See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/254534443

Reservoir Fluid Characterization and Application for Simulation Study

Article · January 2011

DOI: 10.2118/143612-MS

CITATION READS

1 557

4 authors, including:

Kameshwar Singh Curtis Whitson

Norwegian University of Science and Technology Norwegian University of Science and Technology
9 PUBLICATIONS   44 CITATIONS    106 PUBLICATIONS   1,655 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Curtis Whitson on 15 November 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

SPE 143612

Reservoir Fluid Characterization and Application for Simulation Study

Kameshwar Singh, SPE, PERA, Konstantinos Mantatzis, SPE, OMV, Curtis H. Whitson, SPE, NTNU/PERA, and
Radhia Benjemia, SPE, OMV

Copyright 2011, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE EUROPEC/EAGE Annual Conference and Exhibition held in Vienna, Austria, 23–26 May 2011.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have not been
reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to
reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
The paper presents a methodology to develop and apply an equation-of-state (EOS) multi-fluid model for a field in Tunisia.
The EOS model was developed by matching measured PVT data for a near-critical oil sample. The fluid characterization was
used to estimate contamination level in oil-based-mud contaminated MDT samples, calculate decontaminated sample
composition, estimate zone composition based on clean-up test measured oil-gas ratio, estimate fluid composition of some
layers where samples were not available, and study the effect of gas condensate blockage and capillary number on simulated
well performance.
In this field, reservoir fluids range from lean gas condensate to rich gas condensate and volatile oil. Clean up tests were
conducted for all four zones encountered in the well, and oil-gas ratios were measured. During the clean up test of one zone, a
near critical oil sample was collected and standard PVT experiments were conducted. Oil based mud (OBM) contaminated
MDT samples were collected from six of the nine non-communicating layers, with OBM contamination levels between 20-65
wt% STO.
An EOS model was developed after matching measured PVT data on the near-critical oil sample. The MDT samples were
decontaminated using measured mud composition. The calculated decontaminated “clean” sample compositions were used in a
reservoir simulation model to initialize the layer from which the MDT sample was taken.
The developed EOS model was also used to estimate the fluid composition of different zones and layers without fluid
samples. The zone fluid compositions were calculated based on measured test OGR. The EOS model, zone fluid compositions,
decontaminated MDT samples, and layer mobilities were used to estimate fluid composition of the layers without samples.
This paper provides a methodology that can be used in any other field.

Introduction
At the time of this study, one well has been drilled. Clean up tests were conducted for all four zones encountered in well 1. The
clean-up test results showed fluids ranging from a near critical fluid to lean gas condensate, as summarized in Table 1. During
the clean-up test, producing oil-gas ratios (OGRs) were 392-, 57-, 155-, and 26-STB/MMscf for zones 1, 2, 3, and 4,
respectively. During the zone-1 clean-up test, separator samples were collected and standard PVT analysis was conducted on
the recombined volatile oil sample.
After quality control of measured PVT data, these data were used for the Peng-Robinson EOS fluid model development
using 34-components (EOS34).
Six MDT samples were collected from well 1. The MDT samples were taken from five different layers as given in Table 1.
Because the well was drilled with oil based mud (OBM), all of the MDT samples were contaminated. The MDT samples were
decontaminated using a special gamma-modeling procedure in PhazeComp, the PVT software used in this study. Clean sample
compositions were calculated after removing the OBM contamination. The calculated clean sample composition was then used
in the reservoir simulation model to initialize the layer from which the MDT sample was taken.
A stepwise pseudoization procedure was used to reduce the number of components from 34 to 15, while maintaining an
accurate description of the reservoir fluid PVT properties, resulting in EOS15 that was used for full-field reservoir simulation
studies.
Single well reservoir simulation models (both fine grid radial and coarse grid cartesian) were set up to study the effect of
gas condensate blockage, capillary number dependence of relative permeability, and their effect on well performance. The grid
size in the coarse grid model was varied to evaluate the effect of grid size on simulated performance using the Fevang-Whitson
generalized pseudopressure (GPP) method as implemented in ECL300.
2 SPE 143612

EOS Fluid Model Development

A volatile oil sample was collected from well 1 (zone 1) during clean up test and conventional PVT experiments – constant
composition expansion (CCE), differential liberation expansion (DLE), and multi-stage separator test – were conducted in the
laboratory. To describe the reservoir fluid behavior, a 34-component equation-of-state (EOS) fluid model was developed. The
1979 Peng-Robinson (PR) equation of state was used. The EOS fluid model has the standard set of C6- light components (no
H2S), and single carbon number (SCN) fractions from C7 to C29, and C30+ residue.
The Søreide specific gravity–molecular weight correlation1 was used for C7 and heavier components:

γ i = a + Fc (M i − b) c ......................................................................................................................... (1)
where γ is the specific gravity, M is the molecular weight and a (=0.2855), b (=66), c (=0.13), and Fc are constants. The
Søreide correlation was tuned by varying Fc while keeping a, b, and c same as default values. The value of Fc = 0.2618 was
found after matching the measured oil density at standard conditions.
Binary interaction parameters for N2 and CO2 with other components were standard from the literature1, while for C1 and
C7+ components, the Cheuh and Prausnitz2 correlation was applied.

EOS Tuning
All PVT data were first simulated with the default, un-tuned EOS to assess how well predictions compared with laboratory
measured data. This comparison also helped decide which parameters should be used to match measured data. Some trial and
error was required before deciding on the “final” set of regression parameters and data weight factors.
The initial approach to EOS tuning used the following parameter adjustments to match all PVT data:
1. C1 - C7+ BIP multiplier. A single multiplier was applied to the default BIPs between C1 and all C7+ components.
2. Normal boiling point (Tb) of the Heptanes-plus fractions.

The measured saturation pressure, liquid saturation, and separator GOR were used as measured data. Other measured PVT
data was predicted for comparison. Several additional regression parameters were tried, and we also included all measured
data, without any significant improvement in the overall EOS model predictions.

Viscosity Regression
The Lohrenz-Bray-Clark3 (LBC) compositional viscosity correlation was used to calculate oil and gas viscosities. The LBC
correlation is usually adequate for gas viscosity predictions, but is often not predictive for oil viscosity. The results are
extremely sensitive to the input values of critical Z-factor (Zc). To ensure reasonable LBC predictions of oil viscosity,
estimated liquid viscosities for each component from C7 to C30+ at reservoir temperature and 1 atm was fitted. The component
liquid viscosities were estimated from molecular weight and specific gravity based on the Orrick-Erbar2 correlation. The Zc’s
of SCN fractions were modified individually to force fit the LBC correlation to the estimated component viscosities. The
impact on gas viscosity was negligible, whereas the reservoir oil viscosity predictions were much improved.
Finally, the LBC viscosity model was tuned to the measured oil viscosity data using a common multiplier to the Zc’s for all
C7+ components.

Verification of Detailed EOS Model

Overall, the fluid model gave a good description of measured PVT data. The measured and calculated PVT properties from
CCE experiment match quite well, as shown in Figure 1. The measured PVT properties from a differential liberation
experiment (DLE) is shown in Figure 2; “Expt” means measured and “Calc” means calculated with EOS34. Separator
experiment data are given in Table 2.
The measured and EOS calculated oil viscosity as a function of pressure is shown in Figure 3. The LBC viscosity model
was developed with emphasis on measured data at reservoir temperature and in the pressure range of 70 to 400 bar. At low
pressures (less than 70 bar) the EOS predicted oil viscosity is higher than measured oil viscosity, which might have an impact
on the reservoir performance if reservoir pressure drops below 70 bar.

Decontamination of MDT Fluid Samples

Six MDT samples were collected from this field. All of the MDT samples were contaminated with oil based mud (OBM). The
MDT samples were decontaminated using a special module in PhazeComp, based on the gamma distribution model. Clean
sample compositions were calculated after removing the OBM contamination. The reported mud composition contains mostly
C12 to C16, with a distribution as shown in Figure 4. This mud composition was used in the decontamination of the MDT
samples.
The C9+ distribution in the clean recombined separator sample and a typical MDT sample is shown in Figure 4. In the clean
recombined separator sample, the mole fraction decreases (almost exponential) with increasing carbon number. In the MDT
reservoir fluid sample, mole fraction increases, reaches maximum and then decreases with increasing carbon number. The
SPE 143612 3

distribution of C9+ in the MDT sample is similar to that of mud. This indicates that the MDT sample is contaminated with
OBM. The C7+ distribution in all MDT samples is shown in Figure 5.
To decontaminate MDT reservoir fluid samples, tuning was performed on the contamination level. First a contamination
level was assumed and clean sample composition was calculated after subtracting the mud amount from the OBM
contaminated MDT reservoir fluid sample. The calculated clean sample composition was fit to a gamma model (shape factor
of 1 was used, i.e. exponential distribution). Regression on the mud amount was performed until a good exponential fit of the
calculated clean reservoir fluid sample was obtained.
The calculated contamination level in MDT samples is given in Table 3. The MDT samples are highly contaminated with
OBM. The OBM contamination level varies from 20 to 75 STO wt%. C7+ distribution in the calculated clean reservoir fluid
composition is shown in Figure 6.

Zone Reservoir Fluid Compositions

During clean up tests, the well was produced from four different zones. The producing GOR from different zones was
measured during clean up tests. But the reservoir fluid sample was taken from zone 1 only. Thus, reservoir fluid compositions
of three remaining zones were calculated using calculated clean MDT sample composition. The procedure used to calculate
the zone fluid composition is given below:
1. The calculated clean MDT sample for the layer from the zone was flashed at standard conditions.
2. The recombination ratio (STO and STG) is regressed to get a composition that gave the clean up test GOR.

Zone-1 Fluid Composition

Separator samples were available from zone 1. The recombined separator sample represents the reservoir fluid composition for
this zone.

Zone-2 Fluid Composition

The clean up test measured GOR, 3113 Sm3/Sm3, was used to calculate the fluid composition of this zone. To calculate the
reservoir fluid composition of this zone, the calculated clean MDT sample composition from layer A1b was flashed at standard
conditions to obtain STO and STG compositions. The recombination ratio of STO and STG was regressed to obtain reported
zone 2 GOR.

Zone-3 Fluid Composition

The clean up test GOR from this zone was 1152 Sm3/Sm3. To calculate the reservoir fluid composition of this zone, the
calculated clean MDT sample composition from layer A5-2 was flashed at standard conditions to obtain STO and STG
compositions. The recombination ratio of STO and STG was regressed to obtain reported zone 3 GOR.

Zone-4 Fluid Composition

The clean up test GOR from this zone was 6721 Sm3/Sm3. Three layers (A7a-2, A9b and T0) were perforated during clean up
test of this zone and MDT samples were available from all of the three layers (Table 1). To calculate the reservoir fluid
composition of this zone, calculated clean MDT sample composition from all three layers can be used. But the MDT sample
from layer A9b was used because (1) the maximum contribution was coming from layer A9b and (2) this sample was least
OBM contaminated compared to other MDT samples from this zone. Thus, the calculated clean MDT sample composition
from layer A9b was flashed at standard conditions to obtain STO and STG compositions. The recombination ratio of STO and
STG was regressed to obtain reported zone 4 GOR.

Layers without MDT Samples

Out of nine layers, MDT samples were available from only six layers. The clean sample compositions of these six layers were
calculated after decontamination. For the remaining layers, layer fluid compositions were calculated using the following data:

1. Measured or calculated zone fluid composition.

2. The MDT sample composition from a layer (layer1) in the zone.
3. Contribution of different layers in the zone (i.e. mobility of different layers).

To find the unavailable fluid composition of layer 2 in the zone consisting of layers 1 and 2, the available fluid composition of
layer 1 was first flashed to surface conditions. The flashed oil and gas compositions were recombined in a ratio and the
resulting composition was assigned to layer 2. Layer 1 and layer 2 compositions were recombined based on mobility ratio
(Table 1) to estimate the layer 1+2 zone composition. The recombination ratio was varied until the estimated zone composition
matched the measured zone composition.

Using above approach, fluid compositions of the different layers were calculated as summarized in Table 5:
Layer A1 – same as zone 1 fluid composition.
Layer A1a – same as zone 1 fluid composition.
4 SPE 143612

Layer A1b – decontaminated MDT sample composition from this layer.

Layer A2c – based on composition of zone 2 and layer A1b (87% from layer A1b and 13% from layer A2c).
Layer A5-2 – decontaminated MDT sample composition from this layer.
Layer A5-1 – based on composition of zone 3 and layer A5-2 (65% from layer A5-1 and 35% from layer A5-2).
Layer A7a-2 – decontaminated MDT sample composition from this layer.
Layer A9b – decontaminated MDT sample composition from this layer.
Layer T0 – decontaminated MDT sample composition from this layer.

Pseudoization
The developed EOS fluid model and calculated fluid compositions were used in the full-field compositional reservoir
simulation study. Because it is impractical to conduct full-field and large-sector model simulations using the full 34-
component EOS model (due to CPU and memory limitations), a “pseudoized” or reduced-component EOS model was
developed. The pseudoized EOS model contains 15 components – single carbon number up to C6 and 5 C7+ pseudo-
components. The grouping of components in the reduced model is shown in Table 4.

Verification of the pseudoized (15 Component) Fluid Model

The measured and EOS calculated PVT properties are quite close. Figure 7 compares calculated PVT properties from the
pseudoized EOS model (15-components) and the measured PVT data.

Single Well Simulation Models

Fevang and Whitson4 show that the loss in well deliverability in gas condensate wells is greatly under predicted in full-field
simulation models when using the traditional method to calculate rate is used (properties evaluated at grid block pressure).
Fevang and Whitson also show that well deliverability in full-field models can be calculated accurately for gas condensate
wells using a pseudopressure (GPP)4,5.
To study the effect of condensate blockage, capillary number effect, and different techniques for modeling near-well
effects, single well simulation models were set up. The single well models were set up both with a fine radial grid that allows
accurate calculations of near-well flow, and with a coarse cartesian grid similar to that used in the full-field model (FFM).

Fine Grid Radial Simulation Model

Fine grid radial simulation model contains 20 grid cells in the radial direction with reservoir external radius of 950 m. One
numerical layer with a thickness of 8.16 m (similar to the thickness of zone 1,well 1) is used. The initial fluid composition is
constant i.e. no compositional variation with depth. The simulation model has one producer in the center of the reservoir. The
production constraints are a maximum gas rate and a minimum BHP.

Coarse Grid Rectangular Simulation Model

The coarse grid cartesian simulation model has a reservoir volume equal to the reservoir volume in the fine grid radial model.
The reservoir rock and fluid properties in the coarse grid model are same as in the fine grid radial model. Number of grid cells
in x- and y-directions is equal (NX=NY).

Comparison of Fine Grid Versus Coarse Grid Model Performance

Fine grid and coarse grid simulation models were simulated with zone 2 reservoir fluid. In this case, the reservoir permeability
was 31 md (similar to the average permeability in the full-field simulation model). Each grid cell size was 100 m x 100 m x 8
m and number of grid cells was 17x17x1 in the coarse grid cartesian simulation model. The grid size in the coarse grid
simulation model was close to the size in the full-field simulation model (around 100 m). Minimum flowing bottom hole
pressure constraint was 100 bar.
The well was produced on a maximum gas production rate constraint of 0.5 MSm3/d. Comparative reservoir performance
prediction for the fine grid and the coarse grid compositional simulation models is shown in Figure 8. Gas production declines
when the well goes on BHP constraint. Plateau gas production period is around 400 days in fine grid model and 570 days in
coarse grid model i.e. the gas plateau production period is 1.4 times longer in the coarse grid than in the fine grid radial model.
In the fine grid model, the condensate blockage is modeled properly. Thus there is reduction in plateau period in fine grid
model due to condensate blockage.
The coarse grid model was also simulated using the pseudopressure option and the comparative performance is shown in
Figure 9. The coarse grid model performance is quite similar to the fine grid model performance when GPP option is used in
the coarse grid model. Some sensitivity cases with reduced grid cell size (50m x 50m, 75m x 75m) in the coarse grid model
were simulated and the simulated performance is shown in Figure 10. The simulated performance is almost similar in all cases.
Thus, grid cell size of 100 m x 100 m can be used in the full-field reservoir simulation model.
Sometimes local grid refinement (LGR) in/around the well grid cell(s) in coarse grid models is used to model the gas
condensate blockage effect. A coarse grid simulation model was set up with radial LGR in the well grid cell. The LGR models
were set up by defining the number of cells in the radial direction, and the value of DR for the innermost cell. All other
parameters were defaulted.
SPE 143612 5

Figure 11 shows the simulated performance for fine grid, coarse grid with GPP and coarse grid with LGR in the well grid
cell. The simulated performance with coarse grid with GPP and coarse grid with LGR is quite similar to the fine grid model
performance. Thus coarse grid with GPP can be used to simulate the reservoir performance in the full-field simulation model.

Modeling Capillary Number Effects on Relative Permeability

It has been observed, by experimental measurements and field performance, that relative permeability can be improved at high
capillary number and that this can significantly “improve” the well deliverability for gas condensate reservoirs. Laboratory
measurements have shown an increase in relative permeability to both gas and oil at high capillary numbers. At low capillary
numbers (less than 1E-6), the relative permeabilities are independent on capillary number and this is called “immiscible” or
“rock” curves; at high capillary numbers, the relative permeabilities approach straight lines versus saturations. Another
dependency of relative permeability on velocity is non-Darcy flow effect. At high flow velocities, pressure drop is higher than
linear versus velocity.
To accurately model gas condensate reservoir well deliverability, it is important to treat gas-oil relative permeability
properly. In the near-well region, both high capillary number and non-Darcy flow effects can be expected, depending on the
nature of the reservoir and the well rate. High capillary number effect tends to improve gas and oil relative permeabilities and
hence increase well deliverability while non-Darcy flow effect reduces well deliverability. Since the effect of non-Darcy effect
is generally small compared to the capillary number effect so the non-Darcy effect has been neglected in this study.
A number of capillary number dependent relative permeability models have been proposed in the literature. Blom et al.6
provide a comprehensive review on the different proposed models. Blom et al.6 recommend the method proposed by Whitson-
Fevang7 after comparing fifteen different capillary number dependent relative permeability models. Whitson-Fevang model is
proposed based on the fundamental relation krg = f(krg/kro) describing steady state flow of gas and condensate in the near-well
region4. This capillary number model is simple and easy to use, only having two adjustable parameters, α and n. Parameter α is
a function of rock permeability and porosity; exponent n is an empirical constant found to close to 0.65 for several published
data sets.
To evaluate the effect of capillary number on simulated performance, the fine grid model was simulated with capillary
number effect using Whitson-Fevang model and the simulated performance is shown in Figure 12. The gas plateau period is
increased by 40% due to capillary number effect at this gas production rate.
Figure 13 shows the gas production rate for fine grid model and coarse grid model with pseudopressure option when
capillary number effect is included. The simulated gas production rate is quite similar in fine grid and coarse grid with
pseudopressure option.
The accuracy of the pseudopressure method is somewhat dependent on the well grid size5, generally requiring Δx=Δy≈50-
100 m for lean gas condensates, and Δx=Δy≈100-200 m for rich gas condensates. To verify the well grid size for this field, the
simulation model was also initialized with zone-3 (richer) and zone-4 (leaner) fluid. The simulated performance is shown in
Figure 14 and Figure 15.
Based on all above simulated cases, the grid size of 100 m x 100 m can be used in the full-field reservoir simulation model
for this field.

Conclusions
1. An equation of study (EOS) fluid model was developed based on laboratory PVT data.
2. The developed model was used to decontaminate the MDT samples and calculate clean sample compositions.
3. Zone fluid compositions were estimated based on the measured GOR during clean up test.
4. Reservoir fluid samples were collected from some of the layers. A systematic methodology was used to calculate
unavailable layer fluid compositions.
5. A pseudoized EOS model was developed for compositional reservoir simulation study.
6. Based on the simulation study, a grid size of 100m x 100m can be used in the full-field simulation model to model the
effect of condensate blockage and capillary number.

Acknowledgments
We want to thank OMV for permission to present this paper.

References
1. Whitson, C. H. and Brulè, M.R., “Phase Behavior”, SPE Monograph Volume 20 Henry L. Doherty series. ISBN 1-
55563-087-1.
2. Reid, R.C., Prausnitz, J.M., and Polling, B.E.: The Properties of Gases and Liquids, fourth edition, McGraw-Hill Book
Co. Inc., New York City (1987) 388–485. Section 9-11.
3. Lohrenz, J., Bray, B.G., and Clark, C.R.: “Calculating Viscosities of Reservoir Fluids From Their Compositions,” JPT
(October 1964) 1171; Trans., AIME, 231.
4. Fevang, Ø. and Whitson, C.H.: “Modeling Gas-Condensate Well Deliverability,” paper SPE 30714, SPERE November
1996.
6 SPE 143612

5. Singh, K. and Whitson, C.H.: “Gas-Condensate Pseudopressure in Layered Reservoirs,” paper SPE 117930, SPEREE
April 2010.
6. Blom, S.M.P. and Hagoort, J.: “How to Include the Capillary Number in Gas Condensate Relative Permeability
Functions?,” paper SPE 49268 presented at SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, 27-30 Sep., 1998, New
Orleans.
7. Whitson, C.H., Fevang, Ø., and Sævareid A.: “Gas Condensate Relative Permeability for Well Calculations,” paper SPE
56476 presented at the 1999 Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Houston, TX, 3-6 Oct. 1999.

Nomenclature

Fc Søreide characterization factor

krg gas relative permeability
kro oil relative permeability

Table 1 Well 1 – Clean up test results for different zones and samples from different layers.

Zone Layer(*) mobility*Hn GOR Liquid Choke WHP Reservoir CGR

et mdm/cp Sm3/Sm3 API Size 1/64 bar Pressure bar bbl/MMscf

A1 6
1 455 51 24 91 378 392
A1a 2

A1b 100
2 3113 56 36 208 379 57
A2c 15

A5-1 9000
3 1152 51 48 172 390 155
A5-2 5000

A7a-2 6

4 A9b 500 6721 54 36 195 400 26

T0 12

(*): 2 to 3 layers were completed together in each zone and produced comingled to the mentioned GOR
MDT Samples (6)
Surface sample (1)

Table 2 Measured and EOS34 calculated PVT properties.

Parameters Well 1
Measured Calculated
Saturation Pressure, bara 314.9 314.9
o
Reservoir Temperature, C 120.4
Density at Pb, gm/cc 0.473 0.480
Separator Test
3 3
Bo at Pb, Sm /Sm 2.461 2.538
3 3
GOR at Pb, Sm /Sm 405 445
STO density, gm/cc 0.779 0.775
STO API 50.1 50.8
SPE 143612 7

Table 3 MDT samples – calculated OBM contamination level.

Layer Calculated
Degree of OBM
Contamination
in STO, wt%

A7a-2 67
A9b 50
A9b 75
A5-2 16
T0 78
A1b 21

Table 4 Components in full and pseudoized EOS models.

Pseudoized Full-EOS
CO2 = CO2
N2 = N2
C1 = C1
C2 = C2
C3 = C3
I-C4 = I-C4
N-C4 = N-C4
I-C5 = I-C5
N-C5 = N-C5
C6 = C6
C7-C9 = C7+C8+C9
C10-C13 = C10+C11+C12+C13
C14-C19 = C14+C15+C16+C17+C18+C19
C20-C29 = C20+C21+C22+C23+C24+C25+C26+C27+C28+C29
C30+ = C30+

Table 5 Zone and layer compositions.

Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4

Components Zone Layer A1 Layer A1a Zone Layer A1b Layer A2c Zone Layer A5-1 Layer A5-2 Zone Layer A7a-2 Layer A9b T0
mole frac. mole frac. mole frac. mole frac. mole frac. mole frac. mole frac. mole frac. mole frac. mole frac. mole frac. mole frac. mole frac.
CO2 0.018193 0.018193 0.018193 0.019679 0.019645 0.019944 0.020704 0.020771 0.020661 0.024821 0.000000 0.024430 0.025011
N2 0.008245 0.008245 0.008245 0.008827 0.008811 0.008947 0.004558 0.004573 0.004548 0.003026 0.000000 0.003499 0.002624
C1 0.606580 0.606580 0.606580 0.759810 0.758470 0.770140 0.702760 0.705040 0.701280 0.855170 0.656150 0.855520 0.888680
C2 0.087733 0.087733 0.087733 0.096321 0.096156 0.097583 0.082270 0.082527 0.082103 0.052767 0.131660 0.051250 0.037427
C3 0.043764 0.043764 0.043764 0.050592 0.050516 0.051176 0.057325 0.057482 0.057224 0.026060 0.105790 0.024708 0.019977
I-C4 0.010420 0.010420 0.010420 0.008990 0.008980 0.009062 0.014565 0.014593 0.014547 0.005133 0.020799 0.004751 0.003962
N-C4 0.018456 0.018456 0.018456 0.013479 0.013469 0.013556 0.021193 0.021221 0.021175 0.008004 0.025800 0.007231 0.006199
I-C5 0.014512 0.014512 0.014512 0.007099 0.007106 0.007047 0.010719 0.010702 0.010730 0.004435 0.014583 0.003849 0.003274
N-C5 0.010599 0.010599 0.010599 0.004249 0.004256 0.004188 0.007913 0.007889 0.007929 0.002996 0.006499 0.002575 0.002318
C6 0.019313 0.019313 0.019313 0.003772 0.003806 0.003512 0.007674 0.007577 0.007736 0.003027 0.009010 0.002615 0.001660
C7-C9 0.059727 0.059727 0.059727 0.012616 0.013113 0.008795 0.031052 0.030041 0.031709 0.008627 0.013122 0.008356 0.005365
C10-C13 0.039955 0.039955 0.039955 0.006503 0.006986 0.002784 0.017911 0.017151 0.018405 0.003117 0.006750 0.006186 0.002319
C14-C19 0.031304 0.031304 0.031304 0.004592 0.004947 0.001861 0.012529 0.011990 0.012878 0.001877 0.005542 0.003614 0.000968
C20-C29 0.021510 0.021510 0.021510 0.002640 0.002845 0.001069 0.006867 0.006572 0.007058 0.000800 0.003240 0.001254 0.000202
C30+ 0.009689 0.009689 0.009689 0.000829 0.000893 0.000336 0.001958 0.001874 0.002013 0.000142 0.001054 0.000164 0.000011

C7+, mloe% 16.2 16.2 16.2 2.7 2.9 1.5 7.0 6.8 7.2 1.5 3.0 2.0 0.9
8 SPE 143612

o o
CCE Experiment at 120.4 C - Well 1 CCE Experiment at 120.4 C - Well 1

2.5 120

Liquid Saturation, %
100
Relative Volume

2.0
80
Expt Expt
1.5 60
Calc Calc
40
1.0
20

0.5 0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Pressure, bar Pressure, bar

o o
CCE Experiment at 120.4 C - Well 1 CCE Experiment at 120.4 C - Well 1

120 0.75
Liquid Relative Volume, %

Liquid Density, g/cm3

110 0.70
100 0.65
90
Expt 0.60 Expt
80
Calc 0.55 Calc
70
60 0.50

50 0.45
40 0.40
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Pressure, bar Pressure, bar

Figure 1 EOS34 – Measured and EOS predicted PVT properties from CCE.

o o
DLE Experiment at 120.4 C - Well 1 DLE Experiment at 120.4 C - Well 1

800 4.5
700
Removed Gas, sm3

Liquid Volume, m3

600 3.5
500
Expt Expt
400 2.5
Calc Calc
300
200 1.5
100
0 0.5
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Pressure, bar Pressure, bar

o o
DLE Experiment at 120.4 C - Well 1 DLE Experiment at 120.4 C - Well 1

0.9 1.5
Liquid Density, g/cm3

0.8 1.3
Gas Z-Factor

0.7 1.1
Expt Expt
0.6 Calc 0.9 Calc

0.5 0.7

0.4 0.5
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Pressure, bar Pressure, bar

Figure 2 EOS34 – Measured and EOS calculated PVT properties from DLE.
SPE 143612 9

o
Oil Viscosity at 120.4 C - Well 1

1.0

Liquid Viscosity, cp
0.8

0.6
Expt
0.4 Calc

0.2

0.0
0 100 200 300 400 500
Pressure, bar

Figure 3 EOS34 – Measured and EOS calculated oil viscosities.

14
Recombined (Separator) Reservoir Fluid Sample
12 Mud
MDT Reservoir Fluid Sample

10
mole %

0
8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30
Carbon Number

Figure 4 C9+ distribution in Mud, MDT samples and recombined separator sample.

12

A7a-2
10 A9b
A9b
A5-2
T0
8
A1b
Mass %

0
+
7

9
10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29
C

30
C

C
C

Components

Figure 5 C7+ distribution in all six OBM contaminated MDT reservoir fluid samples.
10 SPE 143612

0.1

Mass Fraction
0.01

A7a-2
0.001 A9b
A9b
A5-2
T0
A1b
0.0001

+
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
C
C
C
C

30
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
Components

Figure 6 C7+ distribution in decontaminated (calculated clean) MDT reservoir fluid samples.

o o
CCE Experiment at 120.4 C - Well 1 CCE Experiment at 120.4 C - Well 1

2.5 Liquid Saturation, % 120

100
Relative Volume

2.0
80
Expt Expt
1.5 60
Calc Calc
40
1.0
20

0.5 0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Pressure, bar Pressure, bar

o o
CCE Experiment at 120.4 C - Well 1 CCE Experiment at 120.4 C - Well 1

120 0.75
Liquid Relative Volume, %

Liquid Density, g/cm3

0.70
100 0.65

Expt 0.60 Expt

80
Calc 0.55 Calc

60 0.50
0.45
40 0.40
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Pressure, bar Pressure, bar

Figure 7 EOS15 – Measured and EOS calculated CCE PVT Properties.

600000 600000

500000 500000
Fine Grid
Gas Production Rate, Sm3/day
Gas Production Rate, Sm3/day

Coarse Grid
400000 400000

300000 300000

200000 200000

Fine Grid
Coarse Grid
100000 100000 Coarse Grid with Pseudopressure Option

0 0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Time, days Time, days

Figure 8 Single Well Model – Fine grid versus coarse grid Figure 9 Single Well Model – Fine grid, coarse grid and
model performance. coarse grid with pseudopressure (GPP) option performance.
SPE 143612 11

600000 600000 12000

500000 500000 10000

Producing Gas-Oil Ratio, Sm3/Sm3

Gas Production Rate, Sm3/day

Gas Production Rate, Sm3/day

400000 400000 8000

300000 300000 6000

200000 200000 4000

Fine Grid
Coarse Grid with Pseudopressure Option
100000 100000 2000
Coarse Grid with Pseudopressure Option, DX=50 m
Coarse Grid with Pseudopressure Option, DX=75 m Fine Grid with NC Effect
Coarse Grid with Pseudopressure Option & NC Effect
0 0 0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Time, days Time, days

Figure 10 Single Well Model – Effect of coarse grid cell size Figure 13 Single Well Model – Fine grid versus coarse grid
on simulated performance. with GPP model performance including capillary number
effect.

600000 600000 7000

6000
500000 500000

Producing Gas-Oil Ratio, Sm3/Sm3

Gas Production Rate, Sm3/day

Gas Production Rate, Sm3/day

5000
400000 400000

4000
300000 300000
3000

200000 200000
2000
Fine Grid
100000 Coarse Grid with Pseudopressure Option
100000
Fine Grid with NC Effect, Zone3 Fluid 1000
Coarse Grid with Local Grid Refinement Coarse Grid with Pseudopressure Option & NC Effect, Zone3
Fl id
0 0 0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Time, days Time, days

Figure 11 Single Well Model – Simulated performance with Figure 14 Single Well Model – Effect of fluid composition on
fine grid, coarse grid with GPP option, and coarse grid with simulated performance. Fine grid and coarse grid with GPP &
LGR in the well grid cell. capillary number effect models using fluid composition from
zone-3.

600000 600000 16000

14000
500000 500000

Producing Gas-Oil Ratio, Sm3/Sm3

Gas Production Rate, Sm3/day

Gas Production Rate, Sm3/day

12000

400000 400000
10000

300000 300000 8000

6000
200000 200000

4000

100000 Fine Grid 100000 Fine Grid with NC Effect, Zone4 fluid
Fine Grid with NC Effect Coarse Grid with Pseudopressure Option & NC Effect, Zone4 Fluid 2000

0 0 0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Time, days Time, days

Figure 12 Single Well Model – Effect of capillary number (NC) Figure 15 Single Well Model – Effect of fluid composition on
on fine grid model simulated performance. simulated performance. Fine grid and coarse grid with GPP &
capillary number effect models using fluid composition from
zone-4

View publication stats