iets CUB \i kK &% 5 & ~ < ! ® ~~ a < ° oO kes) iy — 1 \ i z PERA$]9e]U09 |10-se5 ainsseaidg juIodmeq uideg YUM UuoHeeA JeuolIsodwoy uolje|deq Buling uonenue, (*45) jeuolsodwoy > 10}98J-7 Se4 S9LIBAODNY UOI}a|daq pue (dll) 89e}q Ul Spin] jey1Uy oO O Oo ValadO O O 8ALp uoNnejdep Gulinp einssaid JO uonoun e se AlaA0991 a}eSUapUOD puke sed eoejd ul a}eSUSpu0o pue seb jeniuy “IIOAJOSA1 a}eSUapUOD se6 b ul uoleUulWeyep oye1nND9e Spaeu shemje yoiym Ayedosd J Ad Aluo ay} s! 40}08J-Z J0}984-7 ses Vaadjelue}0g BuljoA5 sey Huiuyeg « (uoisuedxa/xnul 4ezem Hurjyo9|Hau) sayiyoid A19A0981 BYESUBPUOD pue seh 9yejNI/eD a]oid a}e1 a}esUapUOD ay} }SBI9104 uola|deq (GAD) Buling uoljeneA (+29) Jeuolisodwoyg = O O oO > asoa Ie Seow bes f ses tr any Leo wpibe op 7 sank wpyn soa pro “ee Sd Gap h g vy My ¢ s y ’ (/1,+C,,) / Ta, + C. . @ Condensate Recoveries from CVD & CCE Data 2 v Te ee . -[t- (0/2) } (6/2) ) An, Ng g PERA Wl $09 927 awadwunywee 98 soszess S190 OcS9l Corer z Zese | LE L9 SO-Bl2z8 SSOl coset egz9 be zze SPS yOR080: zoel OLO'EL OE Gr OzL eee eth vOSISr| Spt OPEL ©: O90'9E Lee eve ele vOn0se'! Spzz 0026 —Oer'rz wz rel 6s ee yore Gl8Z Os9L Ozh oze (rt = bak pore WEE ONY LOL we \2voL —-6Z LE yvomez ee Olle O01Le 807 lore 088 PORLOPE 966 0000 0000 eaZ0l er Pd 00'0 000 YORLOVE 966° 0000 aziz eS ld % % SWISEWS — %rfOul % % req Odd 64u 1 +h puydup ufu Zit d YDO 4 (pea) nduy uoKN|OS: “xouddy 0z16'0 peedatz/d) (ueysuoo pawinsse) EWS/EWS TL Bop ew/64 0&8 Aysuag +20) jour 19} qBIeM SIOW +20 (92118661) UosIUM *H SINS Aq pewuresBoud ‘s/e Vad © (+20 = WO e0epng puke -99 = Sed edRYINg) YseI4 BdeLNS PellidUuIs UO peseg SALAAODY SEX) PUP |IO OEJNS 0} UOISJOAUOD BEG GAD a a pa O O UO Wddds1o}oe4 Au@A09ey 10 adR)INS puke sey aoeNS OL 06 08 o£ 09 os Ov oe 4 or 0 0 °. LY Po 2 So} 5 2 | & 2 | 2 2 | g £ T 8 T g S HO e9ByNS -e- L se eoeung-o- | : | sash vidO sieedde eseyd eyesuaepuod jueidiou| — 4aues] Bulwiodeq sj}1e}s (weaijs]jam Buronpo.d =) eseyd seb 110A10Say — :0J04M dinssaid ay} sysew yUIOdMaG « ainssaid JUIOdMaGO O o SolenodeJ (6uljaAo puke) uoleldap a UO SjUuaIPesB [eEUDHISOAWIOD Jo }00J « Jepow jusipesh jeoa1094} ® Bulsn 192}U09 |10-seB Jo UONDIPald « Sdl4] UO yUaIpesB e Jo yoy yjdeq YM UOHeLeA JeudIISOdWwOD Vad(CriPri)(L — *AVL)=°4 4 | LA d «dNd,, HIIQeOUdd OAHEOY uolbay ajelg Apeajg asoq/jai-iean aBeyoo|g a}esuapu0yD O O O Vad20+300'L 10+300'L 00+300"L 40-300"1 20-300"L oo sok é 0 FSU oe Bo sos0s— + £0 9 = +70-3100's— 6 ys N #0 mA €0-3005— 21:08 ame 60 uolbay ajejg Apeajys aioqjjajj-1eaNn oabeyo0}g a}esuapu0y O WadOOF (j uoneunyes [10 pezijews0N 0} [enbe you “A) % ‘(weers|ie@M paonposd=) ainyx1w Buymold jo 'A/°A= 7A OL 3 Oo [ubny 004 %02 8! “A SOA mo} 00} %0Z 81 °A SOS | 00 Vo £0 aaa M-te8N JO} eBueY [eEUION —+ SO op uke] 90 vaadO O O uoljejdag BuljoAg-1s0g — uonezuode, — SIQIDSIIY SBD-seyd — uonejdeq jenuy — Aiaaooay a}eSuspu0y JO sjuaUOdWOD jUaJayjiq Bulenjeag « 812d (399 ¥ GAD) uoHejdeq Bulsn jenusjog BuljoA5 sed Bunenjeag « BuljoAy seg Vad0001 eieq ‘enssald 006 00g = 00L.—“(‘iéissiS— HC ESC“ (OH. 0 oF eunsseld Sy Oz S32] Pde g ys oe 8 3 2 or 2 o g Pay FOS a g o9 8 = oa & Q oe * 06 oo} _ puns weeny Borer erp 40787yy 2D eyeg ‘ainsselg osp oor ose oe osz o0z ost oor os 0 0 Ose juiodmeg oz ainsseig rentu *O°4y or + 09 og oot IOI % ‘eresuepuog Jo Arenooay Voadayesuapuoo epeibo.je1 pezuoden jo Aouaioyjje yeuy = 44 HuljoXo Jo pus ey} ye Aoualoijje daams yeul = SS yno “04: (Sa-1)+(au: “a+ ad): Sa+ Cay = ay julodmag Mojog bulla “04+ (S41) + "au: Sat SY = 4H julodmag arogy bulls Alaa009y a}JeSUBPUOy ajyewzin BuljaAo seg O O Oo Waad atOo 2 Oo Le 19 eoLe ges peo L960 799 @8E910'0 ZO-3SS'| pO-AZS'% 001 ee “19 gz ozs grezl ss60 606 9ZZLLO'O ZO-AvZ| vO-BVO'Z sZt ve 929 zo'99 0 z'0g seLzl 8960 6S GEZBLO'O ZO-3PO'L pO-R9BZ OSL o'9e org Selo yey sOrel O60 Isr 2Zv610'0 €0-390°6 vO-39'E SAL ve 69 22°95 vor ZI€EL 0860 98e 9180Z0'0 €0-370°S 0-325 002 gle veg Sys bb 26zel e660 = Sze Glb2Z0'0 €0-38z'L pO-RSE'E Szz e8z zie 68or = F'eh S662 B00'L = 9.92 ZvZvZ0'0 £0-30L'9 PO-39'y Osz ave eo2 vty «BEE woz = LzOk ale YiE9Z0'0 G0-3PZ'9 0-B90'S SLz z6L sos eLee fle bor'0k « GPOL FOL 8€9820'0 60-3689 0-399 008 Ler e98 wise Lb S62 SLL HLL GILLEO'O E0-AI9'S yO-Sr'9 Sze se olé vege bee 2ee'S SOL vs Z6SEEO'O E0-36E'S YO-H6O'L OSE ov 096 ev6z = g'6z lesz Sek Se GSBSE0'O E0-AIZ'S PpO-HZL GLE 00 ooo lezz zzz 0000 ZF 0'0 SZLBEO'O €0-AL0'S 0-308 Bee 00 Ooo § ve'zz gee 000; = Bye" 00 996000 €0-38Z'* y0-3L0'8 0Sr oo Ooo LbeL. zer 0000 = Sze"k_ 00 8PSEVO'O £0-39S'p y0-3L0'8 00S 00 ooo lez et ooo = dzv"L SS '0 Sr8V0'0 E0-Ave'’ 70-08 009 00 0001 682 oL 000'0 829" 00 SOLESO'O €0-3l0'y +yO-ALO'S 002 00 o00L ve oe 000'0 BLLb 00 v69LG0'0 E0-3E8E ¥0-3L0'8 008 oo ool 000 oo 0000 = ze G9ZZ90'0 €0-369'E ¥0-340'8 006 % % % % % % do euiseu — guis/ews Beg iy ay py YMA soeRZ —puymdu——BSIA Bg %) ainsseld payemnsajed 99 puke GAD wos Beg Aiaaodey ayesuapuod ayewyin Hulj9A9 sey Vuadajdwegs jo AyAjuasaiday nysuj e1eg LAd Jo Aseinaay — (4JOA1aSa1 BY] UIYIM aUINjOA pay e so Ajjensn) aed ul pin peulblio ay} Jo aayejuasaidas ajdwes y — .@Alejuesaidey nysul,, « [JOATaser dy] UO Paonpold S] ajdues au} Te ayy “OAIasaL Jey] Jo aayejuasaidas Ajpeayeuroyne si sOAIasal B Wod saonpoid yey} ajdwies pin payeulmejuooun Auy — .@AleUsSaldayY JIOAIBSOY,, « sojdwes ,,aciyeyuasaiday,, =) 3D OD (..6ulziopnesd,,) s}usuodwios jo Jaquinu Bulonpey spiny JOAasad Bjdiyjnwi 410} |apow SOF ,,UOWIWOD,, siajoweied SOW buluny (“9 ¢-€) uonoesy snjd ay) Bunids seniedoig “49 pue uolsodwios sejoy Buljapow SOF Wuad[esos] | Tseay | Tosoay [resoay [[otsoa] vuad ajdwexy uoneziopnesd ~Y O O O Osjuaipeib6 Jeuolisodwod yyM siloAsasas Bulzijeniuy swajsAs j10/se6 payeinyes Buljpuey sjapow SO3Z Pure |10-49e|/q Usamyeq Adua}sisuoD saljiedoid |10 payeinyes 91/U0}OUOW-UON sa]qe} poyeinjyes Huryejodesxy S21G2L LAd [10-49e1g Bunesouary Huljspow Sor VuadPA Bo), 66 A Joyoe} AUN|OA UOHeWO) se6 Aup = Vue “a CON 7 ole, jo -seB UoNN|os = == “Hl oN JOJORY UNION UO!EUUO} [10 = >= °g olyes se6 -|10 uolNjOS = Sd saiwiadold LAd I!0-49e1g jo uol}Uuyaq O O OoO 9 9 *y0e]U09 |10-seB ay} ye Ayjoexa “a= P6a 54 wa} au} ‘aje]s (jeo!}149) payeanyesuapun ue YyBnoly} j10 0} se6 wo. uolsuedy ® YUM SAIOAIOSO1 Bulpes6-A];euOHISOdWIOD 104 ‘aseud seB J10A19S81 34} 40} ..(°@) SAA [0,, JO pup} B — [10 BdeyNS 0} SeWNOA a10d seB J110A19S91 HOAUOD 0} ,,S}SIBoj096,, Aq pepeeu Ayuenb ayy si Pg/*s we} oy. (“A GAD 0} Juajeninba) .SUWNIOA seb sIOAJeSel Jad Boe Ul [10 BDeyNs,, 6. .s rales | | Voad lePEGA e Pg i: ere samuenb Td ,juajeainbe, OM) oul ‘Seledod J Ad |10-YOeI|G JO SWS} U| UaUOD Je|OUW *4¢5 JelIU] e JOYOB}-Z JENIU] « raze elep LAd Aey au} a0R|d ul eyesuapuod pue seb jel!u! Jo UOHe[Njed 104 suoIsnjauogO Oo 2 “Qunsseid YUM JOJORJ-7 Jo UONEUA ey} Aq ueai6 ase pue jenbe aie ayesuepuod pue seb JO SaLaA0991 Uol|a|dep juIodmep aul eAcgy ‘uone|dep Buinp eyesuepucd pue se6 peonpoid jo Aisnooes BulAynUenb Joy eyep Ady au} aplAold sisa} UCHe|dep -@WUN|OA-]UB]SUOD PUB UO!SOdWOd-]UL}SUOD Oy suoisnjou09 O vaadjs] UOHe|dep AUWUNIOA JUeJSUOD B WO} seB peonpoid ayy ul uoieuen (84) *45 Jo JUsWeJNSeAl eyeINdOVy UIB1GO 0} [EON S| 3! UOe|dep Buunp (ores se6-[l0 Bulonpoid) pjeiA BurAren pue AlaAo0a1 ByeSUBPUOD JO UO!PE|NI|ed JO SUOISN|DUOD | O O Vad2) aay 9 suoleziyeniul OM} OU} JO} JUDIOYIP AUeOIUBIS aq ueo eoejd ul ayesuapuod jeiiu! YBnou, usAe jualpes6 JEUO!ISOCdWOD & ]NOUYM JO YUM peziyeniul SI JIOAIBSO1 SU} JOYJOYM O} SAIISUBSU! SI peonpoid eyesuspuod eAryejnuIND ‘uona|dep ainsseid Aq Burlonpoid SHOMOSEl BYeSUBPUOD Seh ps}einjes-se8U 104 SUOISN]DU0D vead‘aBeyoo|q eyesuapuod jo Buljapow au} Uo Oye ,Arepuodes,, e AjUuo sey “A SWINIOA SAHEISI [10 (GOD) OUL “AWIGeJBAIOp se6 ul uoNonpas Buninses au} pue eHeyo0/q ajesuaepuod jepow Ajedoid 0} Ajeyesnooe pajepow pue peinseew aq Pinoys AYSOOSIA |!O suoisnjou09D vead“BuljoAo seB uo yoaye Joujw e Ajuo sey AySOOSIA SBS “UeLOdUUI Ss! 90e|d Ul B}eESUBPUOD |eIIU! JO UONIUEP BU} AJUO “ajqlosiwu aq sAemye |IIM judWeoR|dsiIp ay] esneoeq AlaA00e1 ayeSUaPUOD UO O99 ou AjpelUesse avey Seledoid | Ad \ulodmap ay} eAoge syoelojd BuljoAo se6 104 suoisnjou09 Wiad‘seB (Juawededsip) UoNoefuI oy) OU! @JESUBPLOD JIOAJESE OY} WO. pezOden *45 « uonejdep Buuinp se6 JIOAI@SEJ BU} Ul }UE}UOD *4D « uonejdep Bulinp UOIPEUeA JOJORI-Z are semedoid [Ad Aey eu) ‘juIodmep ey} mojeq BuljoAo seb Jo suoisn|2u09 oO O OO Oe ACCURATE INSITU COMPOSITIONS IN PETROLEUM RESERVOIRS Oivind Fevang Curtis H. Whitson SPE 28829SPE 28829 Accurate Insitu Compositions in Petroleum Reservoirs by @ivind Fevang" and Curtis H. Whitson,” U. Trondheim -Gopyight 1004, Solty of Pevoloum Engineers er case tara Abstract ‘This paper describes experimental procedures for determining accurate estimates of original insitu reservoir oil and gas ‘compositions. The proposed equilibrium contact mixing (ECM) method can use samples which are clearly not representative of insitu fluids (e.g, due to near-wellbore. multiphase behavior, reservoir depletion, or separator sampling problems). ECM. procedures arc recommended for saturated, undersaturated, and depleted reservoirs. Examples are given for reservoir fluids ranging from very lean-gas/black-oil systems to highly volatile gas/oil systems. Furthermore, itis shown that the proposed ECM method can Ce eins dep-weigtied average isi comport 4h reservoirs with gravity-induced vertical compositional gradients.” ‘The Peng-Robinson (PR) and Soave-Redlich-Kwong (SRK) equations of state (EOS) are used in calculations, with extensive characterization of the C,, fractions. Static PVT experiments and radial ID/2D compositional simulations of (ypical fluid-sampling conditions are used to verify the proposed methods. Partly due to the success of the ECM method, the traditional definition of a “representative” sample is, reconsidered, and a mote general definition is recommended. ‘The general definition ("reservoir-representative") is any sample produced from a reservoir, where the measured ‘composition and PVT properties are of good quality. The traditional definition (“insite representative") is a special case ‘where the sample represents an insitu reservoir composition at, a specific depth (or an average composition for @ depth interval), tec nd ita tnd Separator sampling of gas condensate and volatile oil reservoirs is widely used. We present an analysis of traditional separator sampling methods, potential errors in separator sampling, and a critical evaluation of the “isokinetic” sampling method. Isokinetic sampling is currently used to sample separator gas streams when separator liquid "carryover" is suspected. Problems with the isokinetic method are discussed, and we suggest ficld and laboratory measurements which are needed to confirm the validity of isokinetic sampling, Introduction Historically, the only acceptable method for determining initial reservoir compositions has been to directly obtain bottomhole cr recombined separator samples which truly represent insita compositions. Sampling procedures have been developed 10 assist in obtaining insitu-representative samples, but for reservoirs that are initially saturated or only slightly undersaturated, it may be impossible to obtain such samples. When flowing bottomhole pressure drops below the reservoir ‘Muid’s saturation pressure, multiphase behavior near the Wellbore may result in mixtures flowing into the wellbore which are clearly not insitu representative. ‘When reliable insitu-representative samples can not (or hhave not) been obtained early in the life of a reservoir, considerable uncertainty in initial hydrocarbons (oil and gas) in place may exist. One consequence is that process facilities may need to be overdesigned to account for these uncertainties. Accurate insitu-representative samples are particularly important for gas condensate reservoirs where significant income may come from processed LPGs, NGL, and stabilized condensate, Obtaining accurate instu oi! composition early in the lite of a reservoir is not usually a problem, even when flowing botiomhole pressure drops below the original bubblepoint ‘Separator samples can be recombined in a ratio (not necessarily the same as measured during sampling) that yields a2 ACCURATE INSITU COMPOSITIONS IN PETROLEUM RESERVOIRS bubbiepoint pressure equal tothe reservoir pressure at the gas- «il contact (GOC). This approach generally works well, mainly because separator gas and separator oil compositions are relatively insensitive to multiphase effects near the wellbore. A problem in many older oil reservoirs is that samples were not collected initially (e.g. many West Texas CO; candidate reservoirs). No generilly-accepted procedure has been published for determining the inital oil compositions in ‘pleted reservoirs. Usually the only alternative isto recombine curtently-producing separator oil and separator gas samples in 4 ratio that yields the initial reservoir bubblepoint pressure Already in the late 1930s, special sainpling methods had been designed for obtaining accurate samples from gas condensate wells."* Based on “isokinetic” sampling of wellstream mixtures atthe wellhead, extensive compositional and PVT data were measured onsite during production tests ‘These methods were still used in the mid-1950s (and probably later). During the past thirty years, commercial service companies have used standard separator sampling techniques, collecting separator oil and separator gas samples directly from a standard fest or production separator. Separator sampling is still the industry standard for gas condensates, but itis also used for sampling oil wells (as a supplement to bottombole samples, and when larger samples are needed for special PVT analyses) More recently, several oi! companies (and subsequently service companies) have again started using techniques similar to the isokinetic wellstceam sampling methods developed in the late 1930s. Unfortunately, information and test results from these newer methods have not yet been published. The lack of open verification of the newer testing methods has caused concern in the industry. There is also a general skepticism about whether the significant additional costs ofthese methods is commensurate with the results obtained. ‘Two recent publications address the problem of obtaining accurate insitu-tepresentative samples of saturated gas condensates." McCain and Alexander’ use compositional reservoir simulation to study the problem. They conclude that accurate insitusepresentative samples of saturated gas condensates can be obtained at an early stage of depletion ‘when sampling at low rates (with minimum dravidown), even when bottombole flowing pressure is below the original dewpoint. However, they also indicate that production rates tmust be "subilized,” where stabilization can require from several days (for moderate-permeability reservoirs) to several months (for low-permeability reservoirs) McCain and Alexander study the effect of producing from several commingled layers with contrasting permeabilities (eu/knix “100, where the layers are communicating). Results indicate that it is more difficult to obtain accurate insitu- representative samples in a layered system. The authors recommend that samples be collected as early as possible in layered systems, and with rates as low as possible. Several other observations were made by McCain and Alexander: (1) shutting in @ weil prior to low-rate sampling is ( SPE 2} ot recommended, (2) at high ges rates the producing GOR may appear constant without the welisteam "being representative of the original reservoir fluid, and @) a wellsieam dewpoint compared with average reservoir (or bottombole flowing. pressure) is not a reliable means. for determining if a sample is insita representative The ast observation was also made by Standing? in 1951 Suanding warned that the dewpoint pressure of gas condensate sample can be lower, equal to, or higher than the ‘xignal dewpoint without the sample being representative of the original reservoir fMuid. The reason is that. dewpoint pressure fs not a monotonic funetion of the recombin GOR (a maximum in the dewpoint-GOR is often observed, see Standing’s Fig. 40) Reffstrup and Olsen” study the problem of obtaining insitue tepresentative samples from low-permeability, saturated pas. condensate reservoirs. Black-oil radial well simulations and) static PVT. caleufations based ona detailed EOS characterization are used in this study. The authors show that for an idealized single-rate testing sequence, the produced \elstram will always have a lower dewpoint than the original

You might also like

• The Subtle Art of Not Giving a F*ck: A Counterintuitive Approach to Living a Good Life

  

  From Everand

  The Subtle Art of Not Giving a F*ck: A Counterintuitive Approach to Living a Good Life

  Mark Manson

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (5977)
• The Gifts of Imperfection: Let Go of Who You Think You're Supposed to Be and Embrace Who You Are

  

  From Everand

  The Gifts of Imperfection: Let Go of Who You Think You're Supposed to Be and Embrace Who You Are

  Brené Brown

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (1110)
• Principles: Life and Work

  

  From Everand

  Principles: Life and Work

  Ray Dalio

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (622)
• Never Split the Difference: Negotiating As If Your Life Depended On It

  

  From Everand

  Never Split the Difference: Negotiating As If Your Life Depended On It

  Chris Voss

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (893)
• The Glass Castle: A Memoir

  

  From Everand

  The Glass Castle: A Memoir

  Jeannette Walls

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (1737)
• Sing, Unburied, Sing: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  Sing, Unburied, Sing: A Novel

  Jesmyn Ward

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (1217)
• Hidden Figures: The American Dream and the Untold Story of the Black Women Mathematicians Who Helped Win the Space Race

  

  From Everand

  Hidden Figures: The American Dream and the Untold Story of the Black Women Mathematicians Who Helped Win the Space Race

  Margot Lee Shetterly

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (932)
• Grit: The Power of Passion and Perseverance

  

  From Everand

  Grit: The Power of Passion and Perseverance

  Angela Duckworth

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (619)
• The Perks of Being a Wallflower

  

  From Everand

  The Perks of Being a Wallflower

  Stephen Chbosky

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (2119)
• Shoe Dog: A Memoir by the Creator of Nike

  

  From Everand

  Shoe Dog: A Memoir by the Creator of Nike

  Phil Knight

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (545)
• The Hard Thing About Hard Things: Building a Business When There Are No Easy Answers

  

  From Everand

  The Hard Thing About Hard Things: Building a Business When There Are No Easy Answers

  Ben Horowitz

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (356)
• Her Body and Other Parties: Stories

  

  From Everand

  Her Body and Other Parties: Stories

  Carmen Maria Machado

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (831)
• Elon Musk: Tesla, SpaceX, and the Quest for a Fantastic Future

  

  From Everand

  Elon Musk: Tesla, SpaceX, and the Quest for a Fantastic Future

  Ashlee Vance

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (476)
• Bad Feminist: Essays

  

  From Everand

  Bad Feminist: Essays

  Roxane Gay

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (1058)
• The Emperor of All Maladies: A Biography of Cancer

  

  From Everand

  The Emperor of All Maladies: A Biography of Cancer

  Siddhartha Mukherjee

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (275)
• Steve Jobs

  

  From Everand

  Steve Jobs

  Walter Isaacson

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (814)
• Angela's Ashes: A Memoir

  

  From Everand

  Angela's Ashes: A Memoir

  Frank McCourt

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (443)
• The Outsider: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  The Outsider: A Novel

  Stephen King

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (1953)
• Brooklyn: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  Brooklyn: A Novel

  Colm Toibin

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (2029)
• The Little Book of Hygge: Danish Secrets to Happy Living

  

  From Everand

  The Little Book of Hygge: Danish Secrets to Happy Living

  Meik Wiking

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (424)
• The World Is Flat 3.0: A Brief History of the Twenty-first Century

  

  From Everand

  The World Is Flat 3.0: A Brief History of the Twenty-first Century

  Thomas L. Friedman

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (2272)
• A Man Called Ove: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  A Man Called Ove: A Novel

  Fredrik Backman

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (4851)
• The Yellow House: A Memoir (2019 National Book Award Winner)

  

  From Everand

  The Yellow House: A Memoir (2019 National Book Award Winner)

  Sarah M. Broom

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (99)
• Devil in the Grove: Thurgood Marshall, the Groveland Boys, and the Dawn of a New America

  

  From Everand

  Devil in the Grove: Thurgood Marshall, the Groveland Boys, and the Dawn of a New America

  Gilbert King

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (270)
• The Sympathizer: A Novel (Pulitzer Prize for Fiction)

  

  From Everand

  The Sympathizer: A Novel (Pulitzer Prize for Fiction)

  Viet Thanh Nguyen

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (125)
• Yes Please

  

  From Everand

  Yes Please

  Amy Poehler

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (1941)
• The Art of Racing in the Rain: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  The Art of Racing in the Rain: A Novel

  Garth Stein

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (4255)
• A Tree Grows in Brooklyn

  

  From Everand

  A Tree Grows in Brooklyn

  Betty Smith

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (1934)
• Ppgua Volume 7

  

  Document238 pages

  Ppgua Volume 7

  leong_guo

  91% (11)
• Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln

  

  From Everand

  Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln

  Doris Kearns Goodwin

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (235)
• The Woman in Cabin 10

  

  From Everand

  The Woman in Cabin 10

  Ruth Ware

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (2587)
• A Heartbreaking Work Of Staggering Genius: A Memoir Based on a True Story

  

  From Everand

  A Heartbreaking Work Of Staggering Genius: A Memoir Based on a True Story

  Dave Eggers

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (232)
• Fear: Trump in the White House

  

  From Everand

  Fear: Trump in the White House

  Bob Woodward

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (805)
• Wolf Hall: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  Wolf Hall: A Novel

  Hilary Mantel

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (4042)
• On Fire: The (Burning) Case for a Green New Deal

  

  From Everand

  On Fire: The (Burning) Case for a Green New Deal

  Naomi Klein

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (75)
• Rise of ISIS: A Threat We Can't Ignore

  

  From Everand

  Rise of ISIS: A Threat We Can't Ignore

  Jay Sekulow

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (139)
• John Adams

  

  From Everand

  John Adams

  David McCullough

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (2411)
• Manhattan Beach: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  Manhattan Beach: A Novel

  Jennifer Egan

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (883)
• The Constant Gardener: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  The Constant Gardener: A Novel

  John le Carré

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (108)
• The Unwinding: An Inner History of the New America

  

  From Everand

  The Unwinding: An Inner History of the New America

  George Packer

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (45)
• The Light Between Oceans: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  The Light Between Oceans: A Novel

  M.L. Stedman

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (789)
• Petroskills Reservoir Characterization Course Content

  

  Document2 pages

  Petroskills Reservoir Characterization Course Content

  leong_guo

  No ratings yet
• SoPlace 2.0 (Summary)

  

  Document7 pages

  SoPlace 2.0 (Summary)

  leong_guo

  No ratings yet
• Abbreviations Drilling

  

  Document74 pages

  Abbreviations Drilling

  Henk1740

  No ratings yet
• Sentul Affordable Homes

  

  Document11 pages

  Sentul Affordable Homes

  leong_guo

  No ratings yet
• Well Test Analysis

  

  Document23 pages

  Well Test Analysis

  leong_guo

  No ratings yet
• OFM 2007.2 Fundamentals

  

  Document308 pages

  OFM 2007.2 Fundamentals

  mkwende

  100% (2)
• The E in ESD: From Green Washing The Ivory Tower To Deep Learning For Sustainability

  

  Document19 pages

  The E in ESD: From Green Washing The Ivory Tower To Deep Learning For Sustainability

  leong_guo

  No ratings yet
• Construction Management: Resource Allocation & Leveling

  

  Document41 pages

  Construction Management: Resource Allocation & Leveling

  leong_guo

  No ratings yet
• Cross Flow HE

  

  Document6 pages

  Cross Flow HE

  leong_guo

  No ratings yet
• USM Structural Design & Build Competition 2010 (Final Announcement)

  

  Document2 pages

  USM Structural Design & Build Competition 2010 (Final Announcement)

  leong_guo

  No ratings yet
• Little Women

  

  From Everand

  Little Women

  Louisa May Alcott

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (105)