# SPE Distinguished Lecturer Program

Primary funding is provided by

The SPE Foundation through member donations
and a contribution from Offshore Europe

The Society is grateful to those companies that allow their
professionals to serve as lecturers

Society of Petroleum Engineers
Distinguished Lecturer Program
www.spe.org/dl

1

Reservoir Fluid Properties (PVT):
Issues, Pitfalls and Modeling Aspects
Birol Dindoruk

Shell International Exp. & Prod. Inc.

Society of Petroleum Engineers
Distinguished Lecturer Program
www.spe.org/dl

Outline
• Purpose/Motivation
• Impact (Examples)
– Well Testing
– Surface Oil Volume, Reservoir Depletion Performance

• Sources of PVT data
– Main Focus Areas

• QC Considerations/Modeling Issues

Measurement errors/Sample consistency
Rules-of-thumb/Difficult Fluids
OBM
Viscosity
EOR

• Summary

3

wellbore hydraulics calculations Flow assurance Production allocation and calibration Tax implications/qualifications/quotas Production Sharing Agreements (PSA’s) Drilling and completion fluids 4 . reservoir connectivity Reservoir simulation/Material balance Pressure transient testing EOR/Injection processes Flow-line.Why Do We Need PVT Data? • Many petroleum engineering calculations require PVT data: – – – – – – – – – – Reserves.

6 Bo P o mh 5 . Example(s): Well testing equation(s). MBE k q 162.Bottom Line: Most of the equations that we use have coefficients/parameters that are functions of fluid properties.

From reservoir to surface – Pressure. Volume and Temperature changes Surface PVT Description G GOR behavior. Boi O Oil Reservoir O 6 .

2 0.0 1.6 Pressure (psia) 20000 4000 Oil Viscosity (cp) GOR (SCF/STB) 1.4 GOR (SCF/STB) 15000 3000 0.0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 Pressure (psia) 10000 2000 Pbp 5000 1000 0 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 From Craft & Hawkins 0 1600 CUMULATIVE OIL PRODUCTION (MSTB) 7 .8 0.Reservoir Performance/Time Dependent Behavior 2.

e.Sources of PVT data • PVT Experiments/Measurements (need fluid samples) – Surface/Subsurface Samples • Correlations/Analog Data • Equation of State (EOS) P RT  V b V representation (i. cubic) Estimation/Calculation of PVT Properties aD ..

2  2bV  b 2 Sutton (2005) 8 .

What Happens From Reservoir to Separators? Plants. etc. 3V 7V Wellbore Simulation Surface Facility Modeling 397 Reservoir/ Process Modeling 9 .

. IFTÆ 0) • Modeling the desired processes (“EOS work”) 10 ..RE: Main Focus Areas • Primary and Secondary Production – Typically fluid properties/depletion characteristics from reservoir to separators • Interaction with non-native (i. EOR) fluids – Experiments/Modeling to capture EOR processes (i.e.e.

Some Aspects of QC Considerations • Fluid Type • Data Quality – Sample – Lab Data • Minimum Data Requirements • Transport Properties (Viscosity) • EOS vs Data 11 .

1 Pdp 100% L 0.5 0.0 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 1 TIME (hr) 90% 70% 50% 80 70 Liq % @ Tres 60 20% 50 2 1=wet gas 2=dry gas 40 30 20 10% Liq % (Data) Liq % (Calc) 10 Tsep&Psep 0 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 P (psia) 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 T 12 .P-T Diagrams/Phase Envelope Instantaneous GOR (MSCF/Sep BBL) 0.4 P “OIL” “GAS” Pi Pi 0.3 0.2 CP 0.

Classification of Reservoir Fluids – “Cut off”/”rule of thumb” (i.7% ?? 13 ..5% <12. Mc Cain) – P-T diagrams Property Black Oil Volatile Oil Retrograd e Gas Wet Gas Dry Gas Initial GOR (SCF/STB) <1750 17503200 >3200 >15000 (<66 bc/mmcf) >100. oAPI <45 >40 >40 <70 None C7+ >20% 2012.5% <4% <0.000 (<10 bc/mmcf) Initial Stock Oil.e.

5 STB/MMSCF) CGR (STB/MMSCF) 160 140 120 100 80 80 100 120 140 160 Separator Temperature (F) 180 200 220 14 .7 psia (119.Impact of Test Separator Conditions on CGR 180 #1 #2 Extended Flow 1st Stage CGR: Psep = 389.5 STB/MMSCF) 1st Stage CGR: Psep =550 psia (119.3 STB/MMSCF) 1st Stage CGR: Psep =389.7 psia (139.

10000 DATA CRIT 9000 8000 Low-T Extrapolation P (psia) 7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 -200 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 T (F) P1 & T1 Pres & Tres Pbp P CP P1 & T1 Pres & Tres T1 Tres 15 T 1400 .

01 40.01 30.01 10% ? 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Carbon Number Dry Gas Black Oil 16 .01 0.01 20.Oil Base Mud (OBM) Contamination • Specially designed HC/Oil-Base Fluids • Pose challenges to get clean samples Weight% Acceptable Contamination 50.01 10.

53 0.2 0.0.07 -0.60 -0.10 0.1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 S ample Numbe r 8 17 .70 0.40 Influence of Drilling Mud/Treatments [Contamination] 0.5 MC 14 0.30 0.60 5.9 Reservoir Oil+Gas -0.20 0.80 0.50 0.00 CO2 C 3 0.00 -0.20 0.00 inches Mas s fraction at S andface -0.60 1.50 0.40 0.40 0.50 0.50 -0.0 0.10 0.4 MC 16 MC 18 0.30 0.10 0.47 C4C6 0.30 0.60 0.7 -1.60 0.20 0.8 Ma s s F ra c tio n -0.0 OBM Reservoir -0.1 0.50 1 0.6 C 19 P 0.73 0.00 0.93 0.3 0.1 N2 C 1 0.33 -0.80 -1.10 -0.00 0.13 0.20 -0.67 0.00 0.27 -0.40 -0.20 0.70 2.40 -0.87 0.30 -0.7 C 7 C 18 0.

01 0.UNCONTAMINATED 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Liquid Volume (%) Carbon Number 20 10 0 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 Pressure (psia) 18 .01 10.01 Liq %_cpk (199 F) -.CONTAMINATED 20.01 30.Oil Base Mud Contamination: Condensate 30 Liq %_exp (199 F) -.01 40.01 Liq %_cpk (199 F) -.CONTAMINATED Weight% 50.

Oil Base Mud Contamination: Oil 5500 Stock Tank Oil Reservoir Fluid 5000 Pbp @ 200 F (psia) 4500 4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 0 10 20 30 40 50 % Oil Base Mud (w/w) 19 .

As described by Metcalfe et al.Compositional Grading • Compositional Grading r2 r1 r1 – Equilibrium – Non-equilibrium Detailed review is in SPE109284 r3 r4 • No data = No problem (“no brain & no headache”) Depth SPE116243 & 124264 Enabling Technologies: Advances in Subsurface Sampling Techniques 20 Anshultz Ranch SPE14412. .

Compositional Grading: GOR versus Depth GOR (SCF/STB) 0 10000 20000 30000 9000 Black Oil Gas 4500 9500 Critical Point 4000 3500 10000 Pres 3000 P (psia) Depth (ft) GAS 10500 GOC 2500 2000 1500 1000 11000 500 OIL 11500 0 -200 Tres 0 200 400 600 800 1000 T (F) 21 .

Pressure/Saturation Pressure (psia) 7500 9000 8500 9500 10500 11500 12500 13500 9500 10000 10500 Depth (feet) CONDENSATE/VAPOR 11000 11500 12000 12500 OIL/LIQUID 13000 13500 14000 22 .

Liquid Phase Viscosity (Measurement Aspects) • Inferred quantity (transport property) • Leading Industrial Measurement Techniques – Electromagnetic Viscosity Measurement – Rolling Ball Techniques – Capillary Tube – Fann-Type Devices 23 .

Liquid Phase Viscosity (Computational Aspects) • Heavy ends have the largest impact on liquid viscosity • Better characterization of the plus fractions can improve the results significantly: granularity matters! • Viscosity Models – – – – Lohrenz-Bray-Clark/Jossi et al. Model Corresponding States models Friction models Black oil correlations 24 .

EOR Aspects Dependence of residual oil saturation to uP capillary number Stalkup N Ca V 25 .

Impact of Temperature: Viscosity Farouq Ali (1982) SPE 9897 26 .

etc.EOS The Final “Assembly” Step: PREDICTIVE CAPABILITY ISSUES: • Limitations inherent to two-constant cubic EOS (Mainly Peng and Robinson EOS and Soave modified Redlich and Kwong EOS) – – – – Semi-empirical nature of the EOS Volume prediction Mixing rules Having a fixed critical Z-factor for all the components. • Inexact fluid description (Single Carbon Number grouping rather than detailed compositional breakdown) 27 .

• “Difficult fluids” (near-critical systems. graded systems) pose challenges – – – – Characterization/modeling aspects Computational aspects Initialization aspects Measurement aspects 28 . lean condensates.Summary • Proper PVT data/work is needed to capture – Depletion performance of the reservoir and – Interaction of injectants and the in-situ fluids • Consistent fluid description is needed from the reservoir to the delivery point. heavy fluids. contaminated fluids.

Summary • PVT/Fluid Properties should be used to complement the G&G information • EOS/Computational Aspects: – QC of the data is a must – Better viscosity prediction/modeling is needed – Sample characterization/representation with minimum # of components – Multiple (PVT’s) sample characterizations poses a challenge 29 .

QUESTIONS ? 30 .