Adjustment of Differential Liberation Data to Separator Conditions ‘Muhammad A. Al-Marhoun, SPE, King Fahd U. of Petroleum ond Minerals ‘Summary Solution gasfoil ratio (GOR) and oil formation yolume factor (EVE) are normally obtained from differential or flash liberation tests, However, neither the differential liberation process nor the fash liberation process can represent the fluid flow in petroleum reservoirs. Therefore, data obtained from any of the (wo test pro- cedures must be adjusted to approximate the fluid behavior in the reservoir. Tow pressures, the conventional method of adjustment Testun Tino cus, nx physical comet “This paper presents a new method for adjusting the differential liberation data o separator conditions. The new method overcomes the limizations of the conventional adjustment method and makes the low-pressure extension of the curves of solution GOR and cil FVF more accurate, The method is based on the fact that data ‘obtained from both the differential and flash liberation tests should yield the sme value of oil relative density a reservoir conditions, ‘The new method is tested using 425 PVT files, yielding results that ‘ne consistent with the physical behavior of solution GOR and oil FV, Introduction Inthe differential liberation process, gas is removed as itis re leased from the oil. Inthe Flash liberation process, however, the liberated gas is not removed and is allowed to reach equilibrium with the of ‘Generally, peoloum engineers consider that the ges liberation process in the reservoir ean be represented by the differential lib _ sation process." ‘The fluid produced from the reservoir to the ‘The differential solution GOR is not the same as the flash solution GOR, as shown in Fig 1. Similarly, the differential and flash oil FVES are not the same, as depicted in Fig. 2. Thus, regardless of the testing procedures—flash or differential—some correction needs to be made to the obtained data to approximate the fluid behavior in the ol-produetion process. “The actual gas i ‘nor diferent. In certain Tocaltes, the process is flash, bat in others; the process is differential. In some ether localities the pro- ‘ess des not match either oF them, combination tet propased by Dodson ef as probably the closest to the reservoir process: “Al each step of the differential Hiberaton test, an ol sample is taken and flashed to obtain 7. Bs ane yy. Here it ean be seen “that all properties, including the jp. ate diffrent st eifferent _ pressures. Although this combination test isan improvement over the differential and flash liberation tess, it does not match the actual reservoir behavior. The appendix to Ref. 4 explains the lfferental and flash processes and the combination test. From the ‘combination test that produces different values for y, and 7, at lfferent pressures, itis justified to adjust all the properties o tained by the differentia liberation test to Mish separator condi tions, including , and 7, The fuid properties obtained by combining data from the dif Fecontal and flash liberation tests may be called the “combination fluid properties.” These data are used 10 determine the values of Canyah ©2003 Gs Peau Erg ‘pana (Pe eb nos aad teen or pga SPE G34 tet reer ‘taauo Se made ea o Sto, elvan 20 ek Oral mance ie 3 Res rr ot aay 2 Fa Ma solution GOR and oil FVF at pressures below bulbblepoint. To Calculate the combination fluid properties frosh standard! data analysis, several assumptions were stipulated, But these assump- ‘sions limi the range of application ( “This paper deserites a'new method to adjes the differential | “iberation data o-seperator conditions: This method overcomes the disadvantages and limitations ofthe existing meshed and comes up ‘with a comecton procedure that resus in a consistent pysical trend, Current Correction Procedure ‘The existing method for adjusting the differential liberation data ro separator conditions was based on several assumptions, the most Important of which (as stipulated by Amys et al) ae: * The standard cubic feet of gus remaining in solution at res- voir conditions that willbe liberated upon producing that liquid to the separator by a flash liberation process is the difference between the original gas in solution and the differentially liberated. gas comected for the reservoir shrinkage of the Muid + The relationship between the oil FVFs of flash ane! ifferen- tially separated samples remains constant over the entire pressure= “range of inerest In equation form, the comected differential solution GOR at pressures below bubblepaint pressure, according 10 the fist a Sumption mentioned above, is as follows Rex Rag~ (Raa~ Rud By/Ba o Where R,=solution GOR adjusted © separator conditions; Ray=bubbepoint solution GOR obtained from the separator tes Rigebubblepoint solution GOR obained by the diferent ib eraiton test; R,,=differental solution GOR; Bqybubblepint oil FFVF flashed through the separator to stock-ank conditions, and Baz=bubblepoint oil FVF differeaially liberate to stock-tank conditions. Implicit, the adjusted diferential solution GOR at pressures, above the bubblepoint pressure is constant and is equal t0 the solution GOR at the babblepoint obtained from the separator est. R= Ray? Pry @ ‘According f0 the second assumption, the adjusted differentia oi FVF at pressures below the bubblepoint pressure fs evaluated froma combination of efferent liberation data and separator test data; that is, B= Bag (Bay Bas) 8 Po o Where fy-oil FVF obiained by diferenil liberation tess, and B, ~oil FVF adjusted to separator conditions Implicit, the adjusted eifferential oil VF at bubblepint pres- sure is equal othe oil FVF at bubblepoin pressure obtained from the separator test that i, B= Bagh P= Py Disadvantages of the Current Correction Procedure ‘The adjustment method used inthe industy as outlined above as the following disadvantages: + At lower pressures, the solution GOR became negative. This does nt conform tothe physical trend, as should be equal to or [greater than zero, This is undoubtedly the result of wot taking into account the roquited adjustment in gus and oil relative densities, ‘The gas liberated in the differential liberation test has a relative density, which increases with the decreasing pressure. The oil @ June 2005 SPE Reservoir Evaktion & EngineeringSolution GOR Pressure, psi Fig. 1—Typical solution GOR curves. felative densities for the Mash and differential liberation tests are diferent. * For the correction of oil FVF, the value obtained at lower pressure leads toa value of less than I, which does not confoem to the physical behavior, Because of these problems, the range of application of the calculation procedure is limited to pressures above 500 psi. Actually, the following observation should be tive: B= 1 + When the values of corrected properties were used to caleu- late the live-cl relative density at bubblepoint pressure it did not agree with the flash live-oil relative density at bubblepoint pres- sure. These data should yield the sme value of oil relative density 1 bubblepoint pressure. This problem is encountered because oi and gas relative densities at standard conditions are not corrected to separator conditions, as ean he seen from the following equation: a= Cy +218 10 Ry Bs ana) ‘The New Method “The new method of adjustment ofthe diferent iseration data to the separator conditions is based on the following assumptions + The properties obtained from the differential liberation test at Dubblepoint are comected to bubble point properties obiained by the flash liberation test. The corrected properties include GOR, ol PVF, and oil and gas relative densities. + The properties obtained from the last differential liberation stage tothe almospherie pressure do not need any corection. This is considered a flash liberation, atmospheric pressure are adjusted proportionally"The properties that need to be adjusted from the differentia liberation test to the separator test are GOR, oil FVF, oil relative density, snd. gas relative densiy, ‘The adjusied differential solution GORS at pressures below Dubblepoint are evaluated from the following equation: R= Ras Bay/Rud oe © The adjusted differential oil EVE at pressures below the bubblepoint pressure are evaluated from the following equation Bg = Bay + 64 Bn ~ Bu o where ¢,= (Buy ~ Bya)/(Ba~ Ba) cee ®) ‘The adjusted diferential gas relative density at pressures below bubblepoint is evaluated from the following equation Y= Yer dfs Yee “ o where d= (i, ~ Ys), Yo) (0) June 2008 SPE Reservoir Evaltion & Engineering Oil EVE —piterenit == Fa Pressure, psi Fig. 2—Typioal oll FVF curves. and where ys the gas relative density athe lowest pes, tii an, Caleta snot equal to zr. ‘The aust fren eave desty and APL gravity at presres bow te buble pressure a vated mth folowing exons Yu = Yet Gs Yaa ~ Ye (uy You = 115/96 ~ 11S, a) Recently, McCain® discovered that the equation commonly self cane the Soliton GOR is nerrc: He sugges an sunion silt Bg. 6 inthe paps. "Tis support the pest metho wich vas orginally peste in Re. 7 Cain how Cer consre the eguton we calle il FV rom lack SILBVT repos (Eq) fo becomes. As mentioned eats be Nal ofthe ol EVE obtain Tower presse eas 0 ale {ss than 1 nich doesnt confer othe physi! behav Results and Discussion ‘The new method of adjusting the differential liberation data to the separator condition has been tested on 425 PVT files with 3,181 data points from allover the world, andthe result is consistent with physical behavior. Table 1 depicts the statistical analysis of the ‘validation data, The detailed results ofan example for one experi= ‘mental data set taken from a PVT file (given in Table 2) are presented in Tables 3 through 7. Table 3 presents the adjustment ofthe solution GOR curve to the separator condicions. Columns 1 and 2 in Table 3 are from Table 2. Column 3 is calculated from Eq. 1, and Column 4 is caleulted from Ea, 6, Fig. 3 shows the three curves: differential data, the existing correction method (Eq, 1, and the new method (&q, 6). At the bubblepoint pressuro, the Values obtained at both ‘new and existing methods are equal to the bubblepoint value ob- tained from flash liberation. At atmospheric pressure, both the siferenial liberation value and the value obtained from the new nethod are the same and are equal to zero, Tis is the expected ‘TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF VALIDATION DATA. Properties Minimum —— Maximum OWFVF at p, 1.020 ari Pressure, ps 23 4975 Temperature, F 8 200 GOR, sefiSTB 2 4322 Gas relative density 0.564 3.446 Oil reatve density 0.783 0.961 AP Ll gravy 15.74 4920 Oil roatve dont at 0.490 0.885 3 nn1 2ore 1302 “Gee 0936 — o718362 2 1815 1316 524 0.9607 0725918 3 4615 1.296 477 0.9889 0.730998 44415 1274 26 1019 0.737369 54215 1.285 381 1.0851 0.742957 6 1018 1.285 a4 1017 0.740962 7 B15 1.213 283 1.1673, 0.755008, 8 815 1.462 235 1.2503 762440 9 415 ttt 187 1.3861 0.768037 OB 1.145131 1.5558 o1e587 M5 1428 92172 o7e1273 1218 106830 038.0 _owz267 Flash 2078 ‘alu, while the existing corection procedare results in a negative Value, which cannot be piysially comee. The new method adjusts the daa betseen bubblepoint pressure and stmospherie pressure proportionally, according © F. 6 “Table + presents the aljustnen of oil FV to the separator conditions. Columns 1 and 2 in Table 4 are from Table 2; Column 3 is calelated from Eq. 3, and Column 4 i calulated from Eq 7. Fig. 4 compares the thes curves: ferential dat, the exiting cemeation method (Eq. 3) and th new approach (Eg. 7). The figure shows that a the bubbiepoint, both the new method and the existing comection method ate giving the same value of oil EVE, andi equals the bubblepoint value obtained fom the flash liber tin. At atmosphere pressure, the oil FVF values oblaned from both the ferential eration and the new method are the same This is bocase the las ferential step is similar vo a flash it ration, The dats beeen the two endpoints are comected propor: tionally, according o Eg, 7. The exsing eortetion method gives, vals foro FVF lower than the vlaes obtained from the dir: ental liberation at atmospheric pressure, which cannot be &x- plained rationally able 5 presets the adjustment of the gas relative density cere othe Separator conditions. Columns 1 and 2 in Table 5 are from Table 2 Column 3s the same asthe diferent values; the TABLE 4 ADJUSTMENT OF THE OIL FVF CURVE TO SEPARATOR CONDITIONS Pressure Differential Current Correction This (st) Data Curve Method study 2079 1942 112090 412890 1818 1316 12040 12078 1615 4.296 120 12516 1418 sat sat 1.2335 1216 1.285 112054 12100 4018 1.235 1.1062. 12016 a5 1213 14851 11837 615 1.192 sao 1.1685 15 aan sa28e 1.1494 215 1.145 110098 1281 18 41.128 110818 44126 15 41.053 rota 1.0530 ‘TABLE 3—ADJUSTMENT OF THE SOLUTION GOR CURVE ‘TO SEPARATOR CONDITIONS Pressure Differential Current Correction This (st) Data Cune Method study 2078 586 6260 ‘5250, 1018 20 4664 4703 4616 a 413 4282 1416 426 area 3024 1216 et m94 3420 1015 a0 2a 2998 ats 283 2350 2580 615 235 1889 2109 416 ‘07 28 1679 215 431 200 1176 115 2 515 228 8 o 38.9 00 ‘current practice does not adjust the gas relative density, bu it takes the differential value for gis relative density. Column 4 is caleu- lated from Eg. 9. Fig. 8 shows two curves; one ofthe curves shows the differential dat, and the ather curve represents the new cor rection method for gas relative density, according to Eq, 9, The value of the gas relative density at the bubblepoint for the new method isthe same as that of the bubblepoint value obtained from the fash liberation, At the lowest pressure at which R > 0, the gas relative density isthe same as that obiained from the differential liberation test. This is Because of the assumption that atthe lst step in pressure reduction down to atmospheric pressure, the dif- ferential liberation is lash liberation, Eq. 9 calculates the values ‘of gas relative density between the bubblepoint and the lowest pressure proportionally ‘Table 6 presents the adjustment ofthe ol relative density curve to the separator conditions. Columns 1 and 2 in Table 6 are from “Table 2. Column 3 isthe same as Column 2 because the curent practice takes the differential values without correction, Column 4 is calculated from Eq, 11, Fig, 6 shows the two curves of the differential data and the new eorreetion method for oil relative ‘density based on Eq. 11. Its noticeable that, at bubblepointpres- ‘sure, the new method assumes the Mash value as the adjusted value. At atmospheric pressure, the new method takes the differ ‘TABLE 5ADJUSTMENT OF THE GAS RELATIVE DENSITY ‘CURVE TO SEPARATOR CONDITIONS Pressure Difleronial Current Contecion This (Gs) Data Cue Method study 2079 0.9836 0.9836 0.8024 1815 0.8607 0.9807 08339 1615 0.9859 0.9859 0.9682 1415 1.0190 10100 0.017 1215 1.0551, 110851 ots 191s 1.4017 sa017 09978 815 1.1673, 1.1673, 1.0740 615 12503 112603, 1.1705 a5 1.3651 113651 1.9090 215 15553 1.5553, 1.5250 15 1.7420 17420 1720 June 2003 SPE Resevss sation & EngineeringPee eee ere TABLE 6 ADJUSTMENT OF THE OIL RELATIVE DENSITY ‘CURVE TO SEPARATOR CONDITIONS Prosire blferenial Correction Ts Coraponting teed” Bleue ‘Mated” Suty SAM | “pore aewe 0949 “o9ms 9810 115 ons 0849 08am ast 1015 oto ostsa osm 770 | Pc sats eto 08489 0997S ara8 tots ato ones one arse re a a ee ed 415 08m onMe ex sas 15 oaHte = onade 8448 26.00 ential value as the adjusted value, ‘The ubmospheric pressure ‘iterental step is considered to be @ Mash liberstion, Eq, 11 cal cules the valtes of oil celative density between bubblepoint and ltmospherie pressure proportionally. The corteetion of ol cative density at different pressuros is valié because if il samples at clfferent pressures were Mashed to atmospheric pressure, different API gravity would result Table 7 presents the ealelated ive-oil relative density at dif ferent reservoir pressures. Columns | and 2 in Table 7 ar from Table 2. Column 3 is calculated using Eq, 5 with an existing method of adjustment. Column 4 presens the new approach valves using Bg, 5 with corrected peoperties, Big. 7 shows thatthe values obtained from the new approach are the same as those obtained from the fash liberation tos fr the ive-il relative density atthe bubblepoint pressure and reservoir temperature. AC atmospheric pressure, the lives relative density base on the new approach is the same as the calelated value from differential liberation, The existing method of correction, however, failed to match the Dbubblepoint and the almospherie values, Conclusions [CA new mathod to adjust differential liberation data to separator ‘coniitions is outlined and tested on numerous experimental dita tes, and the method is found (a give the corect physical wea ["TABLE7—cALcULATED LE OIL RELATIVE DENGITY AT RESEWOR YENPERATORE Fiesaye bifearial Garni Govecion Tvs Suacane ater Sty aves oreo aieeso orassre —o7ateoe 072808 oro 7st 070200 ovaries o7srexs aro oraosr —o7eseo 0748000 oneoez —o7eoors=——o7siet7 sss 770075088 oi oreemo ——o7een0s=——arcet ae oreassr——o7anees=——aaras 2 orreeer——o7esset——_a7se0 nie oveiars ooo orasces | 15 omeasr——asans amas 2."The new method gives the correct oil relative density at reser voir conditions when the adjusted data are used. In contrast, the existing method of comection fils give the right ofl welative density at reservoir conditions. 3. The nea method successfully gives the expected valves forall the PVT properties at both bubblepoint and atmospheric pres sues, while the existing meted succeeds in some cases and fails in others Nomenclature B= ail FYE, BVSTB {res mVstook-tank my bubblepoint oil FVE = bubblepoint oil FVF differentially liberated to sock-tank conditions babbiepoint oil EVE Mashed throngh the separator t sock-tank conditions Bigg = oil FVE obtained by the diferetia liberation txt 1 © variable defined by By. 8 4d, = variable defined by Bq, 10 pressure, pst kPa) Dubblepoint pressure, psi (kPa) solution GOR, sefISTB [sl 1 Ystock-tank mn") £,, = solution GOR at bubblepoint pressure 8 8 z 4 Bu 3 wl g -©-Ditfeatal, ~©-Ditfcatial Semen Seinen : eee i Sammy, > we pe a a a a Pressure, psi Fig. 2—Adjustment of solution GOR to separator conditions. Jane 2008 SPE Reservoir Evehation & Bs Pressure, psi Fig. ‘Adjustment of oil FVF to separator conditions. as.eee a = “i ate This study © Diffexcatial 7 ae om Bu 2 Se 2 gem a. 3 A Eo Sus. = eae Hy He aaat oor oo Saal o 00, 090 1500 2000 2500 Pressure, psi Fig. 5—Adjustment of gas relative density to separator conditions, yyy = bubblepoint solution GOR obiained by the differential liberation gest Ruy = bubblepoint solution GOR obstined fom the separaior test Ryq = solution GOR obtained by the differential liberation test Ys ~ stock tank oil gravity, SAP Y, = gas relative density (ar 1) “Yad = B18 elative density obtained by the differential Iiberaion west (aie= 1) ‘Yer ~ 8 relative density obtained from the separator test Gir=1) il relative density (water= 1) ‘Yon bubblepoint cil eltive density (water: “Yor = oil relative density obtained by dhe diferentad Tiberation test (water Yor = oi relative density obtained ftom the separator test (vater=1) ol relative density at pressure p and reservoir temperature (wa Subscripts Aiferenial liberation west flash liberation test a differential stage jber of stages in dhe differential liberation test Yor or a -©-Diterea ar “Became te Tol ty Live-Oil Relative Density . a ee) Pressure, psi Fig. 7—Calculated tive ll relative density at reservoir temperature. 146 Pressure, psi Fig. 6Acjustment of ol relative density to separator conditions. Acknowledgments ‘The author is grateful to the Dept. of Petroleam Engineering. at King Fahd U. of Pevoleunr and Minerals, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, for the filities used to perform the present work snd for hele sippon. References. 1, Standing, MLB: Volunenic and Phase Belvo of OU Feld Hyde ‘anon Stems, Mila Pil Ine, Dalles (1977) 81 2. McCain, W.D, Jn The Propete of Petoleu Fide, sean eon, Fennel, Tlss (1990) 283 3, Dodson, CR, Good, D.. and Mayer, EL: "Application of Labo ery PVT Dats to Reserve Engncerng Problens,” Tene, AIME (1983) 198,287 4.-Mosss, PAL: “Engineering Appliatons of Phase Behavior of Crude land Condensate Systems” JP ly 1986) 715. 5. Ansys, ENE, Bass DM, J aad Whiting, RL: Protea Reservoir uginering, MeGe9¥-TIN) Book Co. Ine, New York City (1960) 392-399, 6. McCain, WD. Je: “Analysis of Blick OF PVT Reports Revisited” piper SPL 77386 presented atthe 2002 SPE Annas Teshaical Cos- Terence and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, 29 September 2 October 7.AbMarhoan, M.A: “Adjsment of Differeat Liberation Das £0 Sepertoe Contions” paper SPE 68234 presented at the 200 SPE [Middle Eat Oil Stow, Bahan, 17-20 Macc, SI Metric Conversion Factors API 141.5/031.5¢ "APD = gem" bbl x 1.589 893 E01 = m* 283) 685 =o oF CF + 40yi.8 - 40 c psi x 6.804 757 kee SRY 18 K sof bb) x L801 195 E01 = sid mf? “Convorion ocr exact ‘Muhammad Ali Al-Marhoun is a professor and former chai mon of the Pelfoloum Engineering Dep. ot king Fond U. of Pettoleum and Minerals, Dhahran, Sauct Arabia. e-mai: rmomounrm@ldupm.cdu sc. Hi fosearch interacts nciuce Hach propaties and reservoir engineesing. ang he hos pubssned Several resecrch ond fechnical papers. AbMamnoun holds 0 BS degree in genera! engineering and an MS degiee in math- femaics ftom King Fahd U. of Pelfolaum and Minerals and PRD degree in petroleum engineering fiom the U. of OFloho- smo. He served as a 2001-42 SPE Dasingusned Lecturer Sune 2003 SPE Resorvor vation & Eaginering